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.
- MASOOD PERVAIZ vs THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 1084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a disciplinary action taken by the University of the Punjab against the petitioner for attempting to cheat by replacing inner sheets of official answer books in the First Professional M.B.B.S. Examination 1979. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary finding was based on 'no evidence' and whether the principle of natural justice regarding opportunity of hearing was violated. The Supreme Court held that the discovery of substituted sheets in the petitioner's answer book raised a strong presumption against him, and the sufficiency of material for a finding of fact falls within the exclusive domain of the university authorities. Furthermore, the court held that personal hearing was granted, a written explanation was submitted, and material could lawfully be collected in the petitioner's absence without contravening established legal precedents. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a disciplinary action taken by a university authority for examination malpractice?
- Does the discovery of substituted answer sheets inside a candidate's answer book raise a strong presumption of guilt?
- Is it mandatory for disciplinary material in a university inquiry to be collected strictly in the presence of the candidate?
- MASOOD HUSSAIN ANWAR vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN1982 CLC 1777 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed an ejectment petition against the respondent under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds including default in rent and personal need. During proceedings before the Rent Controller, the parties agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators filed an award, which the Rent Controller made a rule of the court, dismissing the ejectment petition. The lower appellate court dismissed the appellant's subsequent appeal. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to refer a rent dispute to arbitration and make an award the rule of the court. The Lahore High Court held that a Rent Controller acting under the Ordinance is a persona designata and not a civil court, and the statute does not contemplate reference to arbitration; consequently, an order based on an arbitration award is without jurisdiction and a nullity. The principle laid down is that there is no estoppel against a statute, and statutory tribunals cannot bypass prescribed procedures by referring matters to arbitration.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is competent to refer a dispute between a landlord and tenant to arbitration?
- Can an order passed by a Rent Controller on the basis of an arbitration award be considered valid and lawful?
- Does the principle of estoppel apply against a statute when a party willingly participates in referring a matter to arbitration?
- MASOOD AKHTAR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL1982 PLD Lahore 248 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHER1982 CLC 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the appointment of a Lambardar (Headman) by revenue authorities, contending that the forums below erred in their application of the W. P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and were prejudiced by the petitioner's religious affiliation. The core legal questions were whether the appointment process was legally flawed and whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding the petitioner's non-residency and unsuitability are subject to judicial review. The Court held that the appointment of a Lambardar is an administrative measure, not a vested right, and that the rules governing such appointments are directory guidelines for authorities to select the most suitable candidate. It affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by exclusive statutory forums are not open to challenge in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner's disqualification was primarily based on his status as an 'absentee' and inability to perform duties, rather than religious prejudice, and that the administrative discretion of Revenue Officers in selecting a successor should not be interfered with by the High Court.
Questions settled- Are concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding the appointment of a Lambardar subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the appointment of a Lambardar confer a vested legal right upon a candidate?
- Can the disqualification criteria under Rule 18(2)(c) of the W. P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968, be applied to the appointment of a successor Lambardar under Rule 19?
- Is the appointment of a Lambardar an administrative measure or a judicial determination?
- MASOOD AHMAD SHAH vs GENERAL MANAGER, (OVERSEAS), TELECOMMUNICATION REGION, PAKISTAN T & T DEPARTMENT, KARACHI1982 PLC (C. S.) 764 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MASJID-E-HUMRA vs ZAMIR AHMAD1982 CLC 2193 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- MASJID E HUMRA vs ZAMIR AHMAD1982 CLC 2193 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- MASHRI vs SOHNI AND Other1982 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of murder charges and dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against the acquittal of two other co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of the evidence, specifically the dying declarations and the testimony of eye-witnesses, in reaching its decision to acquit the accused. Upon reviewing the judgments of the lower courts, the dying declarations, and the eye-witness testimony, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the High Court had ignored or misread any material evidence. The Supreme Court, having independently reappraised the evidence, concurred with the High Court's reasoning for disbelieving the prosecution's evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that the appellate court's findings on evidence will not be disturbed absent a showing of misreading or non-reading of material evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the petitioner fails to show that the High Court ignored or misread material evidence?
- Is a dying declaration sufficient to sustain a conviction if the High Court has found it unreliable upon appraisal of the evidence?
- MASHOOQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- MASHLAKHUDDIN vs Syed ALI HAIDER1982 CLC 644 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-07Read full judgment →
- Masas NATIONAL CONTAINERS Ltd. vs MESSRS NATIONAL SHIPPING1982 CLC 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1968-12-26Read full judgment →
- MARYAM BAI (MOBIN Bal) vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-12Read full judgment →
- MARYAM BAI (MOBIN BAD) vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-12Read full judgment →
- MARGHOOB AHMED ANSARI AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1982 CLC 2051 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- MAQBOQL AHMED vs THE STATE1982P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SHAH vs CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 21982 PLC (C. S.) 678 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMED vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1266 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 593 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 724 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-07Read full judgment →
- MANZUR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA1982 PLC (C. S.) 367 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for bail pending his criminal appeal against conviction. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had refused bail, noting that the arguments raised by the petitioner required an appreciation of evidence, which was premature at the bail stage, while simultaneously directing that the main appeal be heard on an expedited basis. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretionary exercise of jurisdiction in refusing bail. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court had exercised its discretion not to grant bail and had balanced the interests of justice by scheduling an early hearing for the main appeal, there was no justification for interference. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that the High Court's order maintained the balance of justice.
Questions settled- Should the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail pending appeal when the main appeal has been expedited?
- Is it appropriate for a court to decline bail on the grounds that the arguments raised require an appreciation of evidence?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT, WATCH & WARD, PAKISTAN1982 PLC 328 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 344 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN NAZAR AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-02Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND Other vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-Opponent1982 P Cr. L J 261 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 543 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD AMIN1982 SCMR 894(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a tenant's challenge to an eviction order, specifically questioning whether a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, must be served by the original transferee of the property or if a subsequent purchaser (vendee) can serve such notice. The appellant argued that the respondent, who purchased the property from the original transferee, failed to comply with the statutory notice requirement. The Supreme Court held that the term 'transferee' in Section 30 is not restricted to the original transferee. Upon transfer of property, the vendee steps into the shoes of the original transferee, acquiring all rights and privileges, including the right to seek eviction under Section 30. Furthermore, the Court noted that the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, rendered the requirement of such notice moot. The Court also affirmed that notices under Section 30 and Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, can be combined, and that actual knowledge of the transfer by the tenant obviates the need for a formal Section 13-A notice.
Questions settled- Must a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, be served by the original transferee, or can a subsequent purchaser serve it?
- Does the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, affect the necessity of serving a notice under Section 30 for eviction proceedings?
- Can a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, be combined with a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a formal notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, required if the tenant already has actual knowledge of the property transfer?
- MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD AND Others vs FATEH MOHAMMAD AND Other1982 S CM R 469 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the High Court, challenging the allotment of cancelled land to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 rather than to themselves in satisfaction of their verified pending claim. The core legal question was whether the petitioners possessed a prior right of allotment over the respondents regarding the cancelled land of dual allottees. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any factual error in the findings of the Settlement Commissioner, who established that the petitioners' surplus units had already been transferred to another district under a general order, whereas the respondents' units remained pending in the village. The Court affirmed that in the absence of material to dislodge these concurrent factual findings, the petitioners could not claim priority. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee with pending claims has a prior right of allotment over respondents whose claims remained pending in the same village?
- Can findings of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner be interfered with without clear and positive material on record to dislodge them?
- MANSUR AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal arising out of a judgment of the High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under sections 148, 302/149, 324/149, and 323/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question raised was whether the ocular testimony and the involvement of multiple accused persons from the same family should be disbelieved on the ground of potential exaggeration or false implication of relatives. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sustainable where injured eye-witnesses, whose presence at the spot was unquestionable, corroborated the occurrence and the number of injuries inflicted was commensurate with the number of assailants, especially in the absence of any prior enmity or motive for false substitution. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses whose presence is established can be doubted on the mere plea of exaggeration or false implication of relatives?
- Does the correspondence between the number of injuries sustained by victims and the number of accused persons lend credence to the ocular account?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence without strong justification?
- MANSHA vs The STATE1982 PLD Lahore 494 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- MANSAB KHAN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioner, Mansab Khan, was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court and sentenced to death, a conviction subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ocular testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to sustain the conviction and whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the alleged motive. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the prosecution witnesses were closely related to the petitioner and that no evidence of enmity existed to suggest false implication. The Court held that the ocular testimony was credible and sufficient to support the conviction. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts had provided cogent reasons for imposing the death penalty, rejecting the argument for a lesser sentence based on motive. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Questions settled- Is ocular testimony from witnesses related to the accused sufficient to sustain a murder conviction in the absence of evidence of enmity?
- Does the existence of a weak motive for a crime necessitate the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- MANSAB KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1982 CLC 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
- MANGTA vs LAB DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a sale transaction is divisible for the purposes of pre-emption when the sale deed specifies shares for the vendees, but the consideration is paid in a lump sum. The petitioner, a vendee, argued that the transaction was divisible, allowing him to retain his superior right of pre-emption despite associating with other vendees who lacked such rights. The Supreme Court held that the mere recital of specified shares in a sale deed does not establish divisibility of the transaction if the consideration is paid in a lump sum, absent evidence of separate payments by individual vendees. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions that the petitioner lost his superior right by associating with non-superior vendees, and dismissed the petition in limine, adhering to the established principle that such transactions are indivisible without proof of separate consideration payments.
Questions settled- Does the mere recital of specified shares in a sale deed render a transaction divisible for pre-emption purposes?
- Can a vendee with a superior right of pre-emption lose that right by associating with other vendees who lack such a right?
- Is a sale transaction divisible for pre-emption purposes when the consideration is paid in a lump sum?
- MANDO ETC. vs MUHAMMAD UMAR, Etc1982 CLC 284 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These revision petitions arose from a suit for declaration of tenancy rights filed by the petitioners before the Qazi, Sarawan. The trial court dismissed an application to amend the plaint to include a relief for possession, and subsequently dismissed the suit under Order IX, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 upon refusing an adjournment. A subsequent application for restoration under Order IX, Rule 9 and Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was also dismissed as time-barred. The Balochistan High Court held that procedural laws must be interpreted liberally to advance the cause of substantial justice rather than stifling it through technicalities, and that amendments to plaints allowing the inclusion of consequential relief such as possession ought not to be withheld normally unless they prejudice the opposing party. The High Court set aside the impugned orders, accepted both revision petitions, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for expeditious disposal after permitting the amendment.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court should refuse an amendment of the plaint seeking to add a prayer for possession in a declaratory suit?
- Does blind-folded adherence to procedural technicalities justify dismissing a suit where the interests of substantial justice require a decision on merits?
- Whether the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is barred when an application for review of an order of dismissal of a suit has been filed?
- MANAZIRUL HAQ vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1982 PLC 903 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- MAMOON AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 916 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- Malik REHAMATULLAH vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMJAD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 827 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
- Malik REHAMATULLAH vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMJAD AND OTHER1982 CLC 827 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
- Malik MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 342 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik MURID AHMAD vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- Malik MUKHTAR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTOCK AND 21982 PLC (C. S.) 238 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM1982 PLD Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent rejection of the petitioner's plaint in a civil suit filed to declare ownership and seek an injunction regarding property affected by an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether a separate civil suit is barred when a third party, claiming independent ownership and possession, is dispossessed through the execution of an ejectment order under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Lahore High Court held that while section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller, section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, makes the execution provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable, treating the Rent Controller as an executing court. The court laid down the principle that a dispossessed third party claiming title must seek remedy via an application under Order XXI rule 100 before the Rent Controller rather than filing a separate civil suit, rendering such a suit barred under Order XXI rule 103.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Can a person dispossessed under an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller file a separate civil suit to establish title and secure possession?
- Do the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the execution of ejectment orders passed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Malik MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MAHMOODA BEGUM AND OTHER1982 CLC 473 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND 6 OTHER vs Mian QAMARUDDIN AND 10 Othe1ts1982 PLD Lahore 558 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court's judgment refusing a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning land ownership. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience sufficient to warrant the issuance of a temporary injunction in a dispute involving unpartitioned joint property. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the lower courts' orders, and granted the temporary injunction. The Court held that to succeed in an application for a temporary injunction, a party need not prove their case conclusively but must demonstrate an arguable case. It further established that in disputes involving unpartitioned joint property, issuing a temporary injunction is appropriate to prevent the introduction of third parties and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The Court emphasized that when disposing of applications for temporary injunctions or passing interlocutory orders, it is desirable to avoid detailed discussions on the merits of the case to prevent prejudice to either party during the subsequent trial.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required for a party to succeed in an application for a temporary injunction?
- Is it appropriate for a court to discuss the merits of a case in detail when disposing of an application for a temporary injunction?
- Should a temporary injunction be issued in disputes involving unpartitioned joint property to avoid the induction of strangers?
- Malik MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs SAHIB YAR1982 CLC 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- Malik MLJRID AHMAD vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- MALIK Masih vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL/CIVIL JUDGE, BHAKHAR AND1982 CLC 1693 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MALIK MASIH vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL/CIVIL JUDGE, BHAKAR AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- Malik INAYATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD FARYAD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2073 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- Malik INAYATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD FARYAD AND OTHER1982 CLC 2073 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM RASUL vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1982 CLC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- MALA AND 7 Others vs JAHANGIR AND 3 Other1982 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 25-4-1981, which dismissed their appeal. The petitioners raised two primary grounds: first, that the court failed to consider the waiver of pre-emption rights by the tenant, Jahangir; and second, that the court erred regarding the jurisdiction of the Collector and other authorities in matters involving the dispossession of a tenant by someone other than the landlord. The Supreme Court observed that while the tenant's conduct was previously considered in the context of alleged forcible dispossession, the specific issue of pre-emptive rights as a tenant was not raised or examined in the High Court proceedings. Regarding the jurisdictional argument, the Court found that the cited precedent was irrelevant as it dealt with the interpretation of 'tenant' under the Land Reforms Regulation, whereas the current matter did not involve the term 'landlord' as the petitioners suggested. Concluding that the jurisdictional questions had already been exhaustively addressed, the Court held that no grounds for review existed and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained on grounds that were not raised or examined in the High Court proceedings?
- Does the Land Reforms Regulation provide for the interpretation of the term 'landlord' in the context of dispossession of a tenant?
- MAKHDOOM ABDUL HALIM SHAH vs AKHTAR ALI1982 CLC 1819 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
- MAKHDOOM ABDUL HALIM SHAH vs AKHTAIZ ALI1982 CLC 1819 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
- MAKHAN KHAN vs GHULAM RASOOL1982 CLC 1307 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- MAJOR SHER AFZAL vs Mst. SHAMIM FIRDAUS AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a dismissed review petition filed by the petitioner, Major Sher Afzal, following a long-standing litigation regarding the paternity of a child and the marital status of the respondents. The petitioner sought to restore his review petition, which had been dismissed in default, and reiterated requests for additional evidence, specifically a genetic test, to challenge the finality of a decree affirmed by multiple courts over sixteen years. The Court observed that the petitioner had previously attempted to introduce similar pleas through his second wife, which were rejected for lack of bona fides, inordinate delay, and the absence of valid grounds for review. The Court held that there was no justification for reopening a case already concluded by direct oral and documentary evidence, nor for allowing a retrial under the guise of new evidence. The Court emphasized that the litigation must reach finality and that the petitioner's attempts to prolong proceedings through repeated applications and requests for adjournment constituted an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the application for restoration was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party seek the restoration of a review petition after it has been dismissed in default due to the absence of counsel?
- Is a court justified in refusing to reopen a concluded case for the purpose of conducting a genetic test when sufficient direct evidence has already been adjudicated?
- Does the filing of repetitive applications by a party and their relatives to reopen a settled matter constitute an abuse of the process of law?
- MAJOR MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1982 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from the release of a Major in the Pakistan Army, who challenged his discharge from service after being recalled from deputation with the East Pakistan Rifles. The petitioner sought a declaration that his release without an opportunity to show cause was illegal and void, arguing that his deputation removed him from Army discipline and that Pakistan Army Regulation No. 269 required a Court of Enquiry to investigate allegations against him. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings. The Court held that the petitioner remained subject to the Pakistan Army Act throughout his service, including his deputation, and that his tenure was held at the pleasure of the government. Furthermore, the Court determined that the cited Regulation was directory rather than a mandatory guarantee providing a basis for civil litigation. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed the principle that civil courts cannot intervene to grant redress to Armed Forces officers regarding their discharge from service, as they do not enjoy the same tenure protections as civil servants.
Questions settled- Does an officer of the Armed Forces on deputation cease to be subject to the Pakistan Army Act?
- Is Pakistan Army Regulation No. 269 a mandatory provision that creates a cause of action for civil litigation?
- Can civil courts intervene to grant redress to an officer of the Armed Forces against discharge from service?
- MAJOR MUHAMMAD SULEMAN KHAN vs S. SULTANA FAKHIRA BEGUM1982 CLC 128 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
- MAJOR MALIK MUHAMMAD AFZAL ETC. vs Mst. MAIMUNA SHEIKH AND Another1982 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an eviction application filed by the respondents against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller ordered eviction after finding default and failure of the petitioners to produce evidence. The Additional District Judge allowed the petitioners' appeal based on a purported compromise found in case diary entries, holding that the respondents were bound by an offer made by their advocate. The Lahore High Court set aside the District Court's order and remanded the matter for decision on merits, holding the compromise terms were not met. Upon further petition, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no compromise whatever between the parties, and the Additional District Judge's order finding a compromise was totally erroneous. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the remand for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an advocate's conditional statement in a case diary constitutes a binding compromise between the parties?
- Can an appellate court set aside an eviction order on the basis of a non-existent compromise without examining the merits of default?
- MAJOR (RTD.) AHMAD KHAN BHATTI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2614 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-16Read full judgment →
- MAJOR (RETD.) M. AZAM KHAN AND Another vs TOWN COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS, KHEWRA AND Other1982 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a challenge to the removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairman, Town Committee, Khewra. The petitioner, having submitted a resignation under alleged coercion, subsequently sought to withdraw it, arguing that under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, a resignation only becomes effective once placed before the Local Council. Simultaneously, a no-confidence motion was carried against him by a majority of the Council members. The core legal question was whether the resignation was effective without being placed before the Council and whether the High Court erred in considering the no-confidence motion's result. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that it would not interfere on technical grounds where the petitioner had clearly lost the confidence of the house. The Court emphasized that where a substantial majority of members (13 out of 18) had voted against the petitioner, he could not be thrust upon the Council based on technical or fetish pleas regarding the procedural validity of his resignation.
Questions settled- Does a resignation of a Chairman of a Local Council become effective immediately upon submission to a functionary or only after being placed before the Local Council?
- Can a court refuse to grant relief on technical grounds when it is evident that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the representative body?
- Is a Chairman entitled to remain in office if a no-confidence motion has been validly passed against him by the requisite majority?
- MAJOO SHAH vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 476 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
- MAJID vs QUTAB DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a review petition by the Lahore High Court, which originated from a dispute over the allotment of land under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether, after the Additional Settlement Commissioner had exercised revisional powers regarding an allotment, the Settlement Commissioner retained the authority to further exercise revisional powers under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the revisional powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, once exercised by a delegatee such as the Additional Settlement Commissioner, are exhausted. Consequently, the Settlement Commissioner, being another delegatee, lacked the jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers a second time. The Court held that the second revision petition was incompetent following the promulgation of Ordinance No. XIII of 1964, which removed the authority for such successive exercises of revisional power. The principle established is that where statutory revisional powers are delegated, the exhaustion of that power by one delegatee precludes another delegatee from exercising the same power in the same matter.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner exercise revisional powers after the Additional Settlement Commissioner has already exercised such powers in the same matter?
- Does the exhaustion of revisional powers by one delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner preclude another delegatee from exercising the same power?
- Is a second revision petition competent after the promulgation of Ordinance No. XIII of 1964?
- MAJID MAHMOOD vs SAJID HUSSAIN AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 147 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- MAJEEDA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD DIN1982 CLC 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- MAJ. Z. A. ISMAIL AND Others vs BEGUM HAMIDA SAADAT ALI KHAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- MAJ. Z. A. ISMAIL AND Others vs BEGUM HAMIDA SAADAT ALI KHAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- MAJ. M. A. HALIM vs Hakim MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND Other1982 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the confirmation of an auction sale of a jointly owned bungalow property in a partition suit. The core legal question was whether a party who participated in and consented to an auction process by seeking adjournments to produce a higher bidder can subsequently challenge the auction proceedings as a nullity due to alleged procedural irregularities in the proclamation of auction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having persuaded the trial court to act upon his own solemn statement and request for time, was estopped from going back on his representation and could not challenge the validity of the auction. The key principle laid down is that a party who invites or consents to a judicial course of action and secures adjournments based on their own undertaking cannot subsequently turn around and impugn the resulting order on the grounds of procedural irregularities.
Questions settled- Whether a party who obtains adjournments to produce a higher bidder can subsequently challenge an auction on grounds of procedural irregularities?
- Does an auction proclamation drawn up by an auctioneer rather than the court render the auction proceedings void?
- Can a party go back on a solemn statement made before the trial court regarding the confirmation of an auction sale?
- MAIRAJ BEGUM vs EJAZ ANWAR AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment acquitting the respondent of a murder charge. The prosecution alleged that the respondent stabbed the deceased due to an illicit liaison with his sister, whereas the respondent claimed self-defence and grave and sudden provocation inside his house. The Supreme Court examined the standard for interfering with an acquittal and evaluated whether the High Court improperly appreciated the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by misreading material evidence, ignoring eye-witness testimony, and failing to proper juxtapose the prosecution and defence versions. Rejecting the complete defence of self-defence, the Court found that the deceased had intruded into the respondent's home to pursue an illicit relationship, provoking the respondent into losing self-control and repeatedly stabbing him. Applying Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal under Section 302, convicted the respondent under Section 304(I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment of acquittal in a criminal case?
- Does an absconding fugitive lose the right of audience and representation through legal counsel before the Supreme Court?
- Whether finding a person intruding into one's home pursuing an illicit liaison with a family member constitutes grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- MAHTOON MAULA BUX AND 34 OTHERS vs MESSRS G. M. FISHERIES LTD.1982 PLC 978 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mahr GHULAM NABI vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AND Another1982 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for the cancellation of bail previously granted to respondent No. 1, who was accused in a murder case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The bail was initially granted by the High Court on the ground of inordinate delay in the commencement of the trial. Subsequently, an application for cancellation of bail was filed, relying on a Supreme Court precedent that mere delay was not a ground for bail, but the High Court dismissed it, holding that an order granting bail could not be recalled without cogent reasons such as misrepresentation or abuse of concession. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was correct when passed and that subsequent events, such as a newly registered case under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code, cannot invalidate a past correct order, though the petitioner could seek cancellation of bail in the appropriate court based on those subsequent events. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether inordinate delay in the commencement of a trial can form the basis for granting bail in a murder case?
- Can an order granting bail be recalled in the absence of cogent reasons such as misrepresentation or suppression of facts?
- Whether subsequent events occurring after the passing of an order can be made the basis for obtaining the reversal of that order on appeal?
- MAHMOODUL HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODUL HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHER1982 CLC 2141 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODUL HASSAN AND Others vs Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH ETC.1982 CLC 2355 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODUL HASSAN AND Others vs GHAZANFAR ALI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODUL HASSAN AND Others vs GHAZANFAR ALI AND OTHER1982 CLC 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODUL HASAN AND Othsrss vs Sayed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH AND Other1982 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether a default in rent payment committed by an original tenant, for which an application to strike off the defence had been filed during his lifetime, could be used as grounds to strike off the defence and evict his successors after his death. The Supreme Court held that the eviction proceedings and the specific complaint regarding the default were initiated during the original tenant's lifetime. Although the landlords temporarily ceased pursuing the application, they did not waive their right to seek ejectment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the Rent Controller could legitimately strike off the defence of the successors based on the established default of the predecessor. The principle laid down is that where an application for striking off a defence due to rent default is initiated during the tenant's lifetime, the right to pursue such ejectment persists against the successors.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek the eviction of a deceased tenant's successors based on a rent default committed by the original tenant?
- Does a temporary decision not to pursue an application for striking off a defence constitute a waiver of the right to seek ejectment?
- Can a Rent Controller strike off the defence of a successor tenant for a default committed by the predecessor?
- MAHMOOD vs SALIM ZIA AND Other1982 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal regarding a mukhbari (informer) application filed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioner had alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents obtained land allotments through fraud and misrepresentation. The Additional Settlement Commissioner initially entertained the application but later dismissed it on the ground that proceedings could not continue against a deceased person. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, dismissed the petition, holding that an informer possesses no vested right to challenge the rejection of their information. The Letters Patent Appeal was subsequently dismissed as incompetent under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal legally sound but granted leave to appeal against the Single Judge's order. The Court held that the legal status and rights of an informer to challenge the rejection of their application, particularly in light of statutory provisions and subsequent repealing legislation, require further judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Does an informer have a vested right to challenge the rejection of their application under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Is a Letters Patent Appeal competent against an order passed by a Single Judge in writ jurisdiction under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Can proceedings initiated by an informer continue against the legal heirs of a deceased respondent?
- MAHMOOD SHAH vs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises out of a labor dispute wherein the petitioner, a permanent employee of respondent No. 1, was dismissed from service following an inquiry for alleged absence from duty. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits upon finding the inquiry unfair. On appeal, the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the finding regarding the unfair inquiry but modified the order by permitting the management to hold a fresh inquiry and making the award of back benefits dependent upon the outcome of such fresh inquiry. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the Tribunal was justified in withholding and making back benefits dependent on the result of a fresh inquiry where the original inquiry was flawed. The Sindh High Court held that since the initial evidence could not be relied upon to sustain the punishment, it could not simultaneously absolve the employee of the charges, thereby validating the Tribunal's order directing a de novo inquiry and making back benefits conditional. The key principle laid down is that where an employment inquiry is set aside for lack of a fair opportunity, the management may be permitted to hold a fresh inquiry, and the entitlement to back benefits can lawfully be made to abide by the final result of that fresh inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the Labour Court or Tribunal can permit the management to hold a fresh inquiry when the original departmental inquiry is found to be unfair?
- Can back benefits be validly made dependent upon the result of a fresh departmental inquiry when the initial dismissal order is set aside on procedural grounds?
- Does the Labour Court have the jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to go behind a dismissal order to examine the facts and merits of the case?
- MAHMOOD KHAN vs NASIMA KHATOON1982 CLC 1807 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD HUSSAIN vs ZAHOOR HUSSAIN AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ALI SHAH vs GENERAL MANAGER AND PROJECT DIRECTOR, TARBELA1982 PLC (C. S.) 705 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MAHBOOBUR RAHMAN AND ANOTHER vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY1982 PLC 452 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-07-08Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB MASIH vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE A1982 P Cr. L J 564 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ASHRAF vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ABANDONED PROPERTIES AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1724 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ALAM WARSI vs Syed MUHAMMAD SHAMIM1982 CLC 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
- MAH.BOOB ASH RAF vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ABANDONED PROPERTIES AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1724 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M. YAKOOB vs Ch. BARKAT ALI1982 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M. SAIFULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 77 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition called in question the right of respondent No. 1 to hold the seat of a Union Council as a peasant member after inheriting agricultural land that brought his total holding above the statutory limit of five acres. The core legal questions were whether a special interest qualification must be maintained throughout the tenure of office, whether involuntary acquisition of property through inheritance distinguishes from incurred disqualification, and whether a writ of quo warranto lies to unseat a member who loses their legal character. The Lahore High Court held that special qualifications for reserved seats must be maintained continuously for the full tenure, and losing the status of a peasant results in an implied cessation of the right to hold office, which can be challenged via quo warranto irrespective of whether statutory de-seating provisions were invoked by the government. The court laid down that a representative occupying a special interest seat must continuously possess the requisite qualifications, and the inability to do so—even through inherited property—results in disqualification and vacation of the office.
Questions settled- Does a member holding a special interest seat as a peasant cease to be qualified if their agricultural landholding exceeds five acres due to inheritance during their tenure?
- Is a writ of quo warranto an appropriate remedy to challenge the continued holding of a local council seat by a person who has lost their pre-requisite special qualification after election?
- Must the special qualifications required for reserved seats in local councils be possessed only at the time of election or continuously for the full tenure of office?
- Does the receipt of property through inheritance that exceeds the statutory land limit for a peasant constitute a disqualification under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- M. SAEED AHMAD DAR AND 14 Other vs SHAHABUDDIN AND 16 Other1982 PLD Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- M. NAZIR vs S. SHAUKAT ALI1982 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioner under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, based on a bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears and future monthly rent pursuant to section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The petitioner delayed depositing the rent for September 1976 by one day, attributing the delay to his wife's illness. Consequently, the Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence and ordered eviction, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court in limine. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the default was not wilful and should be condoned. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Rent Controller lacks the legal power to condone a delay in depositing rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller has the power to condone delay in depositing rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a one-day delay in depositing monthly rent constitute a default under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- M. M. K. A. ZAI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND Another1982 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a civil petition for special leave to appeal and two criminal appeals arising from a dispute over the identity of an evacuee property, known as Raja Mansion in Karachi, sold by private negotiations following an auction. The core legal questions involve determining whether a disputed fifth property unit was part of the sale and whether the inclusion of this unit in the Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) constituted fraud under criminal law. The Supreme Court held that the disputed fifth unit was never part of the auction or private negotiations, making its inclusion in the P.T.O. void, but acquitted the appellants of criminal charges on the ground that the requisite criminal intent (mens rea) for cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not established beyond reasonable doubt due to overlapping property numbers and ambiguous auction proceedings. The key principle laid down is that while administrative authorities can correct erroneous entries in transfer documents to reflect the actual property sold, criminal convictions require clear proof of fraudulent intent rather than mere negligence or administrative errors.
Questions settled- Whether property numbers or well-known boundaries determine the true identity of an evacuee property sold by the Settlement Department?
- Does the lack of a prescribed time limit under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 validate suo motu revisions after a significant delay?
- Whether the inclusion of an un-auctioned property unit in a Permanent Transfer Order necessarily constitutes a deliberate and fraudulent act under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether an offence relating to the fraudulent procurement of an evacuee property document falls exclusively under Section 27 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 or constitutes a substantive offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- M. LATIF QURESHI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed as premature an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether a petition for quashment challenging the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to proceed against an accused can be entertained before the Magistrate himself determines his own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in finding the quashment petition premature, as the objection regarding jurisdiction should first be raised before and determined by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a Magistrate must take up an objection regarding his jurisdiction in the first instance, dispose of it by a speaking order at the outset, and only proceed on merits if he concludes that he possesses the requisite jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for quashment of criminal proceedings challenging a Magistrate's jurisdiction is premature when filed before the Magistrate determines the jurisdictional issue?
- Must a Magistrate decide an objection regarding his jurisdiction by a speaking order at the outset of proceedings?
- M. LATIF QURESHI vs THE STATE ETC. s1982 P Cr. L J 24 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
- M. E. PATEL vs TAJAMUL HUSAIN1982 CLC 2239 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-08Read full judgment →
- M. DURVESH M. RAFIQ & COMPANY vs GHULAB KHAN1982 PLC 940 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-28Read full judgment →
- M. AYOOB SAIG AND 2 Other vs NAWAB RASOOL AND 7 Other1982 PLD Karachi 531 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
- M. A. YAHYA vs NAWAB ABDUL MALIK ESTATES LTD.1982 CLC 772 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →