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.

• MUHAMMAD KHALID vs COMBINED INDUSTRIES STD.1982 PLD Lahore- 768 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID MOGHAL vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1937 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID . vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KALIM AND 11 Others vs EPHRAHIM JOSEPH AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2058 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KALEEM ABBASI AND 2 OTHERS vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION1982 PLC (C. S.) 273 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CA NTT.), LAHORE AND 21982 PLC 113 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT1982 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JALIL SIDDIQUI vs DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, SARGODHA REGION1982 SCMR 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-01
  service lawsenioritytransfer on requestdissolution of One Unitgovernment serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the determination of his seniority. The petitioner, a government servant transferred from the Quetta Region to the Rawalpindi Region in 1971, challenged the condition imposed in his transfer order that required him to forego his previous seniority and be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's transfer was a consequence of the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan (One Unit), thereby entitling him to seniority protection under specific government circulars, or whether it was a voluntary transfer at his own request, subject to standard seniority forfeiture rules. The Supreme Court held that the transfer was clearly made at the petitioner's own request, not due to the dissolution of One Unit. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming the principle that government servants transferred at their own request are treated as fresh recruits for seniority purposes, rendering the petitioner ineligible for the seniority benefits he sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government servant transferred at their own request retain their previous seniority?
  • Are transfers made at the request of an official considered part of the allocation process following the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan?
  • Can a government servant claim seniority benefits based on circulars intended for the allocation of personnel during the dissolution of One Unit if their transfer was voluntary?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISRAR vs Sh. MUHAMMAD SALIM1982 CLC 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 528 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs TAJ DIN1982 CLC 717 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1982 PLD Lahore 197 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18
  pre-emptionmisconstruction of plaintconsent decreepre-emption money depositremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit without framing issues or recording evidence, erroneously interpreting the plaint as containing an admission regarding the actual payment of the sale price. The core legal questions involve whether the plaint contained an admission of the sale price, whether the decree was a consent decree, and whether the non-deposit of pre-emption money within the time fixed by the trial court rendered the appeal incompetent. The court held that the plaint, read as a whole, did not constitute an admission of the sale price, that the decree was not a consent decree, and that the failure to deposit pre-emption money does not defeat an appeal challenging the decree itself when the trial court's judgment is set aside due to misconstruction of pleadings. The key principle laid down is that plaints in pre-emption suits must be construed as a whole to determine if an admission of sale price exists, and an appellate court has the power to vary or extend the time for depositing pre-emption money or set aside the requirement entirely upon the annulment of the underlying erroneous decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement in a pre-emption plaint mentioning the sale price recited in a sale-deed amount to an admission of its actual payment?
  • Whether a decree passed without framing issues or recording evidence based on a misconstrued admission is sustainable?
  • Does the failure of a pre-emptor to deposit pre-emption money within the time fixed by the trial court render his appeal incompetent?
  • Can an appellate court vary or set aside the time limit for depositing pre-emption money when the trial court's decree is annulled?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 833 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10
  evictionbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantburden of proofcredibility of witnessrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a landlord's appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which set aside an eviction order previously granted by the Rent Controller regarding two shops. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal requirement for the shops for the use of his sons. Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court held that the landlord failed to demonstrate the necessary bona fides. The Court observed that the landlord did not produce the sons for whose benefit the shops were allegedly required, and evidence suggested they were already independently settled. Furthermore, the landlord’s credibility was undermined by his previous conduct, where he had obtained possession of a shop on the pretext of personal use only to convert it into residential property. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the eviction applications, holding that a tenant cannot be evicted based on the mere whim of a landlord, and that the requirement must be proven with credible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's bare statement sufficient to establish a bona fide personal requirement for eviction?
  • Does the failure to produce the intended beneficiary as a witness affect the proof of personal need in an eviction case?
  • Can a landlord's previous conduct in converting a vacated shop to residential use be considered when determining the bona fides of a new eviction application?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISLAM KHAN vs CANTONMENT BOARD, KOHAT1982 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-14
  ejectmentcivil court jurisdictionforfeiture of leasedenial of titletransfer of propertyleave to appealcompensation for improvements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop owned by the Cantonment Board, Kohat. The core legal questions involved whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment suit, whether a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 was mandatory despite the tenant's denial of the landlord's title, and whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for improvements made to the property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction and that the petitioner had explicitly agreed in writing not to claim compensation for improvements. Furthermore, the Court established that a tenant's denial of the landlord's title operates as a forfeiture of the lease, thereby dispensing with the requirement for a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioner two months to vacate the premises upon payment of occupation charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's denial of the landlord's title dispense with the requirement for a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Can a tenant claim compensation for improvements to a property if they have previously agreed in writing not to do so?
  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain an ejectment suit against a tenant of a Cantonment Board property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs ABDUL HAQUE AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 665 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE KHAN vs PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT1982 PLC 857 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS NATIONAL THREAD LTD.1982 PLC 637 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1982 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21
  service tribunalpromotionreversiongame watcherjurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, directed against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his reversion from the post of Game Inspector to Game Watcher. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's promotion as Game Inspector outside his home division violated the applicable service rules, and whether the lack of a personal hearing vitiated the order setting aside his promotion. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner's promotion was contrary to the governing rules restricting promotion to vacancies within the candidate's own division, the promotion was void ab initio and rightly set aside, and the absence of a hearing did not prejudice a claim lacking legal foundation on merits. The Court established the principle that promotions made in violation of mandatory territorial or divisional service rules are illegal and create no vested rights, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a promotion made in violation of divisional service rules can be sustained?
  • Does the failure to afford a hearing vitiate an order setting aside an illegal promotion?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against a Service Tribunal's decision upholding a reversion?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD OBAIDULLAH vs MUHAMMAD SAHIB1982 CLC 2632 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1982 CLC 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs A. R. KHAN1982 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-19
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantcourt-feesecond appealurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking to evict a tenant from a shop in Murree for the personal use of his son. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the District Judge reversed the decision on appeal, holding the application to be mala fide. The Lahore High Court addressed whether the appellate court erred in assessing the landlord's good faith and whether time could be granted under section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to make up a deficient court-fee. The High Court held that the landlord has the sole right to choose which property to utilize for his son's business, that the appellate court misdirected itself by dictating the choice of location, and that penal provisions in the Ordinance serve as a safeguard against bad faith. Consequently, the High Court allowed time to make up the court-fee, accepted the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can grant time under section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to make good a deficient court-fee on a memorandum of appeal arising from rent restriction proceedings?
  • Does the law empower a court to dictate to a landlord which particular property or locality he or his child should select for starting a business?
  • Are the penal provisions contained in section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a relevant safeguard against bad faith when determining a landlord's personal requirement?
  • Does the drawing of an inference regarding good faith from proved facts in rent proceedings constitute a question of law open to interference in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND Others vs Sh. GHULAM RASUL1982 CLC 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND Another vs NUR AHMAD AND 5 Other1982 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-09
  murderocular testimonyrelated witnessesballistic expertrecoveryacquittalpetition for special leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the conviction and sentence of Nek Muhammad under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a Naib Tehsildar, while acquitting his co-accused Zahur and Nur, and dismissing the complainant's petition against the acquittal of Shah Behram. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony from close relatives, the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries corroborated by a ballistic expert, and the requirement of independent corroboration for accused persons facing previous hostility and motive. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related eye-witnesses, whose presence was natural and who harbored no prior enmity against the principal offender, was reliable and sufficiently corroborated by ballistic evidence matching the recovered pistol with the crime empty. However, regarding the co-accused linked through prior enmity and motive, independent corroboration was rightly deemed necessary by the High Court. The petitions were accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that related eye-witness testimony is credible against an accused when natural and uncontradicted by prior animosity, whereas co-accused implicated via background hostility require independent corroborative evidence for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses who are closely related to the deceased be relied upon in a murder trial despite the absence of previous enmity?
  • Whether independent corroboration is necessary for sustaining the conviction of co-accused persons who are linked to the crime through previous hostility and motive?
  • Does the match between a recovered weapon and a crime-scene empty shell provided by a ballistic expert furnish sufficient corroboration for a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs The STATE1982 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-21
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptiontrap witnesssanction for prosecutionspecial leave to appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification) Act or Act II of 1947 for accepting illegal gratification. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular evidence during a trap raid, the sufficiency of the defence plea regarding false implication, the tenability of raising a belated objection to the sanction for prosecution for the first time before the Supreme Court, and the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the demand and seizure of tainted currency notes were based on solid ocular testimony properly corroborated by a Magistrate, that a belated objection regarding prosecution sanction not raised below cannot be entertained, and that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The key principle laid down is that an objection regarding the validity of prosecution sanction must be raised at the trial stage to afford an opportunity for rectification and cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court, and that unexplained possession of tainted currency notes during a validly executed trap is sufficient to sustain a corruption conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection regarding the validity of prosecution sanction be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the trial Court or the High Court?
  • Whether the unexplained possession of tainted currency notes in a trap case is sufficient to establish the charge of accepting illegal gratification?
  • Is a sentence of fine with default imprisonment commensurate with the offence of accepting a bribe under the anti-corruption laws?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE- Respondent1982 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT AND OTHERS -1982 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Haji NISAR AHMAD AND 15 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL NADVI vs REHMAT ALI ETC.1982 CLC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL HAIDRI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG AND ANOTHER ,1982 PLC (C. S.) 147 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Another vs THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAISALABADAND 4 Other1982 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-05
  pre-emptionsubstitution of legal representativesheritable rightright to sueleave to appeal
  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 the District Judge's order dismissing a pre-emption suit. The original pre-emptor, Tahir Saleem, filed a suit to pre-empt a sale of land made by his father, Rehmat Ali. During the pendency of the suit, Tahir Saleem died unmarried and without children. His brothers, Muhammad Iqbal and Ghulam Sarwar, sought to be substituted as plaintiffs. The trial court allowed the substitution, but on revision, the District Judge held that in the presence of the father, the brothers were not legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, causing the right to sue to abate. The High Court affirmed this view. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether a deceased pre-emptor can be legally represented by his real brothers in the presence of the father who was the vendor, and whether remote heirs can maintain a pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor who dies during the pendency of a pre-emption suit can be legally represented by his real brothers in the presence of his father who is the vendor?
  • Does the right to sue for pre-emption survive upon the death of the original pre-emptor when his immediate heir is disqualified from maintaining the suit?
  • Are remote heirs competent to maintain a suit for pre-emption if nearer heirs do not sue?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 666(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  evacuee propertynon-evacuee propertypresumption of truthJamabandirevenue recordsleave to appealDeputy Custodian
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court concerning the status of land as evacuee or non-evacuee property. The petitioner contends that the High Court failed to consider previous orders dated 21-3-1957 and 6-4-1968 issued by the Deputy Custodian, which declared one-half of the subject land to be non-evacuee property. The petitioner argues these orders remained legally operative and were never set aside. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the relevant Jamabandi entries, supported by a corresponding mutation, carried a presumption of truth under the Land Revenue Act, which remained unrebutted. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in ignoring these prior administrative determinations and the evidentiary value of the revenue records. The Supreme Court, finding that the points raised regarding the factual and legal aspects of the matter require deeper consideration, granted leave to appeal. The decision establishes that prior administrative declarations regarding property status and the presumption of truth attached to revenue records are material factors that must be addressed by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior order by a Deputy Custodian declaring land as non-evacuee property remain legally operative if it has not been set aside?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of Jamabandi entries under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Can a High Court decision be challenged for failing to consider existing administrative orders and revenue record entries?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT ULLAH vs COLLECTOR, LAHORE AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 249 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ AHMAD vs PROVINCE OF SINDH AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ AHMAD vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs GOHAR REHMAN AND Another1982 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurdertentative assessmentSupreme Court review of bail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special lease to appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court's order granting bail to the accused, Gohar Rehman, who was charged under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Khushal Khan through fatal stick blows during a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting bail by observing that the offence might not fall under section 302 due to the weapon used and lack of proven intent to kill. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court's observation regarding the applicability of section 302 was incorrect, appellate interference with bail discretion is unwarranted unless the discretion was exercised capriciously or arbitrarily. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that discretionary orders granting bail by a superior court will not be set aside merely because the apex court disagrees with certain observations made regarding the tentative assessment of the charge, provided the overall discretion was not exercised arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court should interfere with bail granted by the High Court when the discretion was not exercised capriciously or arbitrarily?
  • Does causing death by giving stick blows necessarily exclude the application of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS ALVI vs ZAFAR PASHA1982CL C 1324 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILTEMAS KHAN vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 632 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IKHLAQUE RIZVI vs UNITED COMMERCIAL FINANCE AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2462 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IKHLAQUE RIZVI vs UNITED COMMERCIAL FINANCE AND OTHER1982 CLC 2462 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst.. NAIMUNNISSA1982 CLC 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst. NAIMUNNISSA1982 CLC 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MESSRS RAFA-E-AAM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING1982 PLC 100 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MESSRS CHILYA CORRUGATED BOARD MILLS LID.1982 PLC 576 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs FAKIR MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 230 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-14
  ejectmentpersonal requirementbona fide usesecond appeallandlord and tenantpleadingsvalidity of transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by the tenant challenging an order of ejectment passed by the District Judge, Jacobabad, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of the landlord's ejectment application. The landlord, a retired Government servant, sought eviction on the sole ground of bona fide personal requirement for commercial use. The tenant resisted eviction on grounds including the landlord's failure to specify the exact nature of intended use in the pleadings, the existence of other shops in the names of his sons, and allegations of mala fide transfer of title.

  The High Court held that a landlord is not required to specifically plead every detail of the intended use under Section 13, and stating during testimony an intention to run a medical store or work as a petition-writer is sufficient. Furthermore, once the landlord-tenant relationship is established, the tenant cannot dispute the validity of the property transfer. The Court affirmed that shops owned by sons do not defeat the landlord’s bona fide personal need, and Section 13(4) provides adequate protection to the tenant should the landlord fail to occupy the premises. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord required to specifically plead in the ejectment application the exact nature of the business or use intended for the rented premises under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a tenant challenge the validity of the landlord's title or the transfer of the rented premises in ejectment proceedings once the relationship of landlord and tenant is established?
  • Does the existence of commercial properties in the names of the landlord's sons disentitle the landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs ABDUL HASEEB KHAN1982 CLC 2025 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER vs TASLIMUL HASSAN.1982 CLC 264 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER vs TASLIMUL HASSAN1982 CLC 1798 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Other1982 SCMR 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-24
  Intra-Court AppealmaintainabilityColonization of Government Lands ActLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972proprietary rightswrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from three civil petitions for leave to appeal assailing the dismissal of Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs) by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, as well as the underlying orders of a Single Judge dismissing writ petitions concerning the grant of proprietary rights over land leased under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912. The core legal question was whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed in writ jurisdiction when the underlying grievance arises from proceedings under an Act that itself provides for appeal, revision, or review. The Supreme Court held that since the orders of the authority under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 were appealable, revisable, and reviewable under that Act, an Intra-Court Appeal was expressly barred under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the ICAs and refused leave to appeal. The governing principle reaffirmed is that where an original statutory remedy of appeal, revision, or review is available, an Intra-Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 is barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 against a decision concerning an order that is subject to appeal, revision, or review under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-23
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationpre-arrest baildisclosure of factsvicarious liabilitydiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the High Court. The petitioner, accused of offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, was initially denied pre-arrest bail by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. Subsequently, he was granted post-arrest bail by the Sessions Court, which the High Court later cancelled on the grounds that the petitioner had approached the court with 'dirty hands' by failing to disclose the prior rejection of his pre-arrest bail application. The core legal question was whether the failure to disclose the rejection of a pre-arrest bail application constitutes sufficient grounds to cancel post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are governed by entirely different legal principles, and the rejection of the former does not inherently impact the merits of the latter. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the bail, establishing the principle that the suppression of a prior failed pre-arrest bail application is not a dispositive factor for cancelling post-arrest bail, as the two remedies operate on distinct legal bases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to disclose the rejection of a pre-arrest bail application constitute sufficient grounds to cancel post-arrest bail?
  • Are the legal principles governing pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail identical?
  • Does the rejection of a pre-arrest bail application have a bearing on the merits of a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs REGISTRAR OF DISTRICT GUJRANWALA AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Other1982 SCMR 1163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-07
  evacuee propertySettlement Scheme No. VIIallotmenttransfer of propertyleave to appealpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute over an evacuee house situated in Multan, which had been in the continuous occupation of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Sondhey Khan, since prior to January 1, 1961. The core legal question concerns whether the property automatically transferred to the occupant under Settlement Scheme No. VII and whether subsequent abandonment affects such acquired title. The Supreme Court held that since Sondhey Khan was in possession of the house up to January 1, 1961, the property stood automatically transferred to him free of charge by virtue of paragraph (4) of Chapter 5 of Settlement Scheme No. VII, and any subsequent abandonment did not detract from his already acquired title, rendering it immune to interference by settlement authorities. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that statutory transfer of evacuee property to long-term occupants creates an indefeasible title unaffected by subsequent vacation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an evacuee property automatically transfer to an occupant in possession before the crucial date of January 1, 1961 under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
  • Does the subsequent abandonment of a house by an occupant detract from a title already acquired under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
  • Can settlement authorities interfere with a property title once it has automatically vested in an occupant under the relevant settlement scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHER1982 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Haji CHAUDHRY UMAR BAKHSH AND ANOTHERPLD .1982 Supreme Court 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-21
  rent restrictionejectmentpersonal usetransferee-landlordnotice of transferdefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent matter where the tenant (petitioner) challenged his eviction, which had been ordered by the Rent Controller and upheld by the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether a transferee-landlord is required to serve a notice under Section 13-B of the Rent Restriction Ordinance upon the tenant before filing an ejectment application on the ground of personal use. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the requirement of notice under Section 13-B is strictly limited to protecting a tenant against allegations of default in the payment of rent. The Court affirmed that where an ejectment application is based on grounds other than default in rent payment, such as personal use, the provisions of Section 13-B are not applicable. The key principle laid down is that the statutory notice requirement regarding the transfer of ownership of premises serves solely to prevent default claims and does not affect ejectment proceedings initiated on other grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice under Section 13-B of the Rent Restriction Ordinance mandatory for an ejectment application based on personal use?
  • Does the failure to serve a notice under Section 13-B of the Rent Restriction Ordinance invalidate an ejectment application filed on grounds other than default in rent payment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs GENERAL MANAGER, G. T. S., N.-W.F.P.1982 PLC 1057 · Labour Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, P. 0. F., WAH CANTT1982 PLC (C. S.) 276 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs AKBAR HUSSAIN1982 CLC 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHOKHAR vs MESSRS PAKARAB FERTILIZERS1982 PLC 702 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KATHAWALA AND ANOTHER vs GHULAMALI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2448 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ETC. vs SHAHAB DIN Etc1982 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ETC. vs RASUL BIBI ETC.1982 CLC 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN BROHI vs KARACHI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2646 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN BROHI vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL (SPECIAL JUDGE), ANTI.1982 CLC 2646 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Others vs SHAHAB DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-20
  subsistence holdingvoid transactionpari delictomutation cancellationdeclaration suitland alienation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners, who had purchased 48 kanals 16 marlas of land from the respondents' deceased father. The transaction was subsequently cancelled by the revenue authorities on the ground that it violated Martial Law Regulation No. 64, as it constituted a sale of a part of a holding that was less than a subsistence holding. The petitioners sought a declaration of ownership, but all courts below held the sale to be void under Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the sale should be saved under the doctrine of pari delicto, contending that since both parties were equally at fault, the party in possession should not be disturbed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where both parties are in pari delicto, the court must refuse to assist either party, and the plaintiff's suit must fail. Consequently, the decisions of the courts below dismissing the suit were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sale of land that violates the subsistence holding restrictions under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 is void ab initio?
  • How does the doctrine of pari delicto apply to a suit for declaration where both parties are equally at fault in entering into an illegal transaction?
  • Can a party in possession of land under a void transaction resist eviction or seek a declaration of ownership on the basis of being in pari delicto?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 PLD Supreme Court 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Rehabilitation Settlement Schemeexcess allotmentresumption of landallottee's option to surrenderbona fide purchaserre-verification of claimDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation and resumption of excess allotted land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. An allottee was initially allotted 167 kanals and subsequently sold 80 kanals to the appellants. Upon departmental re-verification, the allottee's entitlement was found to be lower, necessitating the resumption of excess area. The Settlement authorities permitted the allottee to exercise an option, pursuant to which he surrendered the parcel previously sold to the appellants. The appellants challenged this surrender, asserting fraud, lack of authority to extend an option, and seeking protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.

  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that absent evidence of fraud or deliberate misrepresentation, the Settlement authorities possessed the discretion to grant the allottee a choice in surrendering excess land. Furthermore, the authorities were under no statutory obligation to protect third-party purchasers where the initial excess allotment arose from an innocent error rather than fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Can Settlement authorities permit an allottee to choose which parcel of land to surrender when excess allotment is resumed absent fraud?
  • Are Settlement authorities legally bound to protect third-party purchasers from an allottee when resuming excess allotted land?
  • Does an inadvertent or erroneous initial verification of an allotment claim automatically amount to fraud disentitling an allottee from exercising an option of surrender?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 Another vs The SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1982 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24
  locus standiallotment of landRehabilitation Guzara Schemewrit petitiondiscretionary jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the allotment of land made in favour of the respondent in 1963. The core legal question was whether the petitioners possessed the requisite locus standi to challenge the said allotment on the basis of an alleged prior allotment under the Rehabilitation Guzara Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish their locus standi, as they neither paid the conditional costs imposed by the High Court nor produced any relevant documents or material to substantiate their interest or possession in the disputed land. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction will be refused when a party fails to comply with procedural orders of the court and neglects to place foundational evidence of their legal right or interest on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner who fails to pay conditional costs and produce relevant documents lacks locus standi to challenge a land allotment?
  • Will the Supreme Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution when the petitioner fails to place necessary evidence on record?
  • Does a party challenging a settlement authority's order need to prove a preferential right or interest in the disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ANC) Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 85 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSAIN vs MUSHTAQ AND Another1982 SCMR 237(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-27
  bailfurther inquirycriminal procedurepetition for leave to appealdismissal on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner at the hearing, the Court examined the matter on merits, including the First Information Report, the bail application, and the impugned order. The Supreme Court held that the conclusion reached by the High Court was fully justified and accordingly dismissed the petition as being without merit. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail by the High Court is warranted and unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of bail is justified when a criminal case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal against an order granting bail be decided on merits in the absence of the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE-.Respondent1982 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND Others vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 23 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND OTHERS vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHER1982 CLC 23 80 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 577 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08
  murderbenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidenceFIRcriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution's ocular testimony was fundamentally irreconcilable with the medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the First Information Report (FIR). The Court held that the conviction was unsafe and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The ratio established that where eyewitness accounts regarding the number of shots, the distance, and the direction of fire are directly contradicted by medical findings, the ocular testimony cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that an FIR recorded at the scene of the crime, where police presence is established prior to the formal recording, creates a strong presumption of preliminary investigation and deliberation, rendering the FIR and subsequent investigation unreliable. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, necessitating his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony is irreconcilable with the medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries?
  • What is the legal consequence when an FIR is recorded at the spot after the police have already arrived at the scene?
  • Is it safe to rely on forensic reports when the weapon and empty cartridge remained in police custody for an extended period before being sent to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 888 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2233 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER AND Other1982 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16
  Depot HoldersMartial Law Instruction No. 22Provisional Constitution Order 1981Ouster of JurisdictionFoodstuffs Distribution
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves multiple civil petitions challenging the termination of the petitioners' appointments as Depot Holders under Martial Law Instruction No. 22. The core legal questions are whether Martial Law Instruction No. 22 constitutes a 'rule' within the meaning of Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the courts, and whether actions taken thereunder are immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court held that Martial Law Instruction No. 22 is a complete and self-contained code whose provisions possess the requisite precision and generality to be equated with statutory rules under Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Consequently, orders of cancellation passed pursuant thereto are immune from challenge in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that executive or administrative instructions issued under martial law that are expressed with precision and generality acquire the status of rules and fall within the protective ouster clauses of constitutional indemnity provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Martial Law Instruction No. 22 has the status of a rule within the meaning of Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981?
  • Does Martial Law Instruction No. 22 operate as a complete code independent of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967?
  • Whether actions taken under Martial Law Instruction No. 22 are immune from challenge before the superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MANZOOR AND Other1982 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24
  bailcommon intentionappreciation of evidencemedico-legal reportfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to two respondents accused of murder. The prosecution alleged that the respondents held the deceased, enabling a co-accused to inflict thirteen injuries with a sharp-edged weapon. The High Court granted bail, reasoning that the nature of the injuries on the deceased's hands was inconsistent with the allegation that he was being held by two persons, thus warranting further inquiry. The petitioner argued that the High Court improperly appreciated evidence at the bail stage and ignored the common intention alleged in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while courts should not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence during bail proceedings, they must evaluate the available material, including medical reports. The Court affirmed that the High Court was justified in tentatively assessing the respondents' specific roles based on the medical evidence, and that concluding the application of common intention required further inquiry was legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court prohibited from considering medical evidence when deciding a bail application?
  • Can a court form a tentative conclusion regarding the role of an accused in a criminal transaction during bail proceedings?
  • Does the evaluation of evidence regarding the application of common intention constitute an improper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs GHULAM HYDER SHAH AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 957 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KASUR AND 21982 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26
  limitationcondonation of delayspecial enactmentMuslim Family Laws Ordinancerevision petitionmaintenancestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Collector, Kasur, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against a maintenance certificate issued by an Arbitration Council as time-barred. The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, arguing that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, did not expressly exclude the application of Section 5. The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to revision petitions filed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, in the absence of an express exclusion clause. The Court held that the revision petition was correctly dismissed as time-barred. The ratio is that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance is a special enactment, and under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, the provisions of Section 5 do not apply to special or local laws unless the special enactment expressly extends such application. Since the Ordinance lacks such a provision, Section 5 is inapplicable, and the Collector's order was upheld. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 by default?
  • Is an express provision required in a special law to extend the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the absence of an express exclusion clause in a special law automatically make Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN vs PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN vs PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF JAVED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1982 PLC (C. S.) 145 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF CHAUDHRY vs MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ ETC.S1982 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-16
  Provisional Transfer OrderPermanent Transfer DeedSettlement CourtsRehabilitation Departmentleave to appealejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent decisions of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's claim regarding a disputed property. The core legal question concerns the validity of a subsequent Provisional Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed issued in respect of property already subject to an earlier Provisional Transfer Order. The Supreme Court held that since the first Provisional Transfer Order issued to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was earlier in time and never challenged before the Settlement Courts, the Rehabilitation Department lacked the authority to issue a subsequent Provisional Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed to the petitioner, rendering the petitioner's documents invalid in law. The Court affirmed that an earlier unchallanged transfer order takes precedence, leaving the petitioner with no valid claim to the property, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent Provisional Transfer Order issued for a property have any legal validity when an earlier Provisional Transfer Order for the same property exists and remains unchallenged?
  • Whether the Rehabilitation Department has the authority to issue a second Provisional Transfer Order in respect of a property already transferred via an earlier Provisional Transfer Order?
  • Does a Permanent Transfer Deed issued on the basis of a later and invalid Provisional Transfer Order confer valid ownership rights?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAMIDUDDIN vs FEROZ AHMED AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-09
  default in rentevictionillegal sublettingadvance rentwaiver of lease conditionsecond appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Sind High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from commercial premises in Karachi. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed a default in the payment of rent by failing to pay in advance as per the lease agreement, and whether he had illegally sublet the premises without the landlords' written consent. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was indeed a defaulter and had illegally sublet the premises, as the acceptance of delayed lump-sum rent payments did not establish a practice to waive the advance payment condition. The Court affirmed the eviction orders, laying down the principle that a landlord's acceptance of occasional delayed payments does not constitute a waiver of the contractual obligation to pay rent in advance, and dismissed the petition while granting the tenant four months to vacate the premises upon continued payment of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of occasional delayed rent payments by a landlord constitute a waiver of a lease condition requiring rent to be paid in advance?
  • Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding default in rent and illegal subletting be successfully challenged in a second appeal without strong legal grounds?
  • Whether illegal subletting of demised premises without the written consent of the landlord constitutes a valid ground for eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HALIM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27
  settlement lawspecial leave to appealrevival of appealadministrative jurisdictionwithdrawal of appealproperty transferinsanity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a property under settlement laws. The core legal question is whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner possesses the jurisdiction to revive an appeal that was previously dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant, particularly when the revival is based on a claim of the appellant's insanity at the time of withdrawal. The petitioner contends that the withdrawal was voluntary and that the finding of insanity was unsupported by medical evidence, rendering the subsequent revival of the appeal and the transfer of the property to the respondent without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, finding that these submissions raise substantial questions regarding the limits of administrative authority and the evidentiary basis for reviving proceedings, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the validity of the subsequent transfer orders is contingent upon the legality of the initial order reviving the appeal, thereby necessitating a deeper examination of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's powers in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner have the legal competence to revive an appeal that has been dismissed as withdrawn?
  • Can an order reviving a previously withdrawn appeal be sustained in the absence of unequivocal evidence of the appellant's insanity at the time of withdrawal?
  • Are subsequent administrative orders dependent on the validity of an initial order that is alleged to be without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs MUHAMMAD UMAR AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs MUHAMMAD UMAR AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ AZMAT vs TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI PORT1982 CLC 2099 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HADAYATULLAH vs Haji ALLAH D1TTA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HA DAY ATULLAH vs Haji ALLAH DITTA AND OTHER1982 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GOHAR AND Others vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GOHAR AND Others vs PAKISTAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GHIAS AND Other vs MARKET COMMITTEE, KAMALIA AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 710 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-27
  market committeemunicipal committeeagricultural producelocal governmentparallel marketstatutory conflictlicencefood and drink
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged orders denying them the right to carry on the wholesale business of vegetables and fruit in shops leased from the Municipal Committee, Kamalia, and sought directions for the issuance of licences under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Ordinance, 1978. The core legal question involved determining whether there is a conflict between the functions of Market Committees under the 1978 Ordinance and urban councils under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, particularly regarding overlapping powers over agricultural produce and articles of food and drink. The Lahore High Court held that where conflicting parallel provisions exist between the two enactments, they must operate in exclusive areas regarding common items. Furthermore, by virtue of the overriding superseding clause in section 4 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, an urban council holds exclusive control over markets and the sale of articles of food and drink within its limits, meaning the Market Committee cannot exercise control over businesses operating within a municipal committee's jurisdiction. The petition was allowed and the impugned action declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there is a conflict between the functions of Market Committees under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Ordinance, 1978 and urban councils under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Do Market Committees have the authority to exercise control over the sale and purchase of agricultural produce within the limits of an urban local council?
  • Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 override inconsistent provisions in earlier laws by virtue of its superseding clause?
  • Can a municipal committee establish and maintain public markets for the sale of articles of food and drink and animals within its local area?
  Read full judgment →