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.
- Gh. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents1982 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- GENERAL INVESTMENT LTD. vs DUBAI BANK LTD.1982 CLC 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- GENERAL EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS PAKISTAN P.V.C. LTD.1982 PLC 652 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- GANGOOMAL vs JAMIAT MAL (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS).1982 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- GANGOOMAL vs JAMIAT MAL (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS)1982 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- GANESH vs NISAR COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY1982 PLC 736 · Labour Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- GAMAN AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order refusing them post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of causing injuries to two individuals, with one petitioner allegedly inflicting a 'takwa' blow and the other a stick blow. While the High Court had granted bail to co-accused who were not charged with causing serious injuries, it denied bail to the petitioners, who had been in judicial custody since October 1974. The petitioners argued that the ingredients for an offense under Section 307 were not established. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the First Information Report, held that the High Court had not exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously in denying bail. The Court emphasized that the bail stage is not the appropriate time for the appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the High Court's exercise of judicial discretion regarding the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Is the bail stage an appropriate time for the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case?
- Can a High Court's refusal to grant bail be overturned if the discretion was not exercised arbitrarily or capriciously?
- GAJANAND SUTWALA vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 75 · Allahabad High Court · 1981-11-12Read full judgment →
- FRUIT HAWKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, KARACHI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 228 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
- FOREST DEPARTMENT THROUGH DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SIALKOT vs Mst.1982 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
- FORBES FORCES CAMPBELL & CO. LTD. AND 3 OTHERS vs HABIB-UR-REHMAN1982 PLC 20 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, employed as a Technical Assistant by the petitioners, had his services terminated by the Branch Manager at Lahore. He challenged his termination before the Labour Court after sending telegrams and a grievance notice. The petitioners raised an objection that the petition before the Labour Court was time-barred, contending that an earlier telegram sent to the Managing Director at Karachi constituted a valid grievance notice, making the petition belated. The Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal rejected the petitioners' contention and held the grievance notice served on the Branch Manager at Lahore to be the proper notice, rendering the petition within time. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Managing Director did not act as the employer in the circumstances as he directed the respondent to deal with the local Lahore Manager who was competent in the matter. The key principle established is that whether a superior authority functions as an employer for the purpose of a grievance notice depends on the specific facts and conduct of the parties, and where the superior authority declines direct intervention and refers the employee back to the local manager, a subsequent notice served on the local manager constitutes the valid statutory grievance notice.
Questions settled- Whether a telegram sent to a Managing Director requesting intervention against a subordinate's order constitutes a valid grievance notice under labor laws?
- Can an establishment have multiple employers for the purpose of serving a grievance notice?
- Whether the limitation period for approaching the Labour Court runs from the rejection of a request made to a superior authority who is not acting as the employer in the specific context?
- FORBES FORBES CAMPBELL & Co. LTD., KARACHI AND 3 Others vs HABIBUR1982 SCMR 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, concerning whether an employee's application to the Labour Court against his termination was within the period of limitation. The core legal question is whether the employee's initial telegram sent to the Managing Director seeking intervention constituted a formal grievance notice under the relevant labour laws, or whether the subsequent notice served upon the Branch Manager was the proper grievance notice, and whether the petition was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the initial telegram was merely a request for administrative intervention rather than a formal grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and that the subsequent notice served on the Branch Manager was the proper grievance notice. Furthermore, the court held that labor laws are beneficial legislation meant to protect workers and must be construed liberally in favor of employees rather than used as procedural traps, and that a short delay was condonable under section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a telegram sent to a Managing Director seeking intervention against termination constitutes a formal grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- How should labor laws enacted for the benefit of workers be construed by the courts?
- Whether the delay in filing an application before the Labour Court could be condoned under section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- FIDA MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER--Opponents1982 P Cr. L J 779 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN Alias SHAM LA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1201 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-07-28Read full judgment →
- FEROZE KHAN vs Mst. MERAJ BEGUM AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- FEROZE DIN vs Mst. MERAJ BEGUM AND Other1982 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had initiated ejectment proceedings alleging default in rent payment. The petitioner initially challenged the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, claiming the property was a factory, and denied the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting ownership of the property himself. Throughout the proceedings, the petitioner maintained this denial, even challenging the authenticity of the rent deed. Only during the recording of evidence did the petitioner concede the tenancy. The Rent Controller, finding the denial of the relationship to be contumacious and frivolous, ordered immediate ejectment. The High Court upheld this decision, rejecting the argument that the principle of approbate and reprobate required an admission of default to trigger immediate ejectment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a tenant contumaciously denies the landlord-tenant relationship and sets up a frivolous claim of ownership, the Rent Controller is justified in ordering immediate ejectment without further inquiry into the merits of the default, as the tenant's conduct precludes equitable relief.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller order immediate ejectment when a tenant contumaciously denies the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Does the principle of approbate and reprobate apply only when a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship is accompanied by an admission of default?
- Is a tenant who denies the landlord-tenant relationship entitled to a full inquiry on the merits of default before an ejectment order is passed?
- FAZL UR REHMAN KHAN AND Others vs HALIM KHAN1982 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision petition, which had challenged concurrent findings of fact regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent factual findings regarding the relationship of a pre-emptor as the vendor's brother—granting a superior right of pre-emption—are open to reconsideration in civil revision. The Supreme Court held that the appreciation of evidence and the determination of relationship are purely questions of fact concurrently decided by the lower courts, and such findings cannot be interfered with in civil revision. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence by lower courts are binding in civil revision and cannot be reopened merely on the ground of disagreement with the appreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the question of relationship between a vendor and a pre-emptor is a question of fact?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court be interfered with in a civil revision?
- Does a misreading of evidence argument alone warrant interference by a revisional court in concurrent factual findings?
- FAZALUR REHMAN MAHMOOD AND Another vs ASSISTANT1982 SCMR 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against the dismissal of a writ petition and intra-court appeal by the High Court concerning the disputed allotment of agricultural land. The core legal question revolves around whether land once reserved in favour of a claimant by the competent Allotment Committee can subsequently be allotted to another party by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that prima facie force exists in the submission that land reserved for a claimant by a competent authority could not be lawfully allotted to anyone else, rendering subsequent inconsistent allotments without lawful authority. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents, and ordered that status quo be maintained pending the final decision of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether land reserved in favour of a claimant by the Allotment Committee can be lawfully allotted to another party?
- Whether an allotment made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in disregard of a prior reservation by a competent authority is without lawful authority?
- FAZALUDDIN vs SAEEDULLAH JAN AND 3 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (TELECOMMUNICATIONS)1982 PLC (C. S.) 268 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs ALI AHMAD AWAN, CIVIL JUDGE WITH (POWERS OF1982 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1968-02-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs ALI AHMAD AWAN, CIVIL JUDGE WITH (POWERS OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, RAHIM YAR KHAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1968-02-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND Other1982 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning a residential house in Sialkot, where the pre-emptor claimed a right of pre-emption as a co-sharer in the property. The vendee, whose father had predeceased his grandfather, raised defenses challenging the pre-emptor's sole inheritance claims under Islamic law, asserting co-ownership, invoking Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, and contending that a mandatory bequest ought to be presumed in favor of orphaned grandchildren under Islamic jurisprudence. Additionally, the vendee argued that the pre-emptor failed to establish the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the specific sub-division of the city prior to the enforcement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the legal issues regarding inheritance, Islamic jurisprudence on mandatory bequests, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding local custom of pre-emption required detailed examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions of law.
Questions settled- Whether Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 accords with Islamic principles regarding inheritance rights of offspring of a predeceased child?
- Whether a mandatory bequest in favor of non-heir relatives can be presumed under Islamic law where no formal bequest was executed?
- Whether evidence of a custom of pre-emption in neighboring sub-divisions of a city is sufficient to establish its existence in a specific sub-division under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- FAZAL KARIM vs MESSRS PARTICO LTD.1982 PLC 971 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM ETC. vs ABDUL WAHAB1982 CLC 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HAQ vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a prisoner convicted under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought a direction for his sentences of life imprisonment and seven years' rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently, and for the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be applied regarding his pre-trial detention. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having already signed its judgment, possessed the jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order concurrent sentences and grant the benefit of statutory detention periods, despite the bar in Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against reviewing judgments. The Court held that it possessed the inherent power to secure the ends of justice and rectify omissions, noting that no person should suffer due to a court's inadvertent failure to issue necessary directions. The Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and mandated the inclusion of pre-trial detention time, establishing that inherent powers under Section 561-A remain unaffected by the finality provisions of Section 369 when necessary to ensure justice.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences to run concurrently after the judgment has been signed?
- Is the High Court's inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited or governed by the bar on review contained in Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a prisoner be denied the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to an inadvertent omission in the original sentencing order?
- FAZAL HAKEEM vs MESSRS ELITE TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 591 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-15Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHER1982 CLC 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI AND Others vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND Other1982 SCMR 469(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was submitted with a delay of 17 days. The petitioners sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the time spent pursuing a certificate of fitness for appeal in the High Court should be excluded from the limitation period, asserting that they acted in a bona fide manner. The Supreme Court examined the application for condonation and determined that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their pursuit of the remedy in the High Court was conducted in good faith or in a bona fide manner. Consequently, the Court held that the grounds provided were insufficient to justify an extension of the limitation period. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, establishing the principle that a mere assertion of pursuing other remedies is insufficient for condonation of delay without a clear showing of good faith.
Questions settled- Is the time spent pursuing a certificate of fitness for appeal in the High Court automatically excluded from the limitation period for filing a petition in the Supreme Court?
- Does a mere assertion of pursuing a remedy in another forum satisfy the requirement of good faith for the purpose of condoning a delay in filing?
- FAZAL DIN vs THE STATE AMD 2 OTHERS -1982 P Cr. L J .277 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN vs SADIQ KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a second appeal concerning the pre-emption of agricultural land. The subject property, totaling 81 kanals and 1 marla, comprised two distinct categories: land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and land surrendered and re-purchased under Martial Law Regulation Nos. 89 and 91 of 1961. The core legal question was whether these sales were subject to the right of pre-emption. While the trial court held that only the portion not forming part of the compensation pool was pre-emptiable, the appellate court and the High Court concluded that the entire land was subject to pre-emption. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq (PLD 1973 SC 347), affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that the legal position regarding the pre-emptibility of such land was settled by the cited authority, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is agricultural land acquired under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Does land surrendered and re-purchased under Martial Law Regulation Nos. 89 and 91 of 1961 constitute property subject to pre-emption?
- FAZAL AZIM AND Another vs TARIQ MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a second appeal regarding the eviction of tenants from a shop was allowed and the landlords' application on the ground of personal requirement was decreed. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal, whether the landlord's temporary occupation abroad during protracted litigation negates bona fides, and whether the petition was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had misread the evidence regarding the landlord's personal requirement and that the High Court was justified in correcting the error, noting that a landlord's engagement in gainful occupation during protracted litigation does not negate bona fides. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down are that misreading of evidence warrants interference with concurrent factual findings in second appeal, and that a landlord seeking eviction is not expected to sit idle during protracted legal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal?
- Does a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement sit idle during the pendency of eviction proceedings?
- Can the time spent in filing and pursuing a writ petition be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act?
- Does a landlord going abroad during litigation negate the bona fides of a personal requirement claim?
- FAZAL ANWAR vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The High Court heard a criminal appeal and a connected murder reference concerning the appellant's conviction under Section 302 and Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for daytime murder and criminal intimidation. The prosecution case was founded on the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's sister, supported by a disinterested witness, medical evidence, and the appellant's subsequent abscondence. The defense contested the presence of the complainant, alleged conflict between the site plan and medical injuries, and argued that previous blood-feud offered mitigating circumstances against capital punishment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death sentence, holding that ocular testimony from an interested witness can sustain conviction when materially corroborated by independent evidence and prompt reporting. The Court further ruled that site plans are not substantive evidence and that avenging a past murder where the deceased had already undergone judicial punishment constitutes premeditated murder without any mitigating factors.
Questions settled- Whether the ocular testimony of an interested relative witness can be relied upon to convict an accused when corroborated by independent testimony and medical evidence?
- Is a site plan considered substantive evidence that can override reliable ocular testimony regarding the trajectory of firearm wounds?
- Does avenging a previous family murder where the deceased was already tried and sentenced serve as a mitigating ground against the death penalty?
- FAZAL AKBAR vs Mst. HUSSAIN PARI1982 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed a pre-emption suit, and the trial court directed him to deposit a portion of the pre-emption money and furnish a security bond by a specific date. Due to the unexpected leave of the presiding Civil Judge, the appellant could not file the bond on the exact deadline, though he complied immediately upon the court's return. The trial court dismissed the suit for non-compliance, but the Additional District Judge restored it, finding the delay excusable. The respondent challenged this in the Peshawar High Court, raising a new factual plea regarding the timing of the cash deposit, which the High Court accepted, setting aside the appellate order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by entertaining a new plea of fact not raised in lower courts and by failing to provide the appellant an opportunity to explain the delay. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to penalize a party for delays beyond their control.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in its revisional jurisdiction entertain a new plea of fact not raised in the lower courts?
- Is a party to a pre-emption suit liable to have their suit dismissed for non-compliance with a court order when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond their control?
- Does the scope of revisional jurisdiction allow a High Court to re-examine factual findings without providing the affected party an opportunity to produce evidence?
- FAZAL ABBAS vs Shiakh A. SHAMIM1982 CLC 1399 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ. AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1982 P Cr. L J 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- FAYAZ ALI vs VICE-CHANCELLOR, MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING &1982 CLC 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- FAYAZ ALI vs VICE CHANCELLOR, MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING &1982 CLC 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- FAWZI ALI KAZMI vs ABDULLA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
- FAUAD ANWAR LATIF vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR (RESIDUAL PROPERTIES)1982 CLC 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs RAJANY KHAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs NATHU1982 CLC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND OTHER1982 CLC 598 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-18Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 6 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 187 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 776 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- FARYAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMED MEMON vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 404 · Labour Court · 1982-01-04Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMAD KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1982 PLC (C. S.) 470 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FARID KHAN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously rejected the petitioner's application for bail in a criminal case. The petitioner stood accused of an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the nature of the accusation and the statutory provisions governing bail. Upon hearing the arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the State, the Supreme Court refrained from making detailed observations that might prejudice the trial. The Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or ten years' rigorous imprisonment or more. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the appeal, and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal for the purpose of granting bail?
- What is the standard for granting bail in cases involving offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND Other1982 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant Faqir Muhammad against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby two respondents were acquitted of murder charges and their convictions were set aside, while four other accused persons remained acquitted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence, which led to the acquittal of the accused by extending the benefit of the doubt, suffered from perversity or material injustice warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court considered the evidence carefully and that its judgment was neither perverse nor resulted in material injustice. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that it will not interfere with an order of acquittal based on a careful appreciation of evidence unless the conclusions drawn by the lower court are perverse or have resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an appellate court's judgment of acquittal when the appreciation of evidence is found to be careful and free from perversity?
- Can the testimony of chance witnesses who are party men and related to the deceased be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Does a discrepancy regarding the time of occurrence, supported by medical evidence contradicting the oral testimony, justify the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
- FANCY INVESTMENTS LTD., KARACHI vs UNITED BANK LTD. AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-08Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER vs MUHAMMAD RASHID AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 426 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption filed by the respondent against an oral sale of land, during the pendency of which the appellant-vendor obtained a declaratory decree claiming he remained the owner. The pre-emption suit was amended, and the trial court held the declaratory decree to be collusive and ineffective against the pre-emption right, ultimately decreeing the pre-emption suit, which decision was upheld in first appeal. The core legal question was whether a court trying a pre-emption suit has jurisdiction to examine and ignore a collusive declaratory decree passed by another court, and whether subsequent steps defeating pre-emption are valid. The Lahore High Court held that a court seized of a pre-emption suit is competent to treat a collusive declaratory decree as ineffective, drawing an analogy to rival pre-emption suits and re-sales aimed at defeating pre-emption. The Court laid down the principle that a collusive decree obtained to frustrate a pre-emption claim does not bar the pre-emption suit, and that courts may permit the makeup of deficient court-fee even after limitation.
Questions settled- Whether a court trying a pre-emption suit has jurisdiction to hold a declaratory decree passed by another court to be collusive and ineffective?
- Does a declaratory decree obtained by a vendor during the pendency of a pre-emption suit defeat the right of pre-emption?
- Can a court permit the plaintiff to make good a deficiency in court-fee after the period of limitation has expired?
- FAKHRUDDIN vs Syed ASADULLAH SHAH1982 PLD Karachi 790 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds of default and personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court concurrently ruled in favor of the landlord, finding the personal need genuine. The appellant challenged this, arguing the landlord's claim was mala fide and that other properties were available. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need are not open to challenge in second appeal unless vitiated by misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court established that a landlord has the prerogative to select which of their tenements to occupy, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's choice. Furthermore, "good faith" implies an honest demand, and the burden lies on the tenant to prove mala fides once the landlord establishes the reasonableness of their need. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the eviction order.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement in a second appeal?
- Does a landlord have the prerogative to select which of their tenements to occupy for personal use?
- What is the legal definition of 'good faith' in the context of a landlord's claim for personal use of rented premises?
- Does the failure to issue a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, invalidate the landlord-tenant relationship if rent has been accepted?
- FAIZYAB KHAN vs Syed AZIZ ALI CHISHTI1982 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the ejectment of the petitioner by the Rent Controller as upheld by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and whether the ejectment order requires interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had expressly recognized the respondent as his landlord in his reply to a legal notice, and since no objection was raised regarding the admissibility of these documents when tendered in evidence, they conclusively established the tenancy relationship. Consequently, the question of whether the property devolved by inheritance or gift became irrelevant. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the petitioner granted four months to vacate the premises upon payment of rent.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is established when the tenant admits the landlord in a reply to a legal notice?
- Can an objection to the admissibility of documents be raised subsequently if no objection was made when they were tendered in evidence?
- Does a tenant denying the landlord's title need to be heard when the tenant has previously recognized the landlord?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD CHANDIO vs THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., HYDERABAD1982 PLC 670 · Labour Court · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
- FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAISALABAD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR1982 CLC 415 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
- FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs HAMID MUKHTAR PIRACHA1982 PLC (C. S.) 35 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- FAHMIDA RIAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH HOME SECRETARY1982 CLC 713 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
- F. E. SIDDIQI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 343 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- F. B. PATEL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST PAKISTAN1982 PLD Quetta 98 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- F. A. KHAN vs THE REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Etc.1982 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent dismissal of the petitioner's execution application by the executing court, the Additional District Judge, Lahore, and the Lahore High Court. The petitioner sought to execute a declaratory decree declaring his 1950 dismissal from service illegal, specifically praying for the recovery of arrears of salary and allowances. The core legal question was whether a declaratory decree that does not incorporate consequential relief for monetary recovery can be executed for the recovery of arrears of salary. The Supreme Court held that the executing courts rightly refused the request since the relief prayed for did not form part of the decree passed in the petitioner's favour. The key principle laid down is that an executing court cannot look beyond the decree or grant relief not expressly incorporated therein, though government departments are expected to honour and implement judicial declarations regarding illegal dismissals in good faith.
Questions settled- Whether a declaratory decree regarding the illegality of a dismissal from service can be executed for the recovery of arrears of salary and allowances when such relief is not part of the decree?
- Can an executing court grant monetary relief that was not expressly incorporated in the decree sought to be executed?
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs MANZOOR AHMED1982 PLC 575 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-04Read full judgment →
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY. BOARD vs Mian IQ.BAL MAHMOOD AND OTHER1982 CLC 2186 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIFP L D1982 Lahore 151 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs MIRAJ DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board against the dismissal of its appeal by the High Court. The property in question was transferred to the respondents and a Permanent Transfer Deed was issued in 1963. In 1966, the Board sought cancellation of the transfer under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, claiming the property was evacuee trust property. The Settlement Commissioner dismissed the application in 1968, finding it was private property. During the pendency of the Board's appeal before the High Court, the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 came into force, containing a saving provision under section 10(1)(b) validating bona fide transfers where Permanent Transfer Deeds were issued prior to June 1968. The High Court dismissed the appeal based on this provision. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal in light of the statutory protection afforded by the 1975 Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was unexceptionable as the statutory conditions for valid transfer under the 1975 Act were met, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an immovable evacuee trust property transferred with a Permanent Transfer Deed issued prior to June 1968 is deemed validly transferred under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
- Does the question of bona fide transfer under section 10(2) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 render interference unwarranted in proceedings initiated under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs Mian IQBAL MAHMOOD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2186 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs Mian IQBAL MAHMOOD AND Other1982 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board against a High Court order dismissing its settlement appeal. The High Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had become infructuous because the underlying matter was currently sub judice before a departmental forum under newly enacted legislation. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed three days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, attributing it to an error by a departmental functionary regarding the filing of necessary documents. The Supreme Court rejected this explanation, finding it insufficient to warrant a special concession for the extension of time. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's reasoning that the matter remained pending before the appropriate departmental forum, where the petitioner retained the opportunity to raise its arguments. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of being time-barred and because the underlying dispute was already being addressed in the proper administrative forum.
Questions settled- Is an error by a departmental functionary regarding the filing of documents a sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Can an appeal be dismissed as infructuous if the subject matter is currently sub judice before a departmental forum?
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1982 CLC 23 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
- EUROPEAN GRAIN & SHIPPING LTD. AND Messrs SARGODHA OIL INDUSTRIES LTD1982 PLD Supreme Court 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- EURO DISTRIBUTORS ESTABLISHMENT, LUGANO, SWITZERLAND vs BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL, LONDON AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2369 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
- EURO DISTRIBUTORS ESTABLISHMENT, LUGANO, SWITZERLAND Plaintif vs BANK1982 CLC 2369 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION vs NATIONAL & GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S) 669 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS SWISSAIR TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.1982 PLC 801 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE Co. LTD.1982 PLC 817 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS GRINDWHEEL (PAK.) L T D.1982 PLC 790 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS FOUJI SUGAR MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 947 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSERS AL-AMIN MATCH INDUSTRIES LTD.1982 PLC 900 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION A. F. FERGUSON & Co. vs NOT1982 PLC 630 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL BOOK FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
- ELAHI BAKHSH vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, WAQF PROPERTY1982 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1961-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a petition filed under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959. The appellant challenged a notification regarding the takeover of property, but the petition was filed beyond the prescribed thirty-day limitation period. The District Court and the High Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, ruling that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959 constitutes a 'special law' under Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, which allow for the extension of time for sufficient cause, do not apply to proceedings under the Ordinance. The Court affirmed that it cannot, on grounds of hardship, import provisions into a statute that are neither expressly nor impliedly present. The strict limitation period prescribed by the Ordinance must be observed, as the legislation does not contemplate the court's power to condone delay.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to petitions filed under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959?
- Is the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959 considered a special law for the purposes of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a court condone delay in filing a petition under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959 based on hardship?
- ELAHI BAKHSH AND Others vs ALLAH BAKHSH AND Other1982 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' suits for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the land in dispute, located within the municipal limits of Multan, constituted 'agricultural land' or 'urban immovable property' for the purposes of establishing a preferential right of pre-emption. The High Court had determined that the land was 'urban immovable property' based on its small size, its classification as 'Ghair Mumkin Abadi', its location surrounded by houses and a metalled road, and the fact that the alienations were intended for construction purposes. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, concluding that the High Court correctly applied legal principles regarding the appreciation of evidence in such cases. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's determination was well-considered and supported by the facts, and consequently, the petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the classification of land as 'Ghair Mumkin Abadi' within municipal limits generally categorize it as urban immovable property rather than agricultural land for pre-emption purposes?
- Is the intended use of land for construction purposes a relevant factor in determining whether it qualifies as urban immovable property?
- ELAHI BAKHSH AND 12 Others vs C. A. SAEED, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATIONCOMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1413 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1975-02-20Read full judgment →
- ELAHI BAKHSH AND 12 others vs C. A. SAEED, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 1413 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1975-02-20Read full judgment →
- EJAZUDDIN vs NAWAB DIN AND ANUMER1982 PLD Karachi 573 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AKHTAR vs The STATE1982 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning a 33-day delay in filing the petition for special leave to appeal. The court held that the ground advanced by the petitioner, namely suffering from eyesore preventing the timely acquisition of a certified copy, did not constitute a valid or reasonable cause for the extensive delay. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as hopelessly time-barred, establishing the principle that routine medical ailments without demonstrating continuous incapacitation do not justify the condonation of significant delays in approaching the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether suffering from eyesore constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Can an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of proceedings be maintained when the petition for special leave to appeal against its dismissal is time-barred?
- EJAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.1982 CLC 997 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Etc1982 CLC 997 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- EHSAN ELLAHI vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS SUKKUR1982 PLC 305 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY WORKERS UNION vs Mesas1982 PLC 269 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE1982 CLC 903 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
- FATIMA BIBI AND 7 OTHER vs JAMILUR REHMAN1982 PLD Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction application filed by the respondent against the legal heirs of a deceased tenant, including minors, on grounds of default and personal bona fide use. The primary legal question concerned whether the eviction proceedings were void due to the failure to formally appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor respondents under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, despite them being sued through their mother. The Court held that while the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not strictly applicable to rent proceedings, fundamental principles regarding the representation of minors apply. However, the Court determined that the failure to formally appoint a guardian is a curable irregularity rather than a fatal defect, provided the minors' interests were effectively represented by their natural guardian (the mother) and no prejudice was caused. Finding that the minors' interests were protected and that the respondent had sufficiently established his bona fide need for the premises, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction order while granting the appellants one month to vacate.
Questions settled- Is a decree against a minor a nullity if passed without the formal appointment of a guardian ad litem under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to strictly comply with Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in rent proceedings automatically invalidate the proceedings?
- Can a minor be effectively represented in rent proceedings by their natural guardian without a formal court order of appointment?
- Is the testimony of a landlord regarding retirement and personal need for premises sufficient to establish bona fide use in the absence of documentary evidence?
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME46 TAX 138 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE CO. LTD vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE1982 CLC 903 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
- DURR KHAN vs DEPUTY AGENT, INDUS RIVER CONTRACTORS, TARBELA DAM1982 PLC 351 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- DUR MUHAMMAD PIRACHA vs JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT BANKING AND OTHRE1982 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- DUR MUHAMMAD PIRACHA vs JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT BANKING AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
- DR. SAGHIR ALAM ETC. vs Mst. K ANIZ FATIMA ETC.1982 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →