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.

• RUSTAM ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• RUQQAIYYA SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1982 CLC 36 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
• RUHUL QADUS vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.1982 PLC 416 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
• ROUSHAN ARA BEGUM AND OTHER vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX45 TAX 190 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1980-07-28Read full judgment →
• ROSHAN AND Others vs ALI AHMAD1982 SCMR 400 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-28
  pre-emptioncompromisepetition for leave to appealright of pre-emptionsettlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent, Ali Ahmed, against the petitioners, Roshan and others, who had purchased land in Gujranwala. The trial court decreed the suit, and the Additional District Judge as well as the High Court dismissed the subsequent appeals filed by the petitioners. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the parties entered into a lawful compromise whereby the respondent agreed to forego his right of pre-emption in favour of the petitioners in consideration of a payment of Rs. 87,000, and was permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited towards the zare panjum and pre-emption money. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it in terms of the admitted compromise, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The key principle laid down is that appellate proceedings may be concluded in accordance with a lawful compromise voluntarily entered into and admitted by the contesting parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal in a pre-emption matter be disposed of in terms of a compromise reached between the parties?
  • Whether an appellate court can allow an appeal based on an admitted compromise where the respondent agrees to forego the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• ROGHAN SHAH vs Mst. UMAT UL SALAM AND Other1982 SCMR 1071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14
  temporary injunctionejectment proceedingsprima facie casetenancy rightsbalance of convenienceunauthorized sub-tenantexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that denied a temporary injunction to the petitioner, Roghan Shah, who sought to restrain his eviction from a shop. The petitioner claimed tenancy rights independent of the previous occupants, his father and another party, against whom an ejectment order had already been finalized by the Supreme Court under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction despite lacking documentary evidence of a tenancy agreement with the respondent landlady. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, noting that the previous occupants, including the petitioner's father, had litigated the matter up to the Supreme Court without asserting the petitioner's tenancy. The Court affirmed the principle that in the absence of documentary evidence to support a claim of tenancy, a petitioner cannot successfully challenge an established ejectment order, and the balance of convenience lies with the decree-holder entitled to the fruits of a final judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person claim independent tenancy rights to defeat an execution of an ejectment order without documentary evidence?
  • Is a party entitled to a temporary injunction if they fail to establish a prima facie case of tenancy?
  • Does the balance of convenience favor a landlord seeking to execute a final ejectment order against an alleged sub-tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• ROBERTS COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NORTH ZONE, LAHORE46 TAX 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Income taxBad debtTrading lossBusiness expenditureActionable claimTax assessmentVoluntary loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the taxability of a loss incurred by the appellant, Roberts Cotton Association Ltd., arising from the sale of an actionable claim against a textile mill. The appellant, having sold its claim against the mill at a significant discount as part of a broader agreement between shareholder groups to transfer controlling interests, sought to deduct this shortfall as a bad debt or trading loss under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether this voluntary discount constituted an allowable bad debt, a trading loss, or business expenditure. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the loss was not deductible. The Court reasoned that the debt was not proven irrecoverable from the debtor mill, and the transaction was a voluntary arrangement to facilitate a share transfer between third parties, rather than an expenditure incurred for the appellant's business purposes. The key principle established is that a loss voluntarily incurred to accommodate third-party interests, without evidence of the debtor's inability to pay or business necessity, does not qualify as a deductible bad debt or trading loss.

  Questions settled

  • Can a loss incurred by selling an actionable claim at a discount to facilitate a third-party share transfer be claimed as a bad debt?
  • Is a loss voluntarily incurred to accommodate a third party deductible as a business expenditure under the Income Tax Act 1922?
  • Does the mere fact that a debtor is running at a loss justify treating an outstanding debt as a bad debt for tax purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• RIPON PRINTING PRESS LTD. vs THE PUNJAB LABOUE COURT-I AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 610 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
• RIFAT AHMAD MIRZA vs Mst. TANWEER ARA JAFRI1982 CLC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
• RIFAQATULLA vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI1982 PLC 297 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-19Read full judgment →
• RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION vs RICE1982 PLC 432 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
• RIAZ AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• RIAZ AND Others vs RAZI MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-15
  Specific Relief Actdispossessionconsent obtained by fraudlandlord and tenantrecovery of possessiondue course of lawdeceit and trick
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether a tenant vacating premises for repairs under a landlord's promise of re-entry, followed by the landlord's deceitful act of closing the premises, constitutes dispossession "without consent" and "otherwise than in due course of law" under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The trial court and the High Court both decreed in favor of the tenant, finding that the tenant was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that consent obtained by deceit, trick, artifice, or misrepresentation—whether viewed under ordinary dictionary meanings, the Contract Act 1872, or the Pakistan Penal Code 1860—does not constitute valid consent in the eyes of the law for the purposes of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Court laid down the principle that possession obtained through fraud or deception is treated as obtained without consent and otherwise than in due course of law, entitling the aggrieved tenant to summary recovery of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does vacating premises for repairs upon a landlord's false promise amount to voluntary surrender of possession?
  • Is consent obtained through deceit, trick, or misrepresentation considered valid consent under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does dispossession achieved via fraudulent means qualify as dispossession "otherwise than in due course of law"?
  • How is the term 'consent' defined and interpreted for the purposes of summary proceedings under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• RIAZ AHMAD KHAN vs M. AKHTAR, INSPECTOR POST OFFICE BADIN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 1036 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
• RIASAT ALI vs Mst. SHAMSHADI BEGUM1982 CLC 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
• Re: CRESCENT JUTE MILLS LTD. AND ANTOHER vs N/A1982 PLD Lahore 566 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• REX CINEMA vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BUREWALA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 992(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
• RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs QAMRUL ISLAM SIDDIQUI1982 PLC 1032 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• REHMATULLAH vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 411 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03
  university admissionemergency powersvice-chancellorjudicial reviewnon-discriminationultra viresstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner’s application for admission to evening law classes at the University of the Punjab, which was based on emergency regulations framed by the Vice-Chancellor restricting admission to government or statutory employees. The core legal questions were whether the Vice-Chancellor possessed the authority to unilaterally frame such regulations under emergency powers and whether the exclusion of non-employees violated the University’s non-discrimination mandate. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor’s action was ultra vires, as the emergency power under Section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, requires a genuine emergency, not a permanent administrative need. Furthermore, the Vice-Chancellor cannot bypass the statutory requirement for the Academic Council to propose and the Syndicate to approve regulations. The Court established that statutory functionaries must act within the strict bounds of the law, and subjective satisfaction is subject to judicial review to ensure it is based on reasonable grounds. Finally, the University cannot discriminate in admissions based on employment status, as this violates the non-discrimination mandate of Section 7 of the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Vice-Chancellor exercise emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, to create permanent regulations?
  • Does the power of judicial review allow courts to examine the factual basis of an authority's satisfaction regarding an emergency?
  • Is a university regulation that restricts admission to government employees in violation of the non-discrimination principle in Section 7 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973?
  • Can a Vice-Chancellor bypass the Academic Council and Syndicate in the enactment of university regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• REHMAT SONS LTD. vs SAEED TOURIST ENTERPRISERS AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 2667 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
• REHMAT SONS LTD. vs SAEED TOURIST ENTERPRISERS AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 2667 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
• REHMAT AND 3 Other vs IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 763 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALL AND OTHERS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD AND OTHER1982 CLC 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI vs THE SECURITY PAPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 913 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10
  workmansecurity guardshift jamadarburden of proofmanual workdomestic inquiryreinstatementlabour dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment of the Sindh High Court addresses two constitutional petitions concerning whether a Security Guard and a Shift Jamadar qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. In both cases, the employers had initiated disciplinary actions, issued charge-sheets, and terminated services under the provisions of the Ordinance, but subsequently argued before the labour tribunals that the employees were not 'workmen'. The High Court held that the terms 'manual' and 'work' in Section 2(i) must be construed broadly to cover any person performing manual work as part of their duties, provided they belong to the labour class, regardless of the quantum of such work. Crucially, the Court laid down that where an employer takes disciplinary action against an employee under the Ordinance, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish that the employee is not a 'workman'. Consequently, the Court allowed both petitions, set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Tribunal, and remanded the matters for decision on the merits and the nature of duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a security guard or chowkidar who performs manual duties such as physical searching qualify as a workman under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the employer to show that an employee is not a workman if the employer has previously proceeded against that employee under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does the quantum of manual work performed by a member of the labour class affect their status as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI ETC. vs CHANNA N DIN1982 CLC 948 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI AND Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1982 CLC 2001 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI AND OTHERS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
• REHMAN vs PIR MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10
  special leave to appealpendente liteexchange of landsettlement commissionerpublic roadvillage pondconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning a dispute over land measuring 40 kanals and 4 marlas, which the petitioner had purchased from certain respondents who had acquired it through an exchange with Mst. Ayesha Bibi. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of the basic transfer of land—which constituted a village pond and public road and was excluded from transfer under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme—invalidated the subsequent exchange and rendered the petitioner's subsequent purchase vulnerable. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit because the petitioner's purchase occurred during the pendency of litigation. The Court affirmed that when the foundational transfer of the land given in exchange was lawfully set aside as it comprised public utility land, the dependent transaction of exchange and subsequent purchase were rightly undone. The key principle laid down is that a purchase of property made pendente lite cannot secure a superior title when the foundational transfer of the property is set aside as being legally barred from transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the cancellation of a basic transfer of land under the settlement scheme invalidates a subsequent exchange of that land?
  • Can a purchaser pendente lite retain land when the foundational title of the vendor is set aside by a competent authority?
  • Whether land reserved for public services such as a village pond or public road can be lawfully transferred under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• RAZAUL HAQ vs RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD, AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 572 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
• RAZA KHAN vs VICE CHANCELLOR, N.W. F. P. UNIVERSITY OE ENGINEERING &1982 SCMR 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-13
  leave to appealuniversity admissionsuppression of material factsclean handsdiscretionary remedyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981, challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for admission to the University College of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was eligible for admission based on academic qualifications and whether the High Court rightly denied discretionary relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, who was a third divisioner in F.Sc. and held a B.A. degree rather than the required B.Sc. degree with specified groupings and marks, was rightly refused admission. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not come with clean hands due to the deliberate suppression of material facts regarding his academic degree. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner who suppresses material facts in a constitutional petition is entitled to discretionary relief?
  • Can a candidate with a B.A. degree claim eligibility for engineering college admission reserved for specific B.Sc. qualifications under university prospectus rules?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition where the High Court correctly found the petitioner guilty of misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• RAZA KHAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 881 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• RASOOL BAKHSH MALIK vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 255 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs AZAD MAZDOOR UNION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 655 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
• RASHID KHALID vs IBRAHIM BAIG1982 CLC 375 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
• RASHID AHMED vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER,1982 PLC 43 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• RASHID AHMAD vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 1618 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
• RASHID AHMAD vs HAQ NAWAZ AND OTHER1982 CLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-11
  court-feead valoremdeclaratory suitpossessioncancellation of instrumentvaluation of suitrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that a sale deed was void due to fraud and sought possession of the land. The trial court ordered the petitioner to pay ad valorem court-fee based on the market value of the property, as the petitioner was out of possession. The core legal question was whether the suit required ad valorem court-fee or could be valued arbitrarily. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that when a plaintiff is out of possession, the suit for possession constitutes the substantive relief. Consequently, the court-fee must be calculated based on the market value of the property rather than an arbitrary valuation. The court affirmed that while a suit for declaration might sometimes fall under specific provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1890, a suit involving a prayer for possession by a plaintiff out of possession necessitates payment of court-fee on the property's market value. The principle established is that the nature of the suit is determined by the substantive relief claimed, and a prayer for possession cannot be treated as a mere consequential relief subject to arbitrary valuation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit for declaration and possession by a plaintiff out of possession require ad valorem court-fee based on the market value of the property?
  • Is a suit for the cancellation of an instrument to which the plaintiff is a party considered a declaratory suit for court-fee purposes?
  • Can a court demand proper court-fee on the substantive relief of a suit regardless of the arbitrary valuation placed by the plaintiff?
  • Does the relief for the cancellation of a decree fall under the category of a simple declaratory relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao AHMED SAEED KHAN vs ABDUL HAFEEZ AND OTHER1982 CLC 599 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Rao AHMAD SAEED KHAN vs ABDUL HAFIZ ETC.S1982 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01
  writ petitionlandlord and tenantejectment petitionquestion of titlespecific performanceevacuee propertycompromise decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in a rent case concerning an evacuee property house. The core legal question involved whether the High Court erred in discussing and deciding the question of title regarding the validity of competing sale deeds when determining the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner himself had vehemently raised the issue of title and validity of the competing sale deeds before the rent forums and the High Court to contest the landlord-tenant relationship, the High Court was fully justified in examining all material placed before it and deciding the question. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as meritless, establishing that a party who litigates the question of title cannot subsequently criticize the court for adjudicating upon it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can examine the question of title in a writ petition arising from rent proceedings when the parties themselves raised title issues regarding competing sale deeds?
  • Does a tenant who disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant based on competing sale deeds have the right to criticize the court for deciding the validity of those sale deeds?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana USMAN ALI AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-22Read full judgment →
• Rana USMAN ALI AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL BANK OE PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-22Read full judgment →
• Rana MUHAMMAD YASIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1982 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-22
  compulsory retirementqualifying servicepensionable serviceservice tribunalleave to appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Deputy Auditor-General, challenged his compulsory retirement from government service, which was ordered on the basis that he had completed 25 years of qualifying service for pension. The petitioner contended that he had only completed 22 years and 9 months of service, arguing that his prior military service could not be counted toward his pensionable service because he had not joined a pensionable civil service before September 19, 1949, as required by the relevant Civil Service Regulations. The petitioner further alleged that the retirement order violated Fundamental Rule 56-DA and Civil Service Regulation 357-AA. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed his appeal against the retirement order. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the points raised regarding the calculation of qualifying service and the potential transgression of statutory rules required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowing the parties to supplement the record with additional documentation to determine whether the petitioner had indeed met the threshold for compulsory retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can military service be counted toward the 25-year qualifying service requirement for compulsory retirement if the civil servant did not join a pensionable civil service before September 19, 1949?
  • Does the retirement of a civil servant based on an incorrect calculation of qualifying service violate Fundamental Rule 56-DA?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Syed TAHIR ABBAS AND OTHERS1982 PLC 1084 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1979-12-30Read full judgment →
• Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HEADQUARTERS)1982 SCMR 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-02
  service tribunalextraordinary leaveabsence from dutyleave extensioncensurepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner's appeal concerning the treatment of his absence from duty for one year and twenty-seven days as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal question involves the applicability of service rules regarding leave extension and the finality of an unappealed censure order based on unauthorized absence. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit as the petitioner failed to challenge the underlying order of censure, which consequently became final, and that the invoked service rules do not support the petitioner's case. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that no substantial question of public importance was raised to warrant interference under the Constitution. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unappealed order of censure based on unauthorized absence becomes final?
  • Can a consequential order treating absence as extraordinary leave without pay be challenged when the foundational censure order remains unchallenged?
  • Does a petition regarding the treatment of leave periods raise a substantial question of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana AZIZUDDIN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 616 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-05Read full judgment →
• Rana ABDUL RASHID vs R1AZ AHMAD1982 CLC 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
• Rana ABDUL RASHID vs Malik RIAZ AHMAD1982 CLC 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• RAMZAN vs THE STATE1982 P C r. L J 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
• RAMZAN vs Mst. SAFOORAN1982 CLC 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
• RAMZAN AND Others vs JAMAL DIN AND Another1982 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-26
  land inheritancelimited ownerevacuee propertysuccessionMuslim Lawspecial leave appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through special leave arises out of a land inheritance dispute where the plaintiffs sought a declaration as owners of the disputed land either as heirs of Mst. Fatima or as heirs of her father-in-law, Faqir Muhammad. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding Mst. Fatima to be a limited owner and finding that neither she nor the plaintiffs were heirs of the last male-holder. However, the first appellate court and the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, treating Mst. Fatima as a full owner of the land allotted in Pakistan. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the devolution of land held by a female in lieu of a limited estate abandoned in India is governed by previous authoritative pronouncements of the Court. The Supreme Court held that land held in Pakistan by a female in lieu of her limited estate abandoned in India shall devolve, upon termination of the limited estate, on persons who would have succeeded to the last full owner under Muslim Law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower appellate and High Court judgments were set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does land held in Pakistan by a female in lieu of a limited estate abandoned in India devolve upon termination of the limited estate on persons who would have succeeded to the last full owner under Muslim Law?
  • Whether a female holding land in Pakistan in lieu of her limited estate in India is to be treated as a full owner or a limited owner upon succession?
  Read full judgment →
• RAMZAN AND OTHER vs THE, STATE SOHBAT AND ANOTHERs Penal Code (XI.V1982 P Cr. L J 850 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• RAMZAN ALI KHAN AND 20 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT1982 PLC (C. S.) 111 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• RAJAB ALI SYAL vs Mst. AHMADI BEGUM AND Another1982 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-02
  leave to appealejectmentrent restrictiondefault in rentstriking off defenceappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an appellate order directing the eviction of the petitioner tenant. The core legal question was whether the First Appellate Court had the jurisdiction to order eviction for failure to deposit rent under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, where the Rent Controller had failed to strike off the defence despite defaults in rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the appellate forum acted within its jurisdiction in setting aside the erroneous decision of the Rent Controller and directing eviction, as the tenant admittedly stopped paying rent without any operative stay order. The key principle laid down is that an appellate authority in rent matters is competent to rectify the failure of a Rent Controller by issuing necessary orders for eviction upon a tenant's default in depositing rent pursuant to statutory mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have jurisdiction to order a tenant's eviction for non-deposit of rent when the Rent Controller failed to strike off the defence?
  • Is a tenant justified in stopping rent payments during the pendency of a civil suit challenging the transfer of property when no stay order regarding rent exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja SHAHID ZAFAR vs MUHAMMAD BASHARAT RAJA1982 CLC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs WAPDA ETC.1982 PLC (C. S.) 709 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Others vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY1982 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-30
  seniorityservice tribunalpromotionante-dating appointmentcivil servantsdirect recruitsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeal regarding their seniority in the P.C.S. The petitioners, formerly Naib-Tehsildars, were approved for promotion alongside Tehsildars in 1973, but their actual appointment was delayed by about fourteen months due to a reconsideration of recruitment policy by the Government. In the interim, direct recruits were appointed, and the petitioners were placed junior to them. The core legal question is whether the petitioners' seniority could be ante-dated to the date when the Tehsildars were appointed or when their selection was approved, despite their actual appointment occurring later. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule permitting the ante-dating of appointments, seniority cannot be reckoned from a date prior to actual appointment to the service. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the Service Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim seniority from a date prior to their actual appointment to the service in the absence of a supporting rule or statutory provision?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the power to ante-date an appointment for the purpose of determining seniority without a legal basis?
  • Does delay in promotion caused by government policy reconsideration entitle promotees to have their seniority reckoned from the date of approval by the Public Service Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD AYUB AND Others vs MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-26
  constitutional jurisdictioncondonation of delaylimitationgood faithdue diligencewrong forumsettlement commissionerbona fide mistake
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that set aside an order of a Settlement Commissioner dismissing revision petitions as time-barred. The respondents had initially filed their petitions in the wrong forum (the District Judge) due to confusion regarding jurisdiction over agricultural land versus urban property, following the issuance of specific government notifications. The Settlement Commissioner refused to condone the delay, citing a lack of due diligence. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, reversed this, finding that the legal uncertainty and the unavailability of the relevant notifications constituted sufficient cause for condonation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that given the genuine ambiguity in the law and the lack of accessibility to the notifications at the time, the respondents' mistake in filing was bona fide and not the result of negligence. The Court affirmed that the time spent in the wrong forum should be excluded, allowing the case to proceed on merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does filing a legal petition in a wrong forum due to genuine uncertainty regarding jurisdiction constitute a bona fide mistake under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction interfere with a finding of fact regarding the condonation of delay by a statutory authority?
  • Is the time spent prosecuting a case in a wrong forum liable to be excluded for the purpose of limitation when the party acted with due diligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DIRECTOR, MILITARY LANDS AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-05
  service lawcantonment servantdismissal from servicebiasenquiry officeropportunity of hearingdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, which sought to set aside his order of dismissal from service as a Cantonment Engineer. The core legal questions involved whether the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were vitiated by personal bias of the Enquiry Officer and the punishing authority, and whether he was denied an adequate opportunity of hearing and defence under rule 50(1) of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954. The Supreme Court held that the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated and based merely on the appellant's unilateral assertions, and that rule 50(1) had not been contravened since the inquiry appropriately focused on documentary records and the appellant failed to formally request the examination of his summoned witnesses. The key principle laid down is that a plea of bias must be supported by concrete evidence rather than mere word-of-mouth allegations, and procedural rules designed to advance justice cannot be exploited as technicalities to frustrate disciplinary proceedings when the delinquent party fails to avail of the opportunities provided.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by the alleged bias of the punishing authority when supported only by the appellant's assertions?
  • Does the failure of an Enquiry Officer to formally record oral statements of defence witnesses who were present invalidate the inquiry under rule 50(1) of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954?
  • Can a delinquent employee claim prejudice due to non-examination of defence witnesses when he failed to insist on their formal examination during the inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• RAJA KHAN AND TWO Others vs THE STATE-1982 P Cr. L J 532 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Raja GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 93 Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  constitutional jurisdictiondisputed questions of factstate landtemporary cultivation schemewrit petitionencroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition concerning state land allegedly granted to them under a ten-year Temporary Cultivation Scheme. The core legal question involved whether disputed questions of fact regarding land allotment and physical possession could be resolved within the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that where factual controversies such as allotment and possession are fiercely contested, the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court further observed that the authorities must proceed strictly in accordance with law regarding any threatened physical ejection or invocation of applicable martial law regulations concerning encroachments. The key principle laid down is that disputed questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence cannot be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction, and executive authorities must adhere to legal procedures when dealing with property possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding land allotment and possession in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether writ petitions are maintainable when the determination of facts requires the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHMAT ALI vs TUFAIL MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-15
  benami transactionbenamidarsecond appealburden of prooftenant-at-willleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit land and for an injunction, claiming he purchased it benami in the name of the respondent, his maternal cousin. The trial court decreed the suit in the petitioner's favour, but the first appellate court reversed the decision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal, finding that the benami transaction, source of purchase money, and payment of installments were not conclusively established by documentary evidence, and that the petitioner's possession was as a tenant-at-will. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's findings and the evidence regarding the payment of the purchase price, the nature of possession, and the surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact reached by the High Court regarding the failure to prove the benami transaction were based on proper appreciation of evidence and warranted no interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person asserting it?
  • Is the High Court's finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence open to interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the mere entry of a person in the khasra girdawri as a tenant-at-will negate a claim of benami ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHIM DIN AND Anothers vs ZAHIR AHMAD1982 CLC 840 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• RAHIM BAKHSH vs DOST MUHAMMAD AND Another1982 SCMR 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-27
  Permanent Transfer DeedSettlement AuthoritiesAppellate jurisdictionRevisional jurisdictionWrit petitionTransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in limine, which challenged the transfer of a shop by settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) takes away the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the relevant Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a P.T.D. does not divest the relevant Settlement Authorities of their appellate and revisional jurisdiction under sections 19 and 20 of the Act if such jurisdiction has not yet been exercised. The petition was accordingly dismissed as having no merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed take away the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities?
  • Can settlement authorities exercise revisional jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 after a P.T.D. has been issued if such jurisdiction has not yet been exercised?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHIL BART vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• RAHEEL ASGHAR GINAI AND Another vs PAKISTAN1982 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-13
  service tribunalseniorityad hoc promotionleave to appealcivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeal regarding seniority in the Pakistan Postal Service. The petitioners were initially promoted on an ad hoc and purely temporary basis to grade 17 in 1973, with clear terms that such appointment conferred no right to seniority, and later regularized in 1980. The core legal question concerned whether their ad hoc service should be counted for seniority following the promulgation of the Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Services and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners accepted their ad hoc promotion with clear conditions, failed to challenge the lack of regular promotion for years, and did not implead necessary affected parties before the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that an employee who accepts an ad hoc promotion subject to explicit conditions denying seniority and acquiesces in that status for a prolonged period cannot subsequently claim retrospective seniority to the detriment of others, particularly without joining necessary parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad hoc and temporary promotion accepted under explicit conditions denying seniority confer a right to seniority upon subsequent regularization?
  • Can a claim for seniority be sustained when necessary affected parties are not impleaded as respondents before the Service Tribunal?
  • What is the effect of prolonged acquiescence to an ad hoc appointment status on a subsequent claim for retrospective regular seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHAT ZAFAR QURESHI vs STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 289 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
• RAFIULLAH KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-02
  remand ordersettlement authoritieswithdrawal of appealjurisdictionadministrative adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal against a remand order passed by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the validity of the remand and whether the Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide the case at the relevant time. During the proceedings, counsel for both parties reached a consensus to withdraw the appeal, provided that the remand proceedings before the settlement authorities proceed without being influenced by any prior observations or opinions expressed by the High Court in its Single or Division Bench judgments. The Supreme Court accepted this withdrawal, allowing the settlement authorities to adjudicate the matter afresh based on their independent assessment of the merits and evidence. Consequently, the Court declined to rule on the jurisdictional issue regarding the authority of the officials involved, leaving that question open for future determination. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, with the parties granted liberty to lead evidence in accordance with law during the remand proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dispose of an appeal as withdrawn based on the mutual consent of the parties?
  • Does a remand order require settlement authorities to decide a case independently of prior High Court observations?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to decide a jurisdictional question if the parties withdraw the appeal before adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• RAFIQ SHAH AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-28Read full judgment →
• RAFIQ AHMAD RANA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LABOUR1982 PLC (C. S.) 318 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• SARDARA vs MUHAMMAD DIN1982 CLC 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
• RAFIQ AHMAD KHAWAJA vs ABDUL HALEEM1982 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-07
  ex parte ordernegligence of counseldefault in appearanceejectmentrent controlsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which dismissed the appellant's second appeal arising from rent ejectment proceedings. The respondent landlord had filed an ejectment application against the tenant appellant on grounds of bona fide personal use and default in rent. During the proceedings, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared on the fixed date of hearing, leading to an ex parte ejectment order. The appellant's application to set aside the ex parte order and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the lower forums and the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a litigant should be excused from default and not made to suffer due to the alleged negligence of his counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that engaging a counsel does not absolve a litigant from the responsibility of diligently pursuing their case, and where the litigant himself fails to exercise due diligence or provide sufficient foundation for negligence, he must bear the consequences. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a litigant shares a concurrent duty to prosecute proceedings diligently.

  Questions settled

  • Does engaging a counsel absolve a litigant from the responsibility of diligently prosecuting their case?
  • Can a party avoid the consequences of an ex parte order solely by alleging negligence of their counsel without establishing sufficient foundation or personal diligence?
  • Whether a litigant should be excused from non-appearance on the ground that their counsel took up government service?
  Read full judgment →
• RAEESUDDIN vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.1982 PLC 920 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
• RABBANI AND ANOTHER vs Syed ABDUL WALI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2005 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
• RABBANI AND ANOTHER vs Syed ABDUL WALI AND OTHER1982 CLC 2005 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-08-04Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ vs MESSRS RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 226 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ KHAN AND 2 Others vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL, BHAKKAR1982 CLC 1565 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29
  murderself-defencesuppression of injuriescommutation of death sentencecriminal appealocular testimonyfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant Rab Nawaz under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside the conviction of co-appellant Ghulam Hussain under Section 334. The core legal question concerned whether the accused acted in the right of self-defence and whether the prosecution successfully established its case despite suppression of injuries sustained by one of the accused and discrepancies in the ocular account. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by Ghulam Hussain and parts of the initial altercation occurred in a lane, the appellant Rab Nawaz chased the complainant and fired the fatal shot resulting in the death of Muhammad Sadiq, thereby exceeding any right of private defence. The Court laid down that an accused who pursues an adversary and fires without being the victim of direct aggression cannot claim the right of self-defence, but that unexplained injuries on the defence side and mitigating circumstances regarding the genesis of the fight can warrant the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused person on his person by the prosecution necessarily vitiate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can an accused who pursues a fleeing complainant and inflicts fatal injuries claim the right of private defence?
  • Whether the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life is justified when the genesis of the occurrence is suppressed and mutual scuffling is established?
  Read full judgment →
• QUTAB DIN vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, ETC.S1982 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-16
  constitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionsettlement authoritiesdivisibility of propertyconcurrent findingsevacuee propertypetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning a portion of a house in Khanewal, Multan District, involving conflicting claims over settlement forms and house numbering. The petitioner challenged orders by the settlement authorities and the High Court dismissing his writ petition against the division and transfer of the property's non-evacuee portion between the petitioner and the third respondent. The core legal question revolved around whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the divisibility of the property could be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether a previous compromise and rent note before a Rent Controller could override the remand findings and the correct identification of property units. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the tribunals regarding the divisibility of the property were supported by ample evidence and could not be interfered with in limited constitutional jurisdiction, particularly where the petitioner's reliance on the rent note was misconceived in light of an unchallenged earlier High Court judgment. The key principle laid down is that the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by tribunals based on adequate evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can set aside concurrent findings of fact reached by settlement tribunals in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a party rely on a rent note or compromise before a Rent Controller when a prior unchallenged High Court judgment has settled the matter regarding property confusion?
  • Whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner's finding on the divisibility of a non-evacuee property unit can be sustained based on concurrent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• QURBAN ALI S vs PUNHOON AND 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31
  criminal revisioncognizance of offenceCourt of Session jurisdictionsummoning co-accusedpolice reportLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972Column No. 2
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who refused to summon a person (Mst. Mehrun Nisa) as a co-accused in a murder trial, despite her name appearing in Column No. 2 of the police report. The trial judge had declined to act, reasoning that no prior inquiry had been conducted against her by a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session, after the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, possesses the jurisdiction to summon a person as an accused if they were placed in Column No. 2 of the police report. The High Court held that the Court of Session, upon receiving a case from a Magistrate, becomes seized of the entire criminal transaction. Consequently, it has the authority to summon any person implicated in the offence, regardless of their exclusion by the police. The court established the principle that the Court of Session is not bound by the police report and may exercise its jurisdiction to implead additional accused persons based on the material before it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Court of Session have the jurisdiction to summon a person as an accused if their name was placed in Column No. 2 of the police report?
  • Is a Court of Session bound by the police's opinion in a report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Court of Session become seized of the entire criminal transaction upon receiving a case from a Magistrate under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the requirement to inform an accused of their right to have a case tried by another court apply to proceedings in the Court of Session?
  Read full judgment →
• QUALITY STEEL WORKS LTC. vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS1982 PLC 564 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
• QAZI SADIQ HUSSAIN AND Others vs UMAR DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17
  evacuee propertysettlement operationscomposite propertytransfer of propertywrit jurisdictiondisplaced personsremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a composite evacuee property in Lahore, comprising a main bungalow, shops, and quarters, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner correctly exercised his authority in dividing the property and transferring specific shops to their occupants, rather than the entire property to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition, which had upheld the transfer of three shops to the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not challenge the remand order regarding the quarters because they had not filed a petition for leave to appeal against that specific order. Regarding the shops, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the property was composite and that the settlement authorities acted within their lawful discretion under the relevant statute to transfer independent entities to their respective occupants. The key principle established is that settlement authorities possess the jurisdiction to divide composite properties and transfer individual units to occupants who are displaced persons.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a High Court order in the Supreme Court if they failed to file a petition for leave to appeal against that specific order?
  • Do settlement authorities have the power to divide a composite evacuee property and transfer individual units to different occupants?
  • Is the determination of whether a property is divisible or whether specific quarters form an integral part of a main house considered a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi MUHAMMAD AYYAZ vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 236 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
• Qazi JAMILUDDIN vs Mst. MUSHAIDA KHATOON1982 CLC 922 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Qazi AZIZ AHMAD vs WEST PAKISTAN WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT1982 PLC (C. S.) 289 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Qazi ABDUL ALI vs ABDUL MAJEED1982 PLD Lahore 318 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• QAYYUM IQBAL vs THE STATE AND Another1982 SCMR 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-10
  leave to appealprohibitioncognizable offencemarijuana recoverycriminal investigationillegalities and irregularities
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, arising from criminal proceedings under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, where 25 kilograms of Marijuana was allegedly recovered from a house. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of Marijuana from a house rather than a public place rendered the offence non-cognizable under Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, whether police investigation without a Magistrate's permission under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was legally sustainable, and whether non-compliance with rule 6 of the rules framed under Article 31 of the said Order constituted an incurable illegality. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement on these questions, directing that trial proceedings continue but final orders be stayed pending the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of Marijuana from a house rather than a public place makes the offence non-cognizable under Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Can an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be investigated without the permission of a Magistrate under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does non-compliance with rule 6 of the rules framed under Article 31 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 constitute an incurable illegality rather than a curable irregularity under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• QAMAR YUSAF vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1097 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• QALANDAR KHAN STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL N: W. F. P. PESHAWAR1982 SCMR 1167 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• QAIM KHAN AND 17 Others vs SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER, DEPALPUR1982 CLC 804 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
• Qadri ABDUL HAMID QADRI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1982 PLD Lahore 255 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• QADIR BUX HAJI NATHU KHAN & Co. vs Mst. NAWAB BEGUM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 819 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• QADIR BUX HAJI NATHU KHAN & Co. vs Mst. NAWAB BEG (JM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 819 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• QADIR BUX AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 290 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-29Read full judgment →
• QADEER KHAN vs MESSRS BENGAL FIBRE INDUSTRIES LTD.1982 PLC 723 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• QADAR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD.1982 PLC 969 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-20Read full judgment →
• QABOOL AND Another vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdercriminal appealocular testimonymedical evidenceweapon recoveryreappraisal of evidencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court maintaining the appellants' conviction and death sentences under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution's case was that the appellants murdered the deceased by inflicting hatchet blows following a prior land dispute, which was witnessed by several eye-witnesses, including an independent and disinterested witness. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the medical evidence, showing injuries caused by a blunt weapon, contradicted the ocular testimony of hatchet assaults, and whether the First Information Report was prompt or the result of deliberation. Upon reappraising the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the independent ocular testimony, corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained weapons, established the guilt of the appellants, and that minor discrepancies regarding the weapon's side of impact did not falsify the prosecution case. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal, laying down that eyewitness testimony from related or chance witnesses, when credible and corroborated by independent evidence and recoveries, remains reliable despite minor variances with medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon's side of impact are sufficient to falsify a murder charge?
  • Can the testimony of related or chance eye-witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration in a criminal trial?
  • Whether the prompt lodging of a First Information Report can be successfully challenged on the basis of police documents and timing discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MANZOOR ALI AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 622 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs JAHANGIR KHAN1982 PLC 389 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-07-09Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD1982 PLC 336 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →