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.
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY EDUCATION AND 2 Others vs MURAD ALI KHAN1982 C` L C 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs Haji ZAIN KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil miscellaneous applications filed by the respondents seeking modification or recall of an interim stay order granted by the Supreme Court, which had stayed the execution of a High Court decree concerning land acquisition compensation originally dating back to 1969. The respondents prayed for permission to execute the decree upon furnishing a bank guarantee or, alternatively, to recover half the decretal amount on personal security, alongside requests for an early hearing on the existing record and dispensation of concise statements. The core legal question involved whether the interim stay against the execution of the decree ought to be modified or recalled to allow execution or partial recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the case was not a fit one for modifying or recalling the interim stay order, thereby refusing the request to execute the decree. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to withdraw the compensation amount already deposited in Court without prejudice to their rights in the appeal, while directing the preparation of paper books, filing of concise statements, and expediting the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an interim stay order restraining the execution of a decree should be modified or recalled upon the request of the decree-holder?
- Can respondents be permitted to withdraw a compensation amount deposited in court during the pendency of an appeal without prejudice to their rights?
- Is a case appropriate for dispensing with paper books and concise statements when an appeal involves substantial questions of law?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN BRIG. HIS HIGHNESS NAWAB MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI vs Brig. HIS HIGHNESS NAWAB MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI AND Other THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from a Lahore High Court decision concerning a writ petition that challenged the Devolution and Distribution of Property (Ameer of Bahawalpur) Order, 1969. The late Ameer of Bahawalpur's personal properties were distributed by the Central Government among his legal heirs, prompting the eldest son and successor to the Ameerate to claim exclusive ownership of all personal properties under the rule of primogeniture, backed by the Bahawalpur Merger Agreement of 1954. The core legal questions involved whether the Merger Agreement acted as a constitutional instrument shielding customary succession, whether the Central Government's distribution order was valid under the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961, and whether personal properties could be segregated for the office of the Ameer outside Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court held that personal properties are distinct from personal rights, the Merger Agreement did not guarantee customary succession to private property, and the private property of the late Ameer must devolve upon all legal heirs strictly in accordance with Muslim Law (Shariat). The Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's remand to the Central Government for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does an Instrument of Accession or Merger Agreement executed by a Ruler of an acceding state constitute an Act of State barring municipal court jurisdiction?
- Does the guarantee of succession according to the law and customs of the Bahawalpur State under the Merger Agreement extend to private and proprietary properties?
- Are personal rights and proprietary rights synonymous under jurisprudence so as to include property within personal privileges and dignities?
- Can the Central Government distribute the private property of a deceased Ruler outside the rules of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) under the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS PAKISTAN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION Co. LTD1982 CLC 126 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR1982 PLD Supreme Court 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Baluchistan Services Tribunal, which had set aside the respondent's removal from government service and declared him to be in service for a specific period. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal's previous order of remand was valid, whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to reinstate a civil servant due to restrictions on determining 'fitness' for a post, and whether the respondent failed to exhaust departmental remedies. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s initial order was a valid remand, not a final dismissal, and the government, having failed to challenge that remand earlier, could not contest it subsequently. The Court clarified that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review removal from 'service' is distinct from decisions regarding 'fitness' for a specific 'post' under the relevant statute. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument regarding the failure to exhaust departmental remedies, noting the matter had been properly remanded and adjudicated. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's authority to review disciplinary removals and the validity of its remand procedures.
Questions settled- Does the removal of a civil servant from 'service' fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, or is it barred as a decision regarding 'fitness' for a post?
- Can a government department challenge a remand order issued by a Service Tribunal after having complied with that order and participated in the remanded proceedings?
- Is a show-cause notice that fails to provide specific allegations against a civil servant sufficient to sustain an order of removal from service?
- GORIMAN vs DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI1982 PLC 897 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- Gondal, JJ ABDUL WAHID AND Another vs DIN MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenged the election of respondent No. 1 as a member of the Union Council, alleging that his unopposed election was procured through fraud and misrepresentation before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners sought interim relief to restrain the respondent from performing official duties, including participating in the upcoming election for the Union Council Chairman. The core legal question was whether an elected member, whose election is challenged on grounds of fraud, should be restrained from performing public functions via an interim order pending final adjudication. The Court held that no interim relief should be granted. It reasoned that an elected official, once notified, is entitled to function until the matter is finally adjudicated. The Court emphasized that restraining an elected representative would create a vacuum, leaving the constituency unrepresented, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable loss or injury. The principle laid down is that courts should generally avoid issuing interim injunctions against elected public representatives performing their duties without a final judgment on the merits.
Questions settled- Can a High Court grant interim relief to restrain an elected member from performing official duties pending the final adjudication of a quo warranto petition?
- Does the procurement of an election through alleged fraud or misrepresentation automatically disqualify an elected member from performing public functions before a final court decision?
- Is an elected member of a Union Council entitled to perform official duties after being officially notified as elected, despite a pending challenge to their election?
- GOLAY KHAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 271 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
- GOHAR REHMAN vs ALI ZAMAN AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 495 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
- GILLAT SHAH vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAMOON AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM. YASIN vs SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUNJAB AND OTHBRS1982 PLD Supreme Court 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding the disqualification of the appellant as a Councillor of the Bhalwal Municipal Committee. The appellant had been disqualified under Section 21(h) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, for holding a contract with the same municipal committee. Following the enactment of Ordinance IV of 1981, which omitted clause (h) of Section 21, the appellant contended that his disqualification was removed retrospectively. The core legal question was whether the legislative amendment effectively removed the disqualification for contractors of the local council where they were candidates. The Supreme Court held that while clause (h) was indeed omitted, the disqualification was effectively preserved through a newly added proviso to clause (f) of Section 21. This proviso explicitly maintained the disqualification for individuals holding contracts with the local authority where they sought election. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, establishing the principle that the omission of a specific disqualification clause does not automatically remove the disability if the substance of that disqualification is retained within other provisions of the amended statute.
Questions settled- Does the omission of clause (h) of Section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, by Ordinance IV of 1981, remove the disqualification of a candidate holding a contract with the local council?
- Does the proviso to clause (f) of Section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as amended by Ordinance IV of 1981, disqualify a candidate who holds a contract with the local council where they are standing for election?
- Can a disqualification be considered effectively retained in a statute even if the specific clause creating it is omitted, provided it is incorporated into a new proviso?
- GHULAM ]AFAR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 904 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs Mom HOECHST (PAKISTAN) LTD.1982 PLC 993 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs THE STATE-Opponent.1982 P Cr. L J 111 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1982 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Chief Officer of the Municipal Committee, Chishtian, sought leave to appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his challenge to the termination of his ad hoc employment. The petitioner argued that his appointment, despite being labeled ad hoc, had become regular due to the permanent nature of the post and the duration of his service. He also challenged the authority of the Tribunal's Chairman to hear the matter singly. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions. Regarding the composition of the Tribunal, the Court held that Section 3(A) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, as amended by Ordinance No. XI of 1980, explicitly authorized the Chairman to act singly. On the merits, the Court affirmed that an ad hoc appointment made without following recruitment rules does not become regular merely by the passage of time. While acknowledging the failure to provide the mandatory one-month notice for termination, the Court held this entitled the petitioner only to one month's pay in lieu of notice, rather than reinstatement.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal hear and dispose of an appeal acting singly?
- Does an ad hoc appointment automatically become regular by the mere passage of time?
- What is the remedy for an ad hoc employee whose services are terminated without the mandatory one-month notice?
- GHULAM SARWAR AND ANOTHER vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT TEACHERS1982 PLC 771 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SADIQ WADHERA vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 743 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RAZA vs Mst. FATIMA BIBI1982 CLC 2097 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 697 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs THE STATE And 4 Other1982 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for the cancellation of bail granted by the Lahore High Court to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail to co-accused persons who were either placed in column No. 2 of the police report by the investigating officer or were attributed simple injuries, as opposed to the main accused who allegedly inflicted the fatal blows. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the principles applied by the High Court judges in granting bail were unexceptionable, particularly given that sufficient weight must be attached to the result of an investigation when an accused is placed in column No. 2, and that the participating co-accused were only attributed minor or simple injuries. The key principle laid down is that bail is properly granted to co-accused individuals who are placed in column No. 2 upon investigation or whose specific roles involve only simple injuries, distinguishing them from the principal offender.
Questions settled- Whether sufficient weight should be attached to the result of an investigation when an accused is placed in column No. 2 for the purpose of bail?
- Should bail be refused to co-accused persons who are attributed only simple injuries while the fatal blow is assigned to another accused?
- Are the principles for granting bail to co-accused properly satisfied when their specific roles involve minor or simple injuries?
- GHULAM RASUL vs THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS45 TAX 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the liability for sales tax on a ginning mill. The petitioner, owner of a ginning mill, challenged the assessment of sales tax levied upon it for a period during which it allegedly leased its factory to a third-party business entity, Messrs Karachi Cotton Ginners, Lyallpur. While the Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal subsequently reversed this decision, and the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling. The core legal question involves the interpretation of liability for sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1951, specifically whether the owner of the mill or the holder of a seller's licence is liable for tax when the licensee becomes untraceable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case requires a proper construction of the relevant statutory provisions regarding tax liability, as the matter is one of first impressions.
Questions settled- Whether the owner of a ginning mill or the holder of a seller's licence is liable to pay tax under the Sales Tax Act 1951 when the licensee is untraceable?
- Does the inability to trace a licensee under the Sales Tax Act 1951 shift the tax burden to the owner of the premises?
- GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs THe STATE1982 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- HAYAT AND Other vs AMIR1982 PLD Supreme Court 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff sought to implead the legal representatives of a deceased vendee-defendant who had died prior to the institution of the suit. The application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed within the statutory period of limitation, but the trial court's order formally granting the application was passed after the period of limitation had expired. The core legal question was whether, for the purposes of limitation under Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1877, a newly added or substituted defendant is deemed to have been made a party on the date the application to implead him was filed or on the date the court formally granted the application.
The Supreme Court held that when an application to implead a party is made within limitation, the order impleading the party relates back to and takes effect from the date on which the application was filed, not when it was allowed. A diligent litigant cannot be penalized for judicial delay or maneuvering by opposing parties.
Questions settled- Whether a newly added defendant is deemed to be made a party on the date the impleadment application is filed or when the court allows it for the purposes of Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1877?
- Does judicial delay in deciding an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC prejudice the limitation period of a diligent applicant?
- When does an order adding or substituting a party take effect if initiated by an application rather than suo moto by the court?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE, CORPORATION, KARACHI ,1982 PLC 205 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs GOVERNOR OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS ,1982 PLC (C. S.) 76 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR; MILITARY LANDS AND CANTONMENT1982 CLC 550 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL ETC. vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) Etc1982 CLC 166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL AND Others vs HAZOOR ALI1982 SCMR 1053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the Lahore High Court set aside a trial court's decree, which had dismissed the suit based on the respondent's waiver of his right to pre-empt. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly concluded that the defendants' plea of waiver in the written statement contradicted the evidence presented at trial, thereby justifying the reversal of the trial court's factual findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a significant misreading of both the pleadings and the evidence. Specifically, the High Court erroneously restricted the 'prior to sale' waiver plea to a specific timeframe and failed to properly weigh the defendant's deposition and corroborating witness testimony. The Court held that a party's own deposition constitutes valid evidence that must be considered. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the appellate court's interference was based on a misreading of the record rather than a mere appreciation of evidence, and restored the trial court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the misreading of pleadings and evidence by an appellate court justify interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a party's deposition be excluded from consideration as evidence in a civil trial?
- Does a plea of waiver 'prior to sale' in a written statement necessarily restrict the defense to a specific timeframe?
- GHULAM QADIR AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment confirming the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence given alleged inconsistencies between the F.I.R., the dying declaration, and trial testimony, and whether the recovery of pellets from a nearby wall supported the defence version of the incident. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments. The Court held that minor discrepancies between a brief dying declaration and a detailed F.I.R. do not undermine the prosecution's case, especially when the deceased's presence and the medical evidence corroborate the ocular testimony. The Court affirmed that firing a lethal weapon at a victim is a serious offence, and the fact that a victim was killed by a single shot does not constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that physical evidence, such as pellets found in a wall, does not necessarily contradict the prosecution's version if there is no obstruction between the scene and the wall.
Questions settled- Does a brief dying declaration that omits details present in the F.I.R. undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- Does the recovery of pellets from a wall near the crime scene necessarily invalidate the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
- Is the fact that a victim was killed by a single shot a mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of a death sentence?
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE-1982 P Cr. L J 1168 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, AGRICULTURE, LIVE1982 PLC (C. S.) 445 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs SAMPAT AND 6 OTHERS1982 CLC 871 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs SAMPAT AND 6 OTHER1982 CLC 871 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA1982 CLC 740 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI LONE vs MESSRS LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, LAHORE1982 CLC 387 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 407 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs SHARIFAN BIBI1982 CLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs MUHAMMAD SALEH AND 2 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 1029 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P. Cr. L J 688 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA AND OTHERS vs L-G. OF POLICE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 655 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LTD.1982 PLC 850 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 231 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SULTAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 215 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND OTHER1982 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. AMIRAN KHATOON AND Another1982 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the dismissal of a Second Appeal by the High Court regarding the possession of agricultural land originally held by an occupancy tenant who died in 1925. The core legal question concerned whether one of the deceased tenant's widows had become an absolute owner of the property following statutory amendments, and consequently whether the plaintiffs possessed the requisite legal right and reversionary standing to institute a suit for possession against the petitioner, who claimed the land via a gift. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the fundamental legal objection regarding the maintainability of the suit—an objection not raised in the lower courts—concerning the plaintiffs' lack of reversionary rights, while ordering security for costs and maintaining the status quo as to possession pending the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a widow of an occupancy tenant acquire absolute ownership of proprietary rights under Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act?
- Can a fundamental objection regarding the maintainability of a suit and the lack of plaintiff's legal standing be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Do daughters and co-widows possess reversionary rights qua the share of another widow in occupancy land?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 21982 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's land allotment. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued for the first time that, despite his illicit possession of the disputed area following the cancellation of his previous allotment, he was entitled to purchase proprietary rights under Colony Notification No. 3215-79/3973-C-II, dated 3rd September, 1979. The petitioner contended that he met the eligibility criteria for landless persons or owners of less than a subsistence holding in continuous cultivating possession since before Kharif 1977. The Supreme Court observed that this specific legal argument regarding the notification had not been raised before the revenue authorities or the High Court, and thus those forums could not be faulted for failing to consider it. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the relevant authorities with an application under the notification, directing those authorities to dispose of such an application in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a new legal argument before the Supreme Court that was not presented before the lower courts or revenue authorities?
- Does the failure of lower forums to consider an argument not raised before them constitute a legal error?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MAJOR RAB NAWAZ1982 SCMR 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the re-admission of a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal that had been dismissed due to the non-appearance of the petitioner and their counsel at the scheduled hearing. The petitioner sought restoration, attributing the absence to the illness of the Advocate-on-Record and a lack of knowledge regarding the hearing date by the arguing counsel. During the proceedings, the Advocate-on-Record contradicted the petitioner's assertion, stating that he had previously informed the clerk of the arguing counsel about the fixed date. The Supreme Court observed a direct contradiction between the statements of the two legal representatives. The Court held that because the statement of the Advocate-on-Record effectively refuted the grounds presented by the petitioner to justify the absence, the petitioner failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for the non-appearance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for re-admission, emphasizing that contradictory representations regarding the failure to appear do not satisfy the requirement for demonstrating sufficient cause to restore a dismissed petition.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the statements of an Advocate-on-Record and an arguing counsel regarding notice of a hearing date constitute sufficient cause for re-admission of a dismissed petition?
- Is the failure of counsel to appear at a scheduled hearing sufficient grounds for the dismissal of a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS, LAHORE1982 PLC (C. S.) 746 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL MATEEN SIDDIQUI AND Other1982 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside proceedings initiated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a property. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to quash a notice issued by the Settlement Commissioner calling upon a transferee to justify the transfer of property. The Supreme Court held that while interference under constitutional jurisdiction is generally not warranted merely upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, this specific case did not merit interference by the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the factual finding that the disputed property constituted a single residential unit rather than independent shops, thereby upholding the original transfer. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with High Court decisions that are in accord with intrinsic justice, particularly when the underlying factual findings regarding the nature of the property are well-supported by the record.
Questions settled- Is the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court justified merely upon the issuance of a notice by a Settlement Commissioner calling upon a transferee to justify a transfer?
- Does the Supreme Court have discretion to refuse interference when a High Court judgment is in accord with intrinsic justice?
- Can a property be considered an independent unit if it is part of a single residential house?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD SARIO vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS. SIND AND ANOTHER ,1982 PLC (C. S.) 39 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD SAGARWALA vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 61 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs SABIR JAVED AND 118 OTHERS1982 PLC 1100 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD ETC vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AWAN AND Another vs ILAM DIN AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, tenants of the property in question, challenged the dismissal in limine of their constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld an ex parte ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts and the High Court erred in refusing to set aside the ex parte ejectment proceedings and declining to interfere with the tenant's persistent non-appearance and default in payment of costs. The Supreme Court held that given the consistent conduct of the petitioners and their repeated non-appearances before the tribunals, no justification existed for interfering with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking extraordinary constitutional relief against concurrent orders of ejectment cannot succeed when their own conduct demonstrates persistent default and negligence in prosecuting their case.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction against an ex parte ejectment order where the tenants repeatedly failed to appear?
- Does persistent non-appearance and default in payment of costs disentitle a party from obtaining discretionary relief from the court?
- Whether an ex parte ejectment order passed after repeated defaults by the tenant warrants setting aside by the appellate court?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Another vs IRSHAD AHMED AND Another1982 PLD Supreme Court 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a Lahore High Court judgment setting aside an order of a Civil Judge which had refused execution of a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondents. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory order passed by the Supreme Court during the pendency of a petition for leave to appeal, extending the time for depositing the balance of the sale price, becomes ineffective or is nullified upon the ultimate dismissal of the leave petition. The Supreme Court held that an interim order extending time, passed within the court's constitutional and inherent jurisdiction, remains lawful and effective notwithstanding the subsequent dismissal of the main leave petition, and a party should not suffer prejudice due to an act of the court. The court laid down the principle that valid interlocutory orders passed by an appellate court in aid of its jurisdiction—such as extensions of time for depositing pre-emption money—do not automatically lose their efficacy when the appeal or leave petition is finally dismissed on merits.
Questions settled- Does the final dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal nullify the previous operation and effect of an interlocutory order of extension of time passed during the pendency of that petition?
- Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing pre-emption money through an interim order during the pendency of an appeal or leave petition?
- Does a decree coming into existence by statutory force in favour of a vendee upon default of a pre-emptor override a validly passed interim extension order?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Haji MUHAMMAD JAMIL1982 CLC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This statutory appeal was filed against an order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and subletting. The appellate court examined whether the tenant had committed default under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the ground of subletting was substantiated by evidence. On the question of default, the court noted that following the expiry of the contractual lease period, the tenant became a statutory tenant. Rent for December 1979 became due in January 1980, and because sixty days had not expired prior to filing the rent application on 23-2-1980, the Rent Controller erred in finding default. However, regarding subletting, the court held that where a third party is in possession of the rented premise, the burden shifts to the tenant to explain the capacity of such occupation. Because the original tenant failed to appear for cross-examination to explain the occupancy, subletting was duly established. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining ejectment solely on subletting.
Questions settled- Does a default in payment of rent occur if the statutory sixty-day period has not expired prior to the filing of an eviction application under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to explain the capacity of occupation when a tenant admits that another person is in possession of the rented premises?
- Can a finding of subletting be sustained against a tenant who fails to appear for cross-examination to explain the presence of a third party in the demised premises?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs THE STATE.1982 P Cr. L J 986 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 61 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHIUDDIN vs THE STATE1982 PLC 804 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MEHARBAN AND 3 Other vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1982 PLD Lahore 800 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KHAN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR1982 PLC 78 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JILANI vs Syed AFTAB AHMED1982 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JAFAR AND 48 Others vs THE S. S. P., MULTAN AND Another1982 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the cancellation of a police departmental promotional examination and the consequent removal of the appellants' names from List 'B', Part I, due to widespread malpractices. The appellants challenged the action through a constitutional petition and an intra-court appeal, both of which were dismissed. The core legal questions involved the hierarchical supervisory jurisdiction of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police over the Superintendent of Police regarding the maintenance and revision of promotional lists, and the applicability of the principle of locus poenitentiae. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police possesses administrative and supervisory competence under the Police Act 1861 and the Police Rules 1934 to cancel a vitiated examination and remove improperly admitted names from promotional lists. The Court established that administrative supervision in the police force permits superior officers to correct irregularities and that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not bar corrective action against fraudulently or irregularly obtained examination results.
Questions settled- Does the Deputy Inspector-General of Police have the jurisdiction to cancel a departmental promotional examination and remove names from promotional List 'B' maintained by the Superintendent of Police?
- Whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applies to prevent the removal of names from a promotional list when the underlying examination is vitiated by widespread malpractices?
- What is the extent of supervisory control of a Deputy Inspector-General over a Superintendent of Police regarding the maintenance and revision of police promotional lists under the Police Rules 1934?
- GHULAM HYDER vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 485 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1113 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, Ghulam Hussain, was tried alongside two co-accused for attacking two individuals with dangs (lathis), resulting in multiple injuries. While the trial court convicted all three accused, the High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not contest the occurrence of the incident or the prosecution evidence but argued that the proved facts did not constitute an offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court examined the motive behind the incident, the nature of the attack, and the specific number and location of the injuries inflicted. The Court held that, given the circumstances, the offence was correctly categorized under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the use of lathis in this context constituted lethal weapons sufficient to sustain the conviction for attempted murder.
Questions settled- Does the use of lathis in an attack constitute the use of lethal weapons for the purpose of a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained based on the nature and location of injuries inflicted during an assault?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Syed NAZIM HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Syed NAZIM HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ABU TAHIR AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ABU TAHIR AND OTHER1982 CLC 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Haji ABDUL WAHID1982 C L C877 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs ABDUR REHMAN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 519 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against the petitioner. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller can validly order a tenant to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the tenant has challenged the Rent Controller's jurisdiction by asserting that the disputed premises (a factory) do not constitute a 'building' or 'rented land' under the Ordinance. The Court held that where a tenant challenges the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller by denying the applicability of the Ordinance to the premises, the Rent Controller cannot pass an order for the deposit of rent without first adjudicating the jurisdictional issue. The Court reasoned that an order for rent deposit is a significant step that cannot be enforced if the foundational jurisdiction is contested. Furthermore, the Court held that passing an eviction order for non-compliance with a rent deposit order, without first deciding the pending issue of jurisdiction or allowing the tenant to complete their evidence, violates the principles of natural justice. The eviction order and the rent deposit order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on the jurisdictional issue.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller order the deposit of rent under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 before deciding a challenge to their jurisdiction?
- Does a plea that the disputed premises is a factory constitute a denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Is a Rent Controller required to adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction before passing an order for the deposit of rent?
- Can an eviction order be sustained if it is based on non-compliance with a rent deposit order passed without deciding a pending challenge to jurisdiction?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN vs Mst. ASEELA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1709 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-07-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN vs Mst. ASEELA BEGUM AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1709 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-07-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND Another vs NABI BAKHSH AND Other1982 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding an order of remand passed by the revenue authorities regarding the transfer of property under settlement laws. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with a long-standing order of remand directed at determining afresh the eligibility of occupants for property transfer. The Supreme Court held that interference with an order of remand passed nearly a decade prior is unwarranted, particularly when the remand merely seeks a closer examination of eligibility and the petitioners failed to demonstrate that effect had not already been given to the remand directions. The key principle laid down is that the apex court will decline to grant leave to appeal against interlocutory remand orders of considerable antiquity where no prejudice or final injustice is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of remand passed several years prior when its purpose is merely to re-examine the eligibility of occupants?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against a remand order when the petitioner fails to show whether the remand has already been executed?
- GHULAM HAIDER vs THE STATE.1982 P Cr. L J 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HADI BALUCH vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI1982 PLC (C. S.) 681 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM GHOUS vs MUHAMMAD SAEED1982 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM GHOUS vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN AND 12 Other1982 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Election Tribunal which had set aside the election of the petitioner as a returned candidate for a local council unit and ordered a fresh election solely on the ground that indelible ink was not used by the election staff as required by the election rules. The core legal question was whether the mere omission by election officials to use indelible ink, without any proof of multiple voting or that the election result was materially affected, justified declaring the entire election void. The Sindh High Court held that a mere contravention of a rule or statutory direction by election officials does not vitiate an election unless it is established by evidence that the result of the election was materially affected thereby, or that the legislature expressly prescribed such failure as fatal. The Court emphasized that innocent voters and a successful candidate should not be penalized or disenfranchised due to the default of election officials, particularly when candidates participated without protest. The impugned order of the Election Tribunal was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Does the mere failure of election staff to use indelible ink automatically render an election void?
- Can an election be set aside without a finding of fact that the result was materially affected by a violation of election rules?
- May a candidate who participated in an election without protest challenge the result based on an omission by election officials?
- Does an irregularity committed solely by election officials warrant disenfranchising voters in the absence of a statutory penalty?
- GHULAM FATIMA ETC. vs Syed BASHIR AHMAD1982 CLC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM Farids vs MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 626 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID AND 6 Others vs ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND 3 Other1982 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that declared the allotment of certain evacuee property to the petitioners void. The core legal question was whether the land in dispute, having been sanctioned for acquisition by the Central Government in 1954 under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, was legally available for subsequent allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951. The Supreme Court held that because the land was sanctioned for acquisition prior to the notification creating the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951, it was excluded from the pool and thus could not be validly allotted to the petitioners in 1961. The Court affirmed that land sanctioned for acquisition under the Administration of Evacuee Property laws before the creation of the compensation pool does not form part of said pool and is immune from settlement allotments. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the petitioners' allotment was without legal authority.
Questions settled- Does land sanctioned for acquisition under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1949 prior to the creation of a compensation pool form part of that pool?
- Can land excluded from the compensation pool be validly allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1951?
- Does a notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1951 exclude land for which acquisition sanction was previously granted?
- GHULAM ALI AND Other vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS1982 CLC 980 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHER1982 CLC 980 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 997 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
- GHOUS BUX KORAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 914 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
- GHAZI KHAN vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 582 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-05Read full judgment →
- GHAZI AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court confirming the death sentences and convictions of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Hotu. The prosecution case rested on interested and inimical ocular testimony supported by circumstantial evidence, including motive, blood-stained recoveries, and forensic ballistic reports. The core legal question was whether the convictions could be sustained upon ruling out the highly delayed and uncorroborated circumstantial and forensic evidence, and in the presence of interested eye-witnesses with severe pre-existing enmity. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences, holding that unexplained and inordinate delay in dispatching and examining incriminating articles renders forensic and recovery evidence unsafe for reliance in capital charges. The court established that where corroborative circumstantial evidence collapses, uncorroborated and interested ocular testimony alone cannot securely sustain a capital conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a capital conviction can be sustained on interested and inimical ocular testimony alone when corroborative circumstantial evidence is ruled out?
- Does inordinate and unexplained delay in sending incriminating articles to the forensic and chemical laboratories vitiate the reliability of expert evidence?
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by a co-accused casts doubt on the participation of the accused in the crime?
- Ghazi ABDUL YAWAR vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI, ETC.1982 CLC 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-14Read full judgment →
- Ghazi ABDUL YAWAR vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI, Etc1982 CLC 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-29Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL1982 PLC (C. S.) 392 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
- GHANI BAHADUR KHAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 896 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-02Read full judgment →
- GHAFOOR AHMED vs ANWER BAIG1982 PLD Karachi 403 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →