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.
- HAKIM ALI AND Other vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL Etc.1982 PLD Supreme Court 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition against the setting aside of their local council election by the Election Tribunal. The core legal question is whether an Election Tribunal can declare an election void as a whole without a positive finding that the irregularities committed had materially affected the result of the election. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a required finding under the relevant rules that the result of the election had been materially affected, the Tribunal's order setting aside the election is bad in law, and the High Court had misread the Tribunal's findings on uncast votes. The court laid down the principle that an election cannot be validly set aside without a clear, evidence-based finding that the proven irregularities materially affected the election outcome, failing which it improperly disenfranchises voters.
Questions settled- Whether an Election Tribunal can set aside an election without a finding that irregularities materially affected the result?
- Is an order of an Election Tribunal sustainable if it fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 21 of the Local Council (Election Petitions) Rules 1979?
- Does setting aside an election without a clear finding on material effect amount to disenfranchising genuine voters?
- HAKEEMUDDIN AND Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 967(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking special leave to appeal against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 168-R of 1970 by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of departmental authorities to interfere with land allotment proceedings. The core legal question concerns whether repetitive challenges and review applications are maintainable after the underlying dispute has already been conclusively determined and foreclosed by a previous judgment of the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that once litigation between the parties stands foreclosed by a prior High Court judgment, subsequent rounds of applications and writ petitions merely reiterating rejected pleas are incompetent and rightly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that re-agitating settled matters through successive collateral proceedings is an abuse of the judicial process and will not be entertained.
Questions settled- Can a party maintain a review application or subsequent writ petition after their challenge to the same order has already been dismissed by the High Court?
- Whether repetitive litigation of settled land allotment disputes is permissible under the law?
- Does the High Court rightly decline to interfere with departmental orders when the underlying controversy is already foreclosed by a prior judgment?
- HAKEEM HAFIZ MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR (RESIDUAL1982 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- HAKAM DIN vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL AND 14 Other1982 SCMR 1734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a Constitutional Petition regarding a restitution order issued under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964. The core legal questions were whether the mortgage in dispute was a usufructuary mortgage, thereby permitting restitution under the Act, and whether the Act itself was ultra vires the Constitution of 1962. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the mortgage was indeed usufructuary in nature. The Court reasoned that the mere existence of a clause allowing interest to be added to the principal, rather than creating personal liability for the mortgagor, does not convert a usufructuary mortgage into an anomalous one. The key principle laid down is that the classification of a mortgage under Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 depends on the specific phraseology and the intention of the parties as evidenced by the entire deed, rather than isolated clauses regarding interest demands.
Questions settled- Is a mortgage usufructuary if the deed provides for interest to be added to the principal rather than creating personal liability for the mortgagor?
- Does the inclusion of a clause allowing a mortgagee to demand interest convert a usufructuary mortgage into an anomalous mortgage?
- Whether the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964 is ultra vires the Constitution of 1962?
- Haji YAR MUHAMMAD ETC. vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION ETC.1982 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
- Haji YAR MUHAMMAD ETC. vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION ETC1982 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
- Haji SULEMAN vs Haji AMIN SHAKOOR TUMBI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- Haji SULEMAN vs Haji AMIN S14AKOOR TUMBI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- Haji SULEMAN ALI MUHAMMAD (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs AHMEDPLD 1982 Karachi l I l · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
- Haji SHAHAB DIN vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND OTHER1982 CLC 28 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
- HAJI SHAH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, MUZAFFARABAD1982 CLC 917 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY1982 CLC 2039 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- Haji Sh. FAZAL ELAHI (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AYUB1982 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a second appeal filed by the respondents under section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was accepted and the appellants were ordered to be ejected from the disputed premises. The core legal question involved whether the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the building by constructing cabins, bathrooms, and latrines, and whether the High Court erred in altering concurrent findings of fact under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that since the premises were let out for running a hotel with the landlord's knowledge, structural changes necessary for that purpose were implicit, and the landlord failed to prove that the tenants caused actual material damage. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's ejectment order was set aside, establishing that structural modifications inherent to the agreed commercial purpose of a tenancy do not ipso facto impair the value or utility of the building.
Questions settled- Whether the construction of cabins and bathrooms in premises let out for running a hotel materially impairs the value and utility of the building?
- Can a High Court alter concurrent findings of fact under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the absence of a substantial error or defect?
- Does a landlord who knowingly lets out premises for a specific commercial purpose like a hotel retain the right to object to structural changes inherent to that purpose?
- Haji ROSHAN ALI vs AMIR BUX AND OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 983 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- Haji RAB NAWAZ vs Mian SAFDAR KHAN 3 AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
- Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Haji MUBARAK AND 4 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHMMAD vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 547 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD YUNUS AND 4 Others vs MUHAMMAD HANIF PEHALWAN AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 49 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN vs ABDUL HANEEF AND 5 OTHERS1982 CLC 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN vs ABDUL HANEEF AND 5 OTHER1982 CLC 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, refugees from India, illegally occupied Government land in Multan and subsequently shifted to another site, which they also occupied illegally while constructing shops thereon. They challenged the auction of the land to the seventh respondent through various departmental forums, culminating in a dismissed revision petition and a subsequently dismissed writ petition by the High Court, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the petitioners' locus standi to challenge the auction and whether they had filed valid transfer application forms for the property. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi because their first departmental appeal had been dismissed for default and they had failed to prove that they ever filed claim forms or transfer applications within the prescribed dates. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized occupants of government or evacuee land who fail to file prescribed transfer applications or maintain proper appellate remedies have no locus standi to challenge subsequent auctions or departmental transfers of the property.
Questions settled- Whether unauthorized occupants of government land who fail to file transfer application forms within the prescribed date have the locus standi to challenge an auction of the property?
- Does a party whose first departmental appeal is dismissed for default and who files a second appeal instead of seeking restoration have a valid locus standi to maintain a revision petition?
- Can a party challenge concurrent findings of settlement authorities regarding the non-filing of claim forms without producing documentary evidence to the contrary?
- Haji MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL1982 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition in an urban settlement matter. The core issue was whether the petitioner possessed the requisite locus standi to challenge the transfer of a land lot under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 and Settlement Scheme No. IX, given that the lot had already been transferred to another applicant prior to the petitioner's application. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that on the date the petitioner submitted his application form under Settlement Scheme No. IX, the disputed land was not available for transfer as it was already validly transferred by order of the Settlement Department. Furthermore, procedural objections regarding the format of the prior application were deemed unavailing as they were neither raised by the department nor presented before the High Court. Consequently, the leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a person have locus standi to seek transfer of property under a settlement scheme if the property has already been transferred to another applicant?
- Can a party raise a new factual or procedural objection for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the High Court?
- Haji MUHAMMAD ALI vs YAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHER1982 CLC 190 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs SHAHEEN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
- Haji MOHAMMAD ARBAB vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 370 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Haji MANZOOR AHMAD AND Others vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION1982 CLC 1554 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- HAJI LAL MOHAMMAD BIRI WORKS vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 88 · Allahabad High Court · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
- Haji KHUDA BUX vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1982 CLC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an eviction order against a tenant on grounds of wilful default in rent payment and the landlord's personal bona fide requirement. The tenant contended that payments were made to the Excise and Taxation Department pursuant to a statutory notice under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958, due to the landlord's tax arrears. The core legal questions were whether such payments constituted a valid discharge of rent obligations and whether the court should consider subsequent events, specifically the landlord obtaining possession of another shop in the same building, regarding the personal requirement claim. The Court held that payment to the tax authorities under a valid statutory notice effectively transferred the right to recover rent, thus negating the claim of wilful default. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it is the duty of a court to take notice of subsequent events to mould its decree to ensure complete justice. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Rent Controller to determine the impact of the landlord’s acquisition of the other shop on the current eviction claim.
Questions settled- Does payment of rent to tax authorities under a notice issued pursuant to the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 constitute a valid discharge of a tenant's rent obligation?
- Is a court empowered to take notice of subsequent events occurring after the institution of a suit to mould its decree?
- Does a landlord's acquisition of another premises of the same class in the same building during the pendency of eviction proceedings affect the maintainability of an application based on personal bona fide requirement?
- Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD ETC. vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 4 Others vs Sh. MUHAMMAD MUZAFFARUDDIN1982 SCMR 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the administration and management of a mosque constructed on government land in Ghalla Mandi, Jaranwala. The respondents initiated a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to establish a scheme for the mosque's administration. The trial court found insufficient evidence regarding the financing and management of the mosque but proceeded to appoint a Board of Management comprising various ex-officio government officials without specifying a religious requirement for these appointees. On appeal, the High Court reversed the trial court's findings of fact, concluding that the respondents had successfully discharged their burden of proof. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that there was no concurrent finding of fact, that material documents were ignored, that irrelevant considerations influenced the decision, and that a necessary party—a registered body controlling the mosque—was not impleaded. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case required a fuller examination, and ordered the continuation of interim management arrangements pending the final adjudication of the dispute.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for the administration of a mosque can be maintained under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court appoint ex-officio government officials to a mosque management board without requiring them to be Muslim?
- Does the failure to implead a registered body exercising control over a mosque constitute a defect in a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Haji KARIM BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD INAM ULLAH AND Other1982 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's second appeal regarding the ownership of an evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authority could lawfully resume a property after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) due to the transferee's failure to pay an alleged charge created by the Custodian. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct. The Court reasoned that upon the issuance of the P.T.D., the property ceased to be part of the Compensation Pool, thereby divesting the Custodian and Settlement Authorities of jurisdiction to create charges against or resume the property. Furthermore, the Court established that a P.T.D. cannot be declared void simply because a portion of the transfer price remains unpaid; such outstanding amounts must be recovered through standard legal processes rather than property resumption. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the property had vested absolutely in the transferee upon the issuance of the P.T.D. free from subsequent encumbrances.
Questions settled- Can the Settlement Authority resume an evacuee property after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed remove a property from the Compensation Pool?
- Can a Permanent Transfer Deed be declared void solely on the basis of unpaid transfer price?
- Is a Custodian's order creating a charge against a property binding on a transferee who was not a party to the proceedings?
- Haji KARIM BAKHSH AND Another vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Sessions against the petitioners under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged murder of Javid Muhammad by administering poison. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A to quash criminal proceedings when alternative remedies such as moving the trial court for acquittal under sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are available. The Peshawar High Court held that the application was premature and dismissed it, ruling that the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A is not an alternative or additional jurisdiction to be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure when another specific remedy is provided. The key principles laid down are that the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A are extraordinary and exceptional, and should not normally be invoked where an alternative statutory remedy exists before the trial court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an alternative remedy is available before the trial court?
- Whether an application for quashment of criminal proceedings is premature when provisions like sections 249-A and 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked before the trial court?
- What are the parameters for invoking the extraordinary inherent powers of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of the court?
- Haji KADIR BUX ANISUDDI N M. IQBAL BAJWA NOOR KHAN CHOUDHRY vs PROVI_ef1c6a581982 SCMR 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan raised a common question of law regarding the computation of the limitation period for filing appeals before the Sind Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, read with Section 23 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core issue was whether the 30-day limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal begins to run from the date of communication of the original departmental order (allowing a 90-day exclusion for departmental remedies, totaling 120 days), or whether it commences only after the expiry of the 90-day waiting period following the filing of a departmental appeal. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court held that the 30-day limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal commences only after the expiry of the 90-day waiting period from the date on which the departmental appeal, application, or representation was preferred. The Court laid down the principle that the right to appeal to the Tribunal only accrues upon the expiration of the statutory waiting period, and limitation cannot run against a person until they are legally permitted to file the action.
Questions settled- Does the 30-day limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 commence from the date of communication of the original order or after the expiry of the 90-day waiting period?
- Can a period of limitation begin to run against a civil servant before the legal right to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal has fully accrued?
- How should a conflict between a literal and a beneficial interpretation of a limitation provision in a remedial service statute be resolved?
- HAJI JUWAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 735 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
- Haji IBRAHIM vs S. RAHMATULLAH1982 CLC 603 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- HAJI IBRAHIM ISHAQ JOHRI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WEST), KARACHI1982 PLD Karachi 266 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
- Haji HARIFULLAH vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- Haji GUL KHAN AND 2 Other vs The STATE1982 PLD Karachi 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MIAN BUX AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER S vs MIAN BUX AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 6 Others vs THE STATE.1982 P Cr. L J 777 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
- Haji FAZAL KARIM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the striking off of a tenant's defence and consequential eviction under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, due to non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The core legal question concerned whether the tenant was afforded a proper opportunity of showing cause before his defence was struck off. The Supreme Court held that the tenant and his counsel were duly aware of the proceedings and offered an explanation, satisfying the requirements of natural justice, and that Rent Controllers are not required to conduct full-fledged trials or record formal evidence when deciding on default under Section 13(6). The petition was dismissed as the lower authorities acted within their lawful authority, establishing the principle that summary inquiries suffice for default proceedings under rent restriction laws.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant is entitled to an opportunity of showing cause before his defence is struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Is a Rent Controller required to conduct a full-fledged trial or frame issues when considering the striking off of a defence?
- Can a High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with an order of a Rent Controller that is based on a proper evaluation of facts and without material irregularity?
- Haji FAZAL I MANAN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction for illegal mining of emeralds under the N.-W.F.P. Mining Concession Rules, 1976. The petitioner, along with others, was accused of extracting emeralds from land beneath his house in Mangora, District Swat. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner, and the Sessions Judge maintained the conviction on appeal. The High Court affirmed these findings, though it reduced the sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the Mining Concession Rules were inapplicable to the specific locality of Mangora and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the relevant notifications and confirmed that the Rules were indeed applicable to the area. Regarding the merits, the Court found that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts were free from legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction and sentence were lawful and proper, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Are the N.-W.F.P. Mining Concession Rules, 1976 applicable to the locality of Mangora, District Swat?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- Haji DHANI PARTO vs ABDUL KASSIM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1457 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-23Read full judgment →
- Haji BASHIR AHMAD AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR TAHIR; RENT1982C L C 1698 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji BASHIR AHMAD AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR TAHIR, RENT1982 CLC 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAHANDO vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR1982 CLC 2309 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-08Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH BACHAYO vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- HAJI Alias SACHAL vs THE STATE1982PCr.LJ 901 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-26Read full judgment →
- Haji AHMAD BINYAMIN vs Msr. AMTUL MANNA N1982 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- Haji AHMAD BINYA MIN vs AMTUL MANNA N1982 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- Haji AFTAB HUSSAIN AND Other vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR1982 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUR RASHID vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1982 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUR RAHIM vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1470 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
- Haft MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2129 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- Haft MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs SECRETARY (FOOD), PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 297 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-29Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs The STATE AND 5 Other1982 PLD Karachi 967 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 944 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MOHKAM UD DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court, which quashed proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could utilize the provisions of the Act to reopen property disputes that had already been adjudicated against him by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The High Court found that the petitioner, having failed in previous contests, was attempting to relitigate settled matters through a mukhbari application without demonstrating any fraud or misrepresentation by the respondents. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition in limine. The Court affirmed the principle that proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, are to be used sparingly and only when the Settlement Authorities are satisfied, upon examination of the record, that they have been defrauded. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order, noting that the facts did not warrant such intervention.
Questions settled- Can a party use a mukhbari application to reopen property disputes already decided by the Settlement Authorities?
- Under what circumstances should proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 be initiated?
- Is it improper to initiate proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Hafiz KHUDA YAR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 106 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
- Hafiz HASEEN AHMED vs Haji Ch. FAZALUR REHMAN1982 CLC 135 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- Hafiz HASAN MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other vs ABDUL HAMEED AND 2 Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals arising from suits for pre-emption of agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the pre-emptor had waived their right of pre-emption through conduct and whether the administrative inclusion of the suit lands within the municipal limits of Abdul Hakim Town transformed them into "urban immovable property," thereby exempting them from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the pre-emptor’s mere presence at a sale transaction does not constitute a waiver, as waiver requires a conscious and intentional relinquishment of a legal right. Regarding the property's character, the Court held that the mere administrative inclusion of agricultural land within municipal limits does not automatically convert it into "urban immovable property." The Court established the principle that "agricultural land" remains distinct from "urban immovable property" under the Act. Unless evidence demonstrates that the land has lost its agricultural character through actual development or changed usage, it remains subject to pre-emption, regardless of its administrative classification within an urban area.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of a pre-emptor at a sale transaction constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Does the inclusion of agricultural land within municipal limits via notification automatically convert it into 'urban immovable property' for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Can a court grant an extension of time for making up a deficiency in court-fee under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What constitutes 'waiver' of a statutory right of pre-emption?
- Hafiz ABDUL RAHMAN vs SAID MUHAMMAD AND Othrrss1982 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership of a private street, which was the subject of cross-suits filed by the petitioner and the respondent. Both parties sought declarations of ownership and perpetual injunctions against the other. The trial court dismissed both suits, and the District Judge subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal while accepting the respondent's appeal, relying on a prior compromise between the parties. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal in limine, affirming that the previous compromise effectively transferred the disputed property to the respondent and did not require registration. The core legal question was whether the lower courts correctly interpreted the prior compromise regarding the ownership of the lane and whether it precluded the petitioner's claim. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the lower courts correctly interpreted the previous compromise as divesting the petitioner of any title to the lane. The Court declined to examine technical arguments regarding the applicability of specific procedural rules, concluding that the lower courts had reached a correct and just decision.
Questions settled- Does a compromise entered into during court proceedings regarding property ownership require registration if the property value exceeds Rs. 100?
- Can a prior compromise decree be interpreted to divest a party of title in subsequent litigation concerning the same property?
- HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN vs VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD., SUKKUR1982 PLC 294 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- HADIAT ULLAH vs HABIB ULLAH1982 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, which ordered the eviction of a tenant from a shop on grounds of personal use by the landlord. The core legal questions involved whether the appellate court correctly disallowed the introduction of additional evidence regarding the landlord's son's alleged possession of another shop, and whether the landlord's requirement for personal use was bona fide. The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, affirming that the additional evidence could have been produced before the Rent Controller with due diligence and was therefore inadmissible at the appellate stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the shop in question was merely rented, rendering the evidence irrelevant. Regarding the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement, the Court held that this is a question of fact determined concurrently by the lower courts, and in the absence of any misreading or omission of evidence, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Questions settled- Can additional evidence be introduced at the appellate stage if it could have been produced before the Rent Controller with due diligence?
- Is the question of whether a landlord's requirement for personal use is bona fide a question of fact that can be challenged in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or omission of evidence?
- HABIBULLAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.S1982 SCMR 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of the roof of an evacuee shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellant, a transferee of a shop, challenged the correction of his Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) and Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), which excluded the shop's roof from his transfer. The core legal question was whether the Settlement authorities could correct transfer documents to align with the actual transfer order and whether the transfer of a shop in a composite building inherently includes the roof. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities possess the power to specify the division of composite buildings, whether horizontally or vertically. The Court affirmed that the appellant’s rights were limited to the shop itself, and the roof formed part of the residential portion transferred to the respondent. It was further held that correcting transfer documents to reflect the original transfer order is permissible and does not constitute an unauthorized amendment. The principle established is that transferees of ground-floor shops have no rights beyond the ceiling unless specifically demarcated, as roofs may constitute part of the upper residential tenement.
Questions settled- Can Settlement authorities correct a Permanent Transfer Order to align it with the original transfer order?
- Does the transfer of a shop in a composite building automatically include the roof of that shop?
- Do Settlement authorities have the power to divide composite buildings horizontally or vertically for transfer purposes?
- HABIBULLAH KHAN vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALAKAND AND Other1982 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge ordering the petitioner's eviction from a shop. The eviction was sought on the ground of the landlord's personal, bona fide requirement. The petitioner contended that the landlord's claim was mala fide, citing a prior notice to renew the agreement, and disputed the landlord's ownership of the property due to the lack of a registered exchange deed. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the landlord failed to prove the necessity of the shop and questioned the competency of the Rent Controller to adjudicate the matter. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, noting that the Rent Controller had thoroughly evaluated the evidence. The Court held that the petitioner's own actions, specifically depositing rent in the landlord's name, established the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership. Finding no merit in the challenges to the concurrent factual findings regarding the bona fide personal requirement, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the landlord's ownership after having previously deposited rent in the landlord's name?
- Does the existence of a prior notice to renew a tenancy agreement preclude a landlord from subsequently seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord in a rent case?
- HABIBULLAH KHAN NIAZI vs CHIEF MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR OF PAKISTAN1982 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the conviction of the petitioner, a government servant, by a Summary Military Court under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 5(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1947, and Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D), for allegedly accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D) created a new, distinct offence regarding illegal gratification or merely duplicated section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby necessitating previous sanction for prosecution under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. The court held that Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D) did not create a new offence, as its constituent acts of commission were identical to those under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, differing only in scope and prescribed punishment. Consequently, the petitioner's trial and conviction without obtaining the mandatory prior sanction from the appropriate Government were rendered without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D) creates a new offence or refers to the existing offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is prior sanction from the appropriate Government required for the prosecution of a public servant under Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D)?
- Does a difference in scope and punishment between a Martial Law Order and the Pakistan Penal Code constitute a new penal offence?
- HABIB vs SARDAR ALI AND Other1982 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that restored an allotment of land previously cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The dispute arose from the allotment of land to the respondent's predecessor, Ali Muhammad, based on his entitlement claim. The petitioner, who had been a party to earlier proceedings, failed to challenge an initial order dated 24-2-1960 which recognized the respondent's preferential right to the land. Years later, the petitioner sought to challenge the allotment by alleging calculation errors regarding the land's classification, leading the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to cancel the respondent's allotment in 1970. The High Court subsequently quashed this cancellation, finding that the original classification was correct and that the petitioner's challenge was procedurally barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having acquiesced to the 1960 order, could not subsequently challenge the resulting allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the cancellation order was untenable as it relied on incorrect information regarding the land's classification.
Questions settled- Can a party who has acquiesced in an earlier order regarding land allotment subsequently challenge the allotment by laying information under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Is an order cancelling a land allotment tenable if it is based on incorrect information regarding the classification of the land?
- HABIB SHAH AND Others vs RAFFAT PASHA AHD Other1982 SCMR 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from consolidation proceedings where the parties referred the question of consolidation of their holdings to arbitration, resulting in an award and a subsequent partition of joint property by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioners challenged the partition alleging fraud regarding thumb impressions on blank papers and failure to implement the award, but their appeals and revisions were successively dismissed by the Collector, Additional Commissioner, and the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question addressed is whether consolidation matters of this nature can be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether the alleged award holds any legal validity. The Supreme Court held that such matters cannot be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, rendering the purported award invalid, and further found no evidence supporting the allegation of fraud. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the Lahore High Court.
Questions settled- Can a matter regarding the consolidation of holdings be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Is an award rendered in consolidation proceedings without legal backing under the Arbitration Act, 1940 enforceable?
- Whether concurrent findings regarding the validity of consolidation proceedings can be interfered with in the absence of record support for allegations of fraud?
- HABIB HASSAN QADRI AND ANOTHER vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1982 CLC 1960 · Sindh High Court · 1081-10-18Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI vs Mian MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Mian MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 714 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. KARACHI vs SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION1982 PLC 316 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
- HABIB AHMED vs Ch. HASHMAT ALI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND 71982 CLC 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- HABIB AHMED QARI vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 51 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
- HA KEEM HAFIZ MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR (RESIDUAL1982 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- GULZAR KHAN vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision application arising from concurrent findings of lower courts in a property dispute. The core legal question involved whether the lower courts and the High Court erred in their revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by affirming that the disputed property was joint property belonging to the common ancestor of the parties and subject to partition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts—supported by the petitioner's own pleadings and pedigree table acknowledging the common ancestor—suffered from no jurisdictional error warranting interference. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on admissions in pleadings cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of any jurisdictional defect.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding joint property can be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party challenge a finding of joint ownership when their own pleadings and pedigree table establish that the land belonged to a common ancestor?
- GULZAR Alias GULZARI vs THE STATE1982 SC M R254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail based on the circumstantial evidence presented against the accused. The prosecution's case relied on testimonies from witnesses who allegedly saw the petitioner in the company of the deceased shortly before the murder, observed the petitioner fleeing the scene in a confused state, and evidence regarding the recovery of the deceased's personal belongings, including a purse and wrist watch, as well as a blood-stained weapon and clothing from the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to cancel bail was correct, noting that prima facie circumstantial evidence existed against the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's exercise of discretion, finding no grounds for interference, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion to cancel bail when prima facie circumstantial evidence exists?
- Is the recovery of a deceased person's belongings and blood-stained items from an accused sufficient to justify the cancellation of bail?
- GULZAR AHMAD PIRZADA vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 21982 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's ejectment from a rented property. The landlord had filed an ejectment application against the tenant, an advocate, who was directed by the Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to deposit monthly rent before the 15th of every succeeding month. During the proceedings, the landlord applied to strike off the tenant's defence for delayed deposits of rent. The Rent Controller found the tenant defaulted by one day for several months without good excuse, struck off his defence, and ordered ejectment. The appellate court and the High Court dismissed the tenant's subsequent challenges. The core legal question was whether a delay of one day in depositing rent under a court order warrants striking off the defence and ejectment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, being an advocate, could not plead misunderstanding of the deposit deadline, distinguishing the case from precedent where default was minor and isolated. The key principle established is that default in complying with rent deposit orders, even by a single day without valid excuse, especially by a legally trained tenant, justifies striking off defence and ejectment.
Questions settled- Does a delay of one day in depositing rent under a court order justify striking off the defence?
- Can an advocate plead misunderstanding of a clear court order regarding monthly rent deposit deadlines?
- Whether the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition against an ejectment order warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- GULZADA AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS SILVER COTTON MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD1982 PLC 221 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
- GULLAN AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of three appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a trespasser. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants acted in the exercise of their right of private defense of person and property, and whether the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 applied to the co-accused. The Supreme Court held that while the initial entry of the deceased into the compound constituted criminal trespass, the appellant Gullan exceeded the right of private defense by inflicting excessive, cruel, and vindictive injuries on a prostrate, immobilized victim, thereby forfeiting the protection of Exception 2 to Section 300. Consequently, Gullan’s murder conviction was upheld. However, the Court acquitted the two sons, finding their actions were limited to the scope of private defense and that they lacked the requisite common intention for murder. The key principle laid down is that the right of private defense is strictly limited to the necessity of the situation; it does not extend to inflicting disproportionate harm once the threat has ceased.
Questions settled- Does the right of private defense extend to inflicting harm disproportionate to the threat posed?
- Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred where there is no evidence of premeditation or concert?
- Does the right of private defense persist after a trespasser has been immobilized?
- When does an act of killing fall under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- GULLA AND 11 Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-31Read full judgment →
- GULISTAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of a grievance petition by the Sind Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a dismissed worker, sought redress under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The core legal questions were whether a grievance petition could be filed through an attorney and whether the petitioner had satisfied the limitation requirements regarding a departmental appeal. The Court held that Section 25-A must be read as a whole, and the legislature explicitly limited the persons competent to file such petitions to the worker, a shop steward, or a collective bargaining agent; an attorney is not authorized. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the worker to demonstrate that a departmental appeal was filed without delay to justify excluding that period from the limitation calculation. The Court concluded that the Labour Court’s findings were neither perverse nor contrary to the record, and thus dismissed the petition, establishing that the specific procedural requirements of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 prevail over general civil procedure provisions.
Questions settled- Can a worker file a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 through an attorney?
- Does the status of a Labour Court as a civil court under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 allow for representation by an attorney in grievance proceedings?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish timely filing of a departmental appeal for the purpose of excluding time from the limitation period under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- GULAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 983 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- GULAB KHANAM AND ANOTHER vs Mst. NOOR JAHAN1982 CLC 663 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
- GULAB KHAN vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSJONER, RAWALPINDI1982 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The petitioner, a local, sought the transfer of a property in Rawalpindi, which had been auctioned to respondents in 1960. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of the property despite failing to challenge the initial rejection of his claim form in 1960 and whether the property could be considered 'available' for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII after it had already been auctioned. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's failure to challenge the initial rejection of his claim form precluded subsequent claims. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the property was not 'available' for transfer under the Settlement Scheme because it had already been transferred via auction, and the subsequent status of that transfer remained sub-judice. The Court established that a claimant cannot bypass the finality of an unappealed administrative order by invoking subsequent schemes, nor can they claim property as 'available' while the validity of a prior transfer is still under judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Can a claimant who fails to appeal the rejection of an initial claim form subsequently rely on later settlement schemes to claim the same property?
- Does property transferred via auction to a third party qualify as 'available property' under Settlement Scheme No. VIII while the validity of that auction transfer is still sub-judice?
- Does a misdescription of property as a 'shop' instead of a 'house' in a High Court order constitute a material error if the claimant's underlying claim was already barred by the finality of an earlier unappealed order?
- GULAB DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION LAHORE AND Other1982 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning the settlement and division of a 54 feet long verandah attached to a property in Chawinda, District Sialkot, which was transferred in portions to the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The core legal question was whether the High Court or this Court should interfere with the equal division of the verandah made by the Settlement Authorities. The Supreme Court held that since the Settlement Officer possessed the jurisdiction to divide the disputed area, and the matter was a petty dispute not involving any substantial question of law, interference was unwarranted. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to examine the factual correctness or propriety of a minor property division made by a competent settlement authority acting within its jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a factual property division made by a Settlement Officer having jurisdiction?
- Does a petty dispute not involving any question of law warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
- GUL SAHIB DIN AND Other vs Malik SULTAN JAN AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute where the petitioners sought a declaration of ownership regarding land, claiming long-standing possession. After their initial suit was dismissed, they appealed to the Additional District Judge, who permitted them to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit. The respondents challenged this withdrawal order in the Peshawar High Court via a civil revision. The High Court set aside the withdrawal order, finding that the application for withdrawal lacked specific details regarding the 'formal defects' necessitating such withdrawal, and remanded the case for a decision on the merits. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that an application for withdrawal must specify the formal defects justifying the withdrawal. The Court held that vague assertions of formal defects are insufficient to warrant permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one, thereby emphasizing the necessity of procedural precision.
Questions settled- Does an application for the withdrawal of a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require the specification of formal defects?
- Can a High Court interfere with an appellate court's order allowing the withdrawal of a suit under its revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a vague and general assertion of formal defects sufficient to grant permission to withdraw a suit with the liberty to institute a fresh one?
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND1982 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an appellate order directing the restoration of a seized car upon payment of customs duty and government dues. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the return of his car without payment of customs duties due to an alleged failure by customs authorities to issue a statutory notice within two months under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969. The Peshawar High Court held that although the seizure may have suffered from a procedural lapse regarding notice, the car was admittedly imported into Pakistan without paying customs duty or obtaining a valid import permit in violation of the Customs Act 1869 and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950, and the burden of proving lawful import rested on the possessor under section 187. The court laid down the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 will not be exercised to grant ineffective relief or to return uncustomed goods to a petitioner without discharging statutory liabilities for customs dues, as no writ can be issued in favor of possessing ill-gotten gains.
Questions settled- Does the failure to serve a seizure notice within two months under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 absolve the owner from paying customs duty and government dues?
- Where a revision petition remains pending before a departmental authority for a prolonged period, does it bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Upon whom does the burden lie to prove that a vehicle was lawfully imported into Pakistan under the Customs Act 1969?
- Can the High Court issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to return uncustomed goods without the discharge of statutory liabilities?
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs Mst. FATIMA BIBI AND 7 Other1982 SCMR 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate court directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of the respondent-landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question raised was whether the failure to explicitly use the expressions 'good faith or bona fide' in the pleadings, framed issues, and the Rent Controller's order vitiated the eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court held that technicalities regarding the specific wording of the pleadings do not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction when both lower forums and the landlord were conscious of the legal requirement and the substance of the plea was duly raised. The court affirmed the refusal of the High Court to exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, granting one month's time to vacate the premises upon a voluntary undertaking. The key principle laid down is that the absence of specific formulaic terminology in pleadings does not invalidate eviction proceedings where the substance of the legal requirement for bona fide personal need has been substantially satisfied and considered by the lower authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to use the exact expressions good faith or bona fide in pleadings vitiates an eviction order based on personal requirement?
- Does the High Court properly refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction where concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement are recorded by lower forums?
- Whether technical flaws in pleadings justify interference by the Supreme Court when lower authorities are conscious of the legal requirements?
- GUL MAST KHAN vs PROVINCE OF N.-W. F. P.1982 PLC (C. S.) 329 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1978-12-31Read full judgment →
- GUL HUSSAIN KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K AND ANOTHER ,1982 PLC (C. S.) 55 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN vs N/A1982 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs MAZDOOR UNION1982 PLC 72 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-12Read full judgment →
- GRINDLAYS BANK LTD., RAWALPINDI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1982 PLC 338 · Labour Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 3 Others vs Syed RAHIM BUX SHAH1982 CLC 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND, Othersapplicants_Respondents vs SALEEM HUSSAIN GARDEZI1982 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the respondent sought clarification regarding the status of a stay order that had been granted previously but was inadvertently omitted from the subsequent leave order. The core legal question was whether the court could rectify an inadvertent omission in its own order to ensure the continuation of a stay of proceedings. The court held that, in the interest of justice, it possesses the inherent power to rectify such inadvertent omissions. Consequently, the court ordered that the stay order, originally granted on November 1, 1981, shall remain in force until the final decision of the appeal. The court also addressed and refused a request for an early hearing of the appeal. The principle laid down is that the court may exercise its authority to correct clerical or inadvertent omissions in its orders to prevent prejudice to the parties and to maintain the status quo during the pendency of litigation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court rectify an inadvertent omission in a leave order regarding the continuation of a stay?
- Does a stay order granted prior to the acceptance of a leave petition automatically continue if it is inadvertently omitted from the leave order?
- Is the court empowered to extend a stay order in the interest of justice during the pendency of a service appeal?
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY EDUCATION AND 2 Others vs MURAD ALT KHAN1982 CLC 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →