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.
- AHMED AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-Opponent1982 P Cr. L J 165 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-20Read full judgment →
- AHMED AND Another vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND Other1982 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning land originally sold in 1936 by the predecessor of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, whose subsequent suit for possession upon the vendor's death was decreed in 1946. Following the 1947 partition, the land was allotted to the petitioners as evacuee property. Upon the vendor's death in 1962, respondents sought possession based on the 1946 decree, which the civil court decreed, though the District Judge later accepted the petitioners' appeal. The Lahore High Court, however, accepted the respondents' regular second appeal. The core legal question is whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred and whether the petitioners held rights extending beyond the vendor's lifetime. The Supreme Court held that only the evacuee rights of the non-Muslim mortgagee/purchaser to hold possession until the vendor's death were acquired and allotted, meaning the petitioners' rights ceased upon the vendor's death without requiring a declaration from the Custodian, and the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred regarding such limited rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, while observing that the Government should allot alternative land to the petitioners in lieu of the forfeited property.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under the evacuee laws when the property allotment pertained only to limited evacuee rights that expired upon the vendor's death?
- Does an allotment of evacuee property encompassing the right to hold possession until a vendor's death survive the expiration of that vendor's lifetime without a declaration from the Custodian?
- Whether petitioners deprived of an evacuee land allotment through no fault of their own are entitled to the allotment of land in lieu thereof?
- AHMAD vs The STATE1982 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by illicit relations with the deceased's wife, strangulated the victim, with identification facilitated by a torchlight. The core legal question concerns the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the sufficiency of evidence in a case of alleged murder. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies: the FIR recording was suspicious, the torch was produced with unexplained delay, and the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene was highly improbable given the darkness and their contradictory accounts. Furthermore, the court noted that the witnesses were not present when police arrived, contradicting their claims. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the assailants, the Court ruled that the incident was an unwitnessed occurrence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing the principle that where eyewitness accounts are improbable and uncorroborated, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the unexplained delay in producing the sole source of identification, such as a torch, render eyewitness testimony unreliable?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on an unproven motive when the eyewitness testimony is found to be improbable?
- Is the testimony of eyewitnesses credible if they were not present at the crime scene when the police arrived, despite claiming to have been left with the body?
- What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the identity of the assailants in a murder case?
- AHMAD MOHI UD DIN vs KHALIL AHMAD AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan which partly accepted a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and quashed criminal proceedings against the respondent under section 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that the matter was exclusively triable by a Conciliation Court under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction and that the Conciliation Court could not award adequate punishment. The Supreme Court held that since the case was initiated on a private complaint rather than police investigation, the provisions regarding concurrent jurisdiction did not apply, and that the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 adequately provides mechanisms for transfer of cases to criminal courts where necessary. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate have concurrent jurisdiction over an offence triable by a Conciliation Court when the proceedings are initiated on a private complaint rather than a police investigation?
- Can criminal proceedings under section 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be quashed on the ground that the matter is exclusively triable by a Conciliation Court under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961?
- What is the mechanism for transferring a case from a Conciliation Court to a competent criminal court under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961?
- AHMAD KHAN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition filed by the landlord against the appellate court's dismissal of an ejectment application was accepted. The petitioner was a tenant of a shop against whom the respondent-landlord sought ejectment on grounds of default in rent and personal requirement for reconstruction. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the appellate court set aside the order, holding the landlord's requirement not to be bona fide. The High Court reversed this view and restored the ejectment. The core legal question was whether the High Court could properly interfere in its writ jurisdiction with the findings of the first appellate court under the rent restriction law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court rightly intervened where the first appellate court's findings lacked proper justification. Additionally, a criminal miscellaneous petition for contempt of court regarding an alleged violation of a stay order was dismissed as unsubstantiated.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court passed under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
- Does the absence of ejectment proceedings against other tenants in the same building necessarily disprove the bona fide requirement of the landlord for reconstruction?
- Can a party be punished for contempt of court for violating a stay order when service or knowledge of the stay order is denied and unproven?
- AHMAD KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 74 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-27Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KARACHI HALVA MERCHANTS AND AHMAD FOOD PRODUCTS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI46 TAX 1 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court dismissing an income-tax application. The core legal question is whether a question of law included merely as a ground in the memorandum of appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, but neither argued nor dealt with by the Tribunal, can be said to 'arise out of such order' for the purpose of a reference under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'arising out of such order' does not encompass a question of law that was neither raised, argued, nor decided by the Tribunal. The Court laid down the principle that where a ground is taken in the memorandum of appeal but not pressed during the hearing, it is deemed abandoned, and no reference can be sought on a matter not actually agitated before or considered by the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether a question of law included in the memorandum of appeal but not argued before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal can be said to arise out of its order under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Can a reference be sought under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on a ground that was taken in the grounds of appeal but not pressed or discussed during the hearing?
- What is the scope and interpretation of the expression 'arising out of such order' under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- AHMAD HASSAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD1982 CLC 223 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ETC. S vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from convictions and sentences under sections 302, 323, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a double murder and assault. The core legal question examined by the Court was whether the ocular testimony adduced against the appellants required independent corroboration and, if so, whether such corroboration was available for each convict. The Supreme Court held that where ocular testimony is found to be at variance in material particulars—specifically where eye-witnesses falsely or mistakenly implicated an acquitted co-accused—the remaining testimony requires independent corroboration before it can safely sustain a conviction. The Court found that while corroboration in the form of firearm expert opinion existed regarding the appellant Abbas, no such independent corroboration was available against the other appellants. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the convictions and sentences of Arif, Ahmed, and Karamat, maintained the conviction of Abbas for murder while commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for life, and laid down the principle that corroboration must be sought not only for interested witnesses but whenever ocular testimony lacks absolute soundness and freedom from material doubt.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony that is found to be at variance in material particulars requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Does corroboration need to be looked for only where witnesses are interested, or also in cases where the ocular testimony is not sound and doubt-free?
- Whether the acquittal of a co-accused based on the rejection of a material part of the eye-witnesses' statements detracts from the intrinsic worth of their testimony against other co-accused?
- AHMAD DIN vs SHAMAS DIN1982 SCMR 1020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment dated 17-7-1976 passed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in a second appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The respondent filed a pre-emption suit claiming a preferential right as a co-sharer in the Khata against the petitioner/vendee, who was a tenant of Khasra No. 8 and mortgagee of Khasra Nos. 23 and 26. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Although the High Court found that the petitioner was a tenant of Khasra No. 8 and had improved his status under Section 21-A of the Pre-emption Act, it dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondent was a co-owner in the Deh and held a superior right. The petitioner contended that as his pre-emptive right was protected qua Khasra No. 8 under Paragraph 25(3)(d) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115), he had improved his status prior to the suit, thereby defeating the pre-emptor's claim across all three relevant stages (sale, suit institution, and decree). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these substantial legal submissions.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant purchasing land comprised in his tenancy can defeat a pre-emptor's claim under Paragraph 25(3)(d) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 of 1972 even if the sale took place prior to Kharif 1972?
- Whether an improvement of status by a vendee qua one portion of purchased land under Section 21-A of the Pre-emption Act can be utilized to defeat a pre-emptor's claim regarding other parcel(s) of land sold through the same transaction?
- Whether a pre-emptor must maintain a superior right of pre-emption across all three crucial stages, namely the date of sale, the date of institution of the suit, and the date of the decree?
- AHMAD DIN ETC vs CHAKRA ETC.1982 PLD Supreme Court 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses the question of whether respondents were entitled to the benefit of paragraph 28 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, discharging grantees from liability for unpaid instalments, where the land originally granted to their predecessor had been validly resumed prior to the enactment of the regulation and sold by public auction to the appellants. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents failed to comply with the conditional remand order requiring them to deposit outstanding dues and a penalty within a specified timeframe, the original resumption order automatically revived, and the land stood lawfully auctioned and disposed of in favour of the appellants. Consequently, the respondents were not subsisting grantees of the land at the time the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 came into force and could not claim its benefits. The appeal was accordingly allowed, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and restoring the order of the Member, Board of Revenue.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to comply with a conditional order of a Deputy Land Commissioner results in the automatic revival of a prior land resumption order?
- Are respondents whose land grant was resumed prior to the promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 entitled to the benefit of paragraph 28 of the Regulation?
- Whether auction purchasers acquire a valid title when land is auctioned following the default and resumption from the original grantee?
- AHMAD BUX vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 758 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1982 CLC 425 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →
- AHMAD AZIZ ZIA vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from an ejectment application filed by the petitioner/landlord seeking the eviction of the respondent/tenant from premises known as East India Press, which comprised a shop building along with printing machinery and equipment leased at a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The Rent Controller initially ordered eviction, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, holding that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because the lease was for both the building and the machinery. The core legal question was whether a tenancy created in respect of a building along with the machinery installed therein falls within the definition of a 'non-residential building' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether such a tenancy is regulated by the said Ordinance. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a tenancy is created for both a building and the machinery installed therein, the relationship is not regulated by the Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction in cases where the lease is for the use of machinery permanently fixed in defined premises rather than the premises simpliciter.
Questions settled- Does a tenancy created in respect of a building along with the machinery installed therein fall within the regulatory ambit of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Whether a lease of a printing press comprising both a shop and printing machinery qualifies as a lease of a 'non-residential building' under Section 2(d) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction to entertain an ejectment petition where the subject matter of the lease is both the premises and the manufacturing machinery?
- AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other vs ANWAR1982 PLD Karachi 313 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose from a suit filed by a bank officer seeking a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and an injunction against the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The employee challenged the acceptance of his conditional resignation and his relieving from service, claiming he had withdrawn his resignation before acceptance and was entitled to continue in service with full emoluments. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the employee, and the first appellate court affirmed the decree. The High Court considered whether a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is maintainable to enforce terms and conditions of service arising from a employment contract with a statutory corporation. Reversing the judgments of both lower courts, the High Court held that the employment of servants of a statutory corporation is governed by the general law of master and servant. The Court established that rights under a service contract do not constitute a legal character or status independent of contract under Section 42, and therefore an aggrieved employee's sole remedy lies in a suit for damages rather than a declaration or reinstatement.
Questions settled- Can an employee of a statutory corporation maintain a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to challenge the acceptance of his resignation?
- Does the general law of master and servant apply to employees of statutory corporations whose service conditions are governed by regulations?
- Is the remedy for wrongful termination or improper acceptance of resignation of a statutory corporation employee limited to a suit for damages?
- Agha RASHID AHMAD AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 185(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court convicting the appellants for contempt of court for violating a stay order directing the maintenance of status quo passed in a writ petition. The core legal question was whether the appellants, including a revenue officer (Tehsildar), had willfully disobeyed the High Court's prohibitory order with sufficient notice of its contents. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had definite and authentic information regarding the stay order yet deliberately proceeded to deliver possession of the land in disregard of the court's command, thereby committing contempt. The Court affirmed that an official or party who proceeds with an action contrary to a known stay order cannot escape liability, and that reliable information conveyed by an advocate or recorded officially constitutes adequate notice. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a person can be convicted for the breach of a prohibitory order without formal service of the order, provided they had definite and authentic information of it?
- Does the proceeding under Article 199 of the Constitution relating to a civil matter constitute a civil proceeding?
- Whether a revenue officer executing a delivery of possession despite notice of a High Court stay order commits contempt of court?
- Agha MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MERAJ DIN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 698 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-23Read full judgment →
- AGHA MAHBOOB SHAH vs BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY To GOVERNMENT AND Other1982 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from an order returning a plaint for presentation to the proper court regarding a construction contract dispute. The petitioner was awarded a contract for grain godowns at Hub, District Lasbela, which was assigned and executed by the fourth respondent at Hub. After disputes arose, a notice for fresh tenders was issued at Hub, prompting the petitioner to file a suit in Quetta. The trial court and the District Judge ordered the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the suit should have been instituted within the Khuzdar Civil Division. The core legal question concerned the territorial jurisdiction of courts in suits against the Provincial Government under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that provisions regarding the residence or carrying on business do not apply to the Government in the same manner as natural persons, and thus jurisdiction must be determined solely by the place where the cause of action wholly or in part accrued. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the cause of action arose at Hub.
Questions settled- Do the provisions regarding residence or carrying on business in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the Government?
- How is territorial jurisdiction determined in a suit filed against a Provincial or Federal Government?
- Whether the Senior Civil Judge was justified in returning the plaint for presentation to the court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action accrued?
- Agha ABDUL QAYYUM, ETC. vs Mst. NASEEM BEGUM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 547 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
- AFZAL ALI GIL vs THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1982 PLD Lahore 727 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMAD vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 804 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- AFSAR ZAMAN vs MESSRS NATIONAL REFINERY LTD1982 PLC 720 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
- AFGHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 159 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- ADNAN AFZAL vs Col...(RTD.) SHER AFZAL AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 755 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Sialkot, which stayed execution proceedings of a maintenance order granted in 1969. The petitioner, having obtained an ex parte maintenance order under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, faced repeated attempts by the respondent to reopen the matter through various applications, including requests to set aside the ex parte order and stay execution, filed over a decade later. The core legal question was whether a Family Court, acting under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, could entertain applications to set aside an ex parte maintenance order or stay execution after such significant delays, and whether the specific limitation period in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applied. The Court held that the Family Court acted without lawful authority. It affirmed that proceedings under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are governed by the specific limitation period of three months provided therein for setting aside ex parte orders. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s repeated applications constituted an abuse of process and that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain time-barred applications.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte maintenance order under Section 488(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to proceedings before a Family Court?
- Can a Family Court entertain an application to set aside an ex parte maintenance order filed years after the statutory limitation period has expired?
- Is an order staying execution proceedings in a maintenance case considered a 'decision' appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with interlocutory orders of a Family Court if the order was passed without lawful authority or jurisdiction?
- ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT- AUTHORITY vs MAHBOOB ALI KHAN1982 PLC (C. S.) 753 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs HANDICRAFTS AND HANDLOOM EXPORT CORPORATION46 TAX 82 · Delhi High CourtRead full judgment →
- ADALAT KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of the District Judge, Jhelum, which decreed a pre-emption suit in favour of the legal representatives of the original pre-emptor. The core legal question revolved around whether the right of pre-emption as a co-sharer is a personal right that abates upon the death of the pre-emptor before the conclusion of proceedings, or whether it survives for the benefit of his legal representatives. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner lacked substance and that the pre-emption rights and powers were validly maintained and pursued through the legal representatives. The Court laid down that the right of pre-emption in such context does not lapse to the detriment of the legal representatives where proceedings are duly constituted and contested, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the right of pre-emption as a co-sharer come to an end upon the death of the pre-emptor before the final decree is passed?
- Do the legal representatives of a deceased pre-emptor inherit an independent pre-emptive right or the pre-emptive rights held by the deceased?
- Can a pre-emption suit proceed when the original pre-emptor dies after participating in the sale and filing a suit?
- ABDUS SATTAR AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine a bail petition filed on behalf of three accused persons facing charges under sections 302, 307, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition concerning two of the accused, Abdus Sattar and Ghulam Yaseen, but issued notice regarding the third accused, Suleman, whose attributed role pertained to section 325. The core legal question concerned whether Suleman was entitled to the concession of bail based on the rule of consistency and the specific role attributed to him. The Court held that on the stated facts and circumstances, particularly noting that Suleman's role was allegedly similar to that of a co-accused who had already been released on bail, the petitioner deserved the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed the release of the petitioner subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds and sureties.
Questions settled- Whether an accused whose role is similar to that of a co-accused already released on bail is entitled to the concession of bail?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail be converted into an appeal and allowed by the Supreme Court?
- ABDUS SALAM AND Another vs S. M. NASIM, ADDITIONAL LAND COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the cancellation of a land lease granted to the petitioners under a government scheme. The petitioners, both government servants, were initially granted land on a 13-year lease, but their leases were cancelled on the grounds of ineligibility. The core legal question was whether the petitioners met the eligibility criteria for the lease, specifically regarding cultivation requirements and residency, and whether the revisional authority was competent to adjudicate the matter. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to satisfy the mandatory eligibility conditions prescribed under the scheme, specifically those requiring actual cultivation of land and specific residency requirements. The Court reasoned that regardless of the petitioners' employment status as government servants, they did not qualify as eligible persons under the scheme's conditions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing the principle that where a party is fundamentally ineligible for a grant under a statutory scheme, procedural challenges regarding the authority of the adjudicating officer become inconsequential.
Questions settled- Does government service per se disqualify a person from being eligible for a land lease under the Punjab Government Scheme?
- Can a petitioner challenge the competency of an adjudicating authority if they are fundamentally ineligible for the relief sought under the governing scheme?
- What are the mandatory requirements for eligibility regarding land cultivation and ownership under the Punjab Government land lease scheme?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI1982 PLD Karachi 695 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN ETC. vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.1982 CLC 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 871 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAZAQ vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C, S.) 203 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAUF AND Other vs ABDUR RAHIM KHAN, ADVOCATE1982 PLD Peshawar 172 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order of the Civil Judge, Peshawar, overruling a preliminary objection regarding the competency and jurisdiction of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by a non-party pre-emptor. The petitioners (vendors) had obtained a decree declaring a sale deed void for violating Martial Law Regulation 115 against the vendee in a separate suit without impleading the pre-emptor, allegedly to frustrate his pending pre-emption suit. The pre-emptor subsequently challenged the decree under Section 12(2), CPC, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion. The core questions were whether a person who was not a party or judgment-debtor to a suit can invoke Section 12(2), CPC, and whether the provision added by Ordinance X of 1980 applies retrospectively to earlier decrees. The High Court held that the word 'person' in Section 12(2), CPC, is not restricted to judgment-debtors or parties, allowing any aggrieved person affected by a fraudulent or collusive decree to invoke it. The court further held that as a procedural provision, Section 12(2) applies retrospectively. The revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a person who was not a party or judgment-debtor in a suit maintain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a decree obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
- Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply retrospectively to decrees passed before its enactment by Ordinance X of 1980?
- ABDUR RASHID vs The STATE1982 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular testimony of partisan and related witnesses could be safely relied upon without corroboration, and whether the appellant was entitled to the right of private defence given that he sustained injuries during the incident which the prosecution was allegedly bound to explain. The Supreme Court held that the presence and testimony of the eyewitnesses were fully established and corroborated by circumstances, and that the appellant, being the initial aggressor who returned armed with a knife after a previous altercation, could not claim the right of self-defence simply because minor injuries were sustained during the scuffle. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether an aggressor who returns armed to attack victims can claim the right of private defence?
- Can the testimony of a partisan or related eyewitness be accepted without corroboration if found reliable?
- Whether minor injuries sustained by an accused during an affray vitiate the prosecution case when adequately explained or rebutted?
- Does a hostile witness's previous statement transferred to the sessions file under the law retain evidentiary value?
- ABDUR RASHID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL1982 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID BUTT vs CHIEF SECRETARY, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE1982 PLC (C. S.) 180 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID BUTT vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1982 PLC (C. S.) 635 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHEED vs MESSRS NIPPON ROBBIN COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. AND 61982 PLD Lah. 103 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM, ETC vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND Other1982 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs Haji PIR BUKHSH AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs Haji PIR BUKHSH AND OTHER1982 CLC 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs ZONAL VICE-PRESIDENT, HABIB BANK LTD.1982 PLC 93 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-10Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 2034 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-27Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 2034 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-27Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs Mst. ABBASI BEGUM AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1956 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs Mst. ABBASI BEGUM AND OTHER1982 CLC 1956 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH JAN AND Others vs TILA MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking the review of an earlier order of the Court which had dismissed a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The underlying dispute pertains to the alienation of agricultural property by a vendor in favour of his son, which was challenged on grounds of unsoundness of mind, undue influence, and lack of consideration. The trial court and the Peshawar High Court both concluded that the vendor was of sound mind, no undue influence was exercised, full consideration was paid, and the subsequent suit was barred by constructive res judicata under the Civil Procedure Code. The core legal questions involved whether the inference drawn regarding undue influence constituted a question of law and whether the bar of res judicata applied. The Supreme Court held that an erroneous finding of fact based on an appraisal of evidence does not constitute an error of law without procedural defect, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in review or leave petitions. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an erroneous finding of fact arrived at after an appraisal of evidence amount to an error of law?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact regarding the soundness of mind of a vendor and the absence of undue influence be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Can a new contention not raised at the time of the hearing of the original petition furnish a ground for review?
- ABDULLAH AND 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH (REPRESENTED BY His HEIRS) vs Mistry SHAMSUDDIN1982 CLC 787 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 288 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal by departmental authorities to transfer additional land beyond three times the plinth area of a house already transferred to the petitioner. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a claimant is legally entitled under the applicable laws and notifications to the transfer of property area exceeding three times the plinth area. Holding that no such legal entitlement or concession exists, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of enabling legal provisions, notifications, press notes, or circulars supporting such a claim, an applicant cannot demand or be transferred property area in excess of the statutory or officially sanctioned limit of three times the plinth area.
Questions settled- Is a claimant entitled to the transfer of property area in excess of three times the plinth area?
- Whether notifications, press notes, or circulars provide a concession for the transfer of additional property area beyond the plinth area limit?
- ABDUL WAHID KHAN vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1982 CLC 2297 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED KHAWAJA vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1982 PLC (C. S.) 589 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE And 6 Other1982 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondents 2 to 7 in a murder case. The petitioner alleged that the respondents formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of Muhammad Yousaf, with specific injuries attributed to each respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to grant bail, particularly considering the age and infirmity of some respondents and the circumstances of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to grant bail was justified. Regarding the elderly respondents, the court affirmed that their medical condition, supported by the Medical Superintendent, warranted release. Regarding the other respondents, the court noted that the High Court correctly considered factors such as the belated FIR, the existence of a compromise, and the fact that the respondents themselves sustained injuries, suggesting the case did not clearly fall under the prohibition against bail for offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the existence of injuries on the accused party provide valid grounds for a court to exercise discretion in granting bail in a murder case?
- Is a medical report confirming senile cataract and advanced age sufficient grounds to grant bail to an accused charged with a non-bailable offence?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail if the order is based on relevant considerations like a belated FIR and cross-injuries?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD.1982 PLC 798 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR AND Others vs Mst. HAWABAI AND Other1982 SCMR 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a decision by a Division Bench of the Sind High Court, which had set aside a Single Judge's order dismissing a suit. The respondents had originally filed a suit for setting aside a compromise decree, but the plaint was returned by the Civil Court due to a lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Instead of re-presenting that specific plaint, the respondents filed a fresh suit in the High Court with modifications. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff, upon the return of a plaint for lack of jurisdiction, is legally obligated to re-present the same plaint or if they may institute a fresh suit. The Supreme Court held that when a plaint is returned for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff is under no legal obligation to file the same plaint before the proper forum and may instead file a fresh suit, provided it complies with the law of limitation. The Court affirmed the Division Bench's decision, ruling that the Single Judge erred in dismissing the suit on the grounds of maintainability.
Questions settled- When a plaint is returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, is the plaintiff legally obligated to re-present the same plaint in the proper forum?
- Can a plaintiff file a fresh suit after a previous plaint was returned for lack of jurisdiction?
- Does the filing of a fresh suit after the return of a previous plaint require the plaintiff to adhere to the law of limitation?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR AND ANOTHER vs Syed TUFAZZAL HUSSAIN1982 CLC 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs Syed RAZI HUSSAIN ETC.S1982 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal challenging the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. The core legal question addressed is whether the High Court exceeded its scope of authority under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by setting aside the concurrent findings of two lower courts that did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the initial stay order and the submissions of counsel, determined that the High Court's interference with the lower courts' orders was potentially improper as those orders did not exhibit the jurisdictional defects required for intervention under the statute. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the limits of the High Court's revisional powers. The principle laid down emphasizes that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is strictly confined to cases involving jurisdictional errors, and it cannot interfere with lower court findings simply based on disagreement, provided those courts acted within their legal competence.
Questions settled- Does the High Court exceed its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it interferes with concurrent findings of lower courts that do not suffer from jurisdictional errors?
- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- ABDUL SATTAR vs Mst. NASEEMA1982 CLC 1871 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR ABBASI vs Mst. RAFIQUE BEGUM AND 7 OTHERS1982 CLC 837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR ABBASI vs Mst. RAFIQUE BEGUM AND 7 OTHER1982 CLC 837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALEEM KAZI vs COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR DIVISION, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 369 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs MESSRS MARKER ALKALOIDS LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 664 · Labour Court · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RERMAN vs ATTA MUHAMMAD KHAN1982 CLC 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs PERVEZ AHMED BUTT AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs Mst. ZUBEIDA KHATOON1982 CLC 729 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MESSRS OLYMPIA SHIPPING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 934 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs IRSHAD HUSSAIN AND OTHER1982 CLC 430 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs Haji Mir AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 532 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a Rent Controller's order maintaining eviction proceedings against a tenant of a hotel. The core legal questions were whether eviction proceedings for a hotel, initiated under the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, could continue under the new Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which excludes hotels from its purview, and whether the use of the term 'contractor' in the lease agreement negated the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court held that the proceedings were maintainable. It reasoned that Section 27(3) of the new Ordinance, which mandates that pending cases instituted under the old Ordinance be continued and disposed of in accordance with the new Ordinance, refers to the adoption of the new procedural framework while preserving the substantive rights and remedies available under the old Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court established that the nomenclature used in an agreement—such as 'contractor'—cannot override the fundamental nature of the transaction, which, if it involves letting premises for rent, constitutes a landlord-tenant relationship subject to rent laws.
Questions settled- Does the exclusion of hotels from the definition of 'premises' in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 abate pending eviction proceedings initiated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Do the words 'disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance' in Section 27(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 require the application of substantive law or merely procedural law to pending cases?
- Can the use of contractual terms like 'contractor' in a lease agreement successfully exclude the relationship between the parties from the scope of rent control legislation?
- ABDUL REHMAN vs FAZAL KARIM REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS1982 CLC 2641 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlord against the tenant in respect of a commercial shop on the grounds of default in rent and bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, holding that the tenant was not a defaulter and that personal need was not proved. The District Judge reversed this decision on appeal. Following remands by the High Court and the Supreme Court for additional evidence regarding the personal need of the landlord's sons due to the original landlord's death, the matter came before the High Court for final determination on merits. The core legal question was whether the landlords successfully established their bona fide personal use requirement for the premises. The High Court held that the respondents failed to prove their personal and bona fide need, noting that one respondent failed to produce necessary corroborative evidence regarding his current business premises, and the other respondent had relinquished a shop he previously occupied around the time of the remand. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower appellate judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's order dismissing the ejectment application, laying down that failure to substantiate good faith and bona fide need through reliable evidence defeats a claim for ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal and bona fide need must substantiate the requirement in good faith?
- Does the non-production of best available evidence or key witnesses weaken the landlord's plea of personal need?
- Whether the relinquishment of an existing business premises by a landlord shortly before testifying casts doubt on their bona fide requirement?
- ABDUL REHMAN vs ATTA MUHAMMAD KHAN1982 CLC 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, DAWOOD COTTON MILLS1982 PLC 331 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND 21982 CLC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM.1982 CLC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1982 CLC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 221 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASIHD vs Mst. NARGIS PARVEEN AND 5 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID, ETC. vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ETC.S1982 SCMR 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service/election matter where the petitioner challenged the order of the Election Tribunal declaring the entire election for an electoral unit void due to irregularities, which order was upheld in limine by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the failure of the Election Tribunal to explicitly state that the irregularities materially affected the result of the election under rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 vitiates the decision. The Supreme Court held that despite the technical omission of the exact statutory formula by the Tribunal, the nature of the irregularities—specifically regarding delimitation and tampering with ballot boxes—inherently demonstrated that the result was materially affected, rendering remand unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that where irregularities are grave enough to clearly impact the election outcome, the absence of a ritualistic recitation of statutory phrasing is a mere technicality that does not warrant interference or remand.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an Election Tribunal to explicitly use the statutory formula regarding material effect on election results vitiate its decision?
- Whether irregularities in delimitation and ballot box handling are sufficient to declare an election void as a whole?
- ABDUL RASHID vs MESSRS SIND CLUB1982 PLC 915 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And OTHER1982 CLC 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 315 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID ETC. AND AHMAD ALI vs THE States ABDUL RASHIDAND Other1982 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID CHAUDHARY AND 10 OTHERS vs MOHAMMAD UMAR AND 21982 CLC 735 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID CHAUDHARY AND 10 Others vs MOHAMMAD UMAR AND 21982 CLC 735 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID BHATTI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 668 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- BRAG vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Appellant vs Mst. ADILA MUSARRAT1982 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an eviction proceeding initiated by the respondent landlady against the appellant tenant regarding a shop in Kasur on the grounds of subletting, personal use of the husband, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller rejected the eviction application, but the District Judge reversed the finding on the personal use ground and ordered eviction, holding that the landlady required the shop bona fide for the business of her husband. The appellant contended that a non-residential building cannot be sought for the husband's personal use under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'own use' in respect of non-residential buildings has a wide connotation that includes the beneficial enjoyment and use by the landlord through her husband as the economic sustainer of the family. The Court further upheld the lower appellate court's finding on the bona fide requirement.
Questions settled- Whether a landlady can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building for the personal use of her husband under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the phrase 'own use' for a non-residential building under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 include the business requirement of the husband of the landlady?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of a premises recorded by the first appellate court be interfered with in second appeal?
- ABDUL RASHID AND 11 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1982 PLC (C. S.) 486 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND 10 Others vs MAJ. ZIA UL HASSAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 239 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 457 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs M/s. GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS1982 PLC 998 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS1982 PLC 911 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1982 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM AND Others vs MUHAMMAD AKR AM1982 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QUDUS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2355 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →