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.
- ABDUL QUDUS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT AND OTHER1982 CLC 2355 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QUDDUS vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs ALI AKBAR1982 CLC 1864 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM AND ANOTHER vs ZUBAIDA KHANUM AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 700 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAIYUM SHEIKH vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS , .1982 PLC (C. S.) 49 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADUS vs SIKANDAR KHAN Etcs1982 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of a house. The petitioner claimed a right of pre-emption based on contiguity and participation in amenities. A competing pre-emption suit was filed by the father of the vendee, claiming co-ownership of half the property. The trial court, affirmed by the district court and the High Court in revision, found that the vendor had only sold half the house, with the other half already belonging to the competing pre-emptor. The core legal questions concerned whether the competing suit constituted partial pre-emption and whether a party could simultaneously assert title and a right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the extent of the sale and the co-ownership of the competing pre-emptor were unassailable. The Court clarified that the rule against partial pre-emption was not violated where the suit correctly reflected the actual bargain, and distinguished the cited precedents, noting that the petitioner also failed to establish his own grounds for pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does a suit for pre-emption constitute partial pre-emption if the plaintiff sues for the actual portion of property sold, even if the sale deed fraudulently represented the sale of the entire property?
- Can a pre-emptor simultaneously assert title to a portion of the suit property and claim a right of pre-emption regarding the remainder?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the extent of property sold, affirmed by lower courts, subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- ABDUL QADIR HAYEE vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI1982 PLC (C. S.) 200 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL OHANI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1333 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL NABI vs Tits STATE1982 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL NABI AND 2 Others vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1982 CLC 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALAK KIYANI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, PEOPLES WORKS1982 PLC (C. S.) 596 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs UNITED SUGAR MILLS LTD. BUKHSHABAD1982 PLC 34 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs Tan STATEP L D1982 Lahore 551 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs RENT CONTROLLER, CANTONMENT, HYDERABAD AND 61982 CLC 2609 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs RENT CONTROLLER, CANTONMENT, HYDERABAD AND 6 OTHER1982 CLC 2609 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs RENT CONTROLLER, CANTONMENT HYDERABAD Andother1982 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order. The petitioner, a tenant, faced an ex parte ejectment order from the Rent Controller, Hyderabad Cantonment, due to persistent failure to appear or file a written statement despite multiple adjournments over a year. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order through an application under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and subsequent appeals to the District Judge. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge regarding the ex parte ejectment were legally flawed or suffered from jurisdictional defects. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted lawfully in proceeding ex parte, as the petitioner was intentionally delaying court proceedings. Finding no evidence of mala fide or legal error in the concurrent findings, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to decline relief in its writ jurisdiction, concluding that there was no justification for interference.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller proceed with an ex parte ejectment order if a tenant repeatedly fails to appear or file a written statement?
- Does the High Court have discretion to decline relief in writ jurisdiction when concurrent findings of lower courts are not shown to be legally defective?
- Is an ex parte order passed by a Rent Controller due to intentional delay by the tenant legally sustainable?
- ABDUL MAJID vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S,) 104 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID KHAN vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 525 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID ETC vs Shahzada ASIF JAN Erc.1982 PLD Supreme Court 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment addresses several civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits in the North-West Frontier Province (N.-W. F. P.), primarily concerning the interpretation and effect of section 17(2) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act 1950, which prohibits a vendee from utilizing any improvement in their status made after the institution of a pre-emptor's suit to defeat the claim. The core legal questions involved whether the repeal of the amending Act of 1967 by the West Pakistan Repealing Ordinance 1970 had the effect of removing subsection (2) of section 17 from the principal Act, and whether a subsequent acquisition of a co-vendee's share constitutes an improvement in status under the law. The Supreme Court held that the savings clause in the Repealing Ordinance preserved text amendments already incorporated into principal statutes unless a contrary intention was expressly stated, meaning section 17(2) remained a subsisting part of the 1950 Act. Furthermore, acquiring joint shares to become a sole owner constitutes an improvement in status. The Court laid down that repealing acts function as legislative spring-cleaning without reviving omitted text or removing existing statutory amendments unless expressly intended.
Questions settled- Whether the repeal of an amending act by a repealing ordinance affects amendments previously incorporated into the text of a principal statute?
- Does the acquisition of a co-vendee's share by a purchaser after the institution of a pre-emption suit constitute an improvement in status under section 17(2) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act 1950?
- Can a vendee utilize an exchange of land executed after the filing of a pre-emption suit to improve their title and defeat the pre-emptor's claim?
- ABDUL MAJID AND Others vs SHAMSHER ALI AND Other1982 SCMR 858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land inheritance. The petitioners, who are the children of Mst. Jaini, claimed a share in the estate of the deceased propositus, Nazir Ali. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as 'distant kindred', could inherit in the presence of the respondents, who were established as 'residuaries' of category No. 3 under Islamic law. The High Court had dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition, confirming that 'residuaries' have a preferential right of inheritance and exclude 'distant kindred'. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, refusing to entertain a new factual plea raised by the petitioners regarding the survival of another relative (Allah Diya) at the time of the propositus's death, as this factual point was not raised before the departmental forums and lacked authentic evidentiary support. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that new factual contentions requiring evidence cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether 'distant kindred' are excluded from inheritance under Islamic law in the presence of 'residuaries' of category No. 3?
- Can a party raise a new factual plea for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the departmental forums or supported by authentic evidence?
- Whether a case should be remanded to investigate a factual claim of survivorship when no supporting evidence has been produced over a prolonged period of litigation?
- ABDUL MAJID AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Another1982 SCMR 452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a suit for the recovery of rent for two crops, Kharif 1973 and Rabi 1974, filed by the respondent against the petitioners. The Assistant Collector (Grade 1), Vehari, decreed the suit based on a special oath taken by the respondent following an offer made by the petitioners. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged this decree through appeals and revisions before the Collector, the Additional Commissioner, and the Member, Board of Revenue. Subsequently, a writ petition filed in the Lahore High Court was also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought special leave to appeal, contending that only one petitioner, Abdul Majid, had offered to resolve the suit via special oath, rendering the decree non-binding on the others. The Supreme Court examined the record and found this factual assertion to be false. Consequently, the Court held that the decree was validly passed and that the merits of the case had been adequately addressed in prior proceedings. Finding no grounds for interference, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Is a decree passed on the basis of a special oath binding on all petitioners if the record indicates the offer was made on behalf of all?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a special oath offer?
- ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER vs MAQBOOL AHMED1982 CLC 1889 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs Syed NAZIMUDDIN1982 CLC 2654 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED AND Others vs SUPERINTENDENT, JAIL, KHAIRPUR1982 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED AND Another vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER SIND AT1982 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a composite property on Lawrence Road, Karachi, under settlement laws. The core legal questions involve whether the property was divisible, whether the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the transfer, and whether their challenge was barred by laches and limitation. The Supreme Court held that the determination of divisibility falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the settlement authorities, that concurrent findings supported by site plans cannot be interfered with lightly, that persons who did not file claim forms lack locus standi, and that unexplained delays in pursuing statutory remedies and filing constitutional petitions render proceedings incompetent. The court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition, establishing that concurrent factual findings of administrative tribunals regarding property divisibility and limitation are protected against interference in constitutional jurisdiction absent compelling justification.
Questions settled- Whether the question of whether a settlement property is divisible or not falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the settlement authorities?
- Does a person who has not filed a claim form for a property possess the locus standi to challenge its transfer?
- Whether a writ petition suffering from gross delay and laches is liable to be dismissed?
- Can concurrent findings of settlement authorities regarding the indivisibility of a property be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- ABDUL LATIF vs FAQIR Muhammads1982 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition was filed by an unsuccessful tenant challenging the order of the High Court, which in second appeal affirmed the first appellate court's decree for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide use. The landlord sought eviction asserting that he was occupying rented premises from which he was asked to vacate and possessed no other alternative premises. The petitioner contended that the landlord lacked bona fides because he manufactured jewellery whereas the demised shop was located in a market predominantly meant for selling jewellery. The Supreme Court observed that the landlord had no other premises available and intended to use the disputed property for both manufacturing and selling jewellery. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact established the landlord's genuine requirement, leaving no room for interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the tenant was granted one month's time to vacate the premises with mutual consent.
Questions settled- Whether the personal bona fide requirement of a landlord is established when he faces eviction from his rented premises and has no other suitable property available?
- Whether carrying on both manufacturing and sale of goods in a shop satisfies the requirement of personal bona fide use for commercial premises?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal infirmity?
- ABDUL LATIF MUGHAL vs PAKISTAN HEROLD LTD.1982 PLC 402 · Labour Court · 1982-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQUE vs MESSRS COFCOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD1982 PLC 302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 466 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ AND 2 Others vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF AND 5 Other1982 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the High Court in a property dispute concerning land held by a Khanqah as an occupancy tenant. The core legal questions involve whether a deposit of compensation for acquiring proprietary rights made by a third party on behalf of the occupancy tenant under the Punjab Tenancy (Validation and Extension of Period for Payment of Compensation) Ordinance, 1969 is valid, and whether the extension of time applies to pending matters and benefits the tenant. The Supreme Court held that the deposit made by the third party in the name of the shrine for its benefit constitutes a valid tender under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and that the validating ordinance is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to be given full effect to extend the remedy to occupancy tenants. The petition was accordingly dismissed on merits.
Questions settled- Can a third party deposit compensation on behalf of an occupancy tenant to acquire proprietary rights under the Punjab Tenancy (Validation and Extension of Period for Payment of Compensation) Ordinance, 1969?
- Does section 3 of the Punjab Tenancy (Validation and Extension of Period for Payment of Compensation) Ordinance, 1969 apply to pending cases and annul previous judgments where occupancy tenants lost rights due to non-payment?
- Whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf as an occupancy tenant can benefit from a compensation payment made by a third party for the shrine?
- ABDUL KARIM vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs Sheikh MAZHAR UL HAQUE AND OTHER1982 CLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM SHEIKH vs POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN CIRCLE, RAWALPINDI1982 PLC (C. S.) 795 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL KADIR vs MIR ASHRAF ALI KHAN AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 110 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Appeal arises from a judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Dadu, dismissing the appellant-plaintiff's suit for specific performance, possession, and mesne profits based on an agreement to sell agricultural land, but decreeing it for the recovery of earnest money. The core legal questions involve determining whether the appellant's agreement to sell was prior in time to a competing agreement executed in favour of a second defendant, whether a prior decree obtained by the second defendant from a civil court at Hyderabad was collusive and without jurisdiction, and whether the appellant was entitled to specific performance or discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act. The Sindh High Court held that the competing agreement in favour of the second defendant was genuine and prior in time, that the appellant failed to prove it was forged or that the Hyderabad decree was collusive, and that specific performance is a discretionary remedy which was properly refused given the circumstances and contractual terms between the parties. The court upheld the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether specific performance of a contract can be granted when a competing agreement to sell in favour of another party is proved to be prior in time?
- Can a court sit in judgment over the decree of a court of coordinate jurisdiction without proper pleadings and proof of fraud?
- Is the grant of specific performance a mandatory right or a discretionary remedy to be exercised on judicial principles?
- Whether a plaintiff seeking to nullify a court decree must explicitly include a prayer for its cancellation in the plaint?
- ABDUL KADIR vs AMINA BEGUM AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR vs Mst. NAFEESA KHATOON1982 CLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH COMMUNICATION1982 PLC (C. S.) 285 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE `C' AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HASSAN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Abdul Hassan, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on grounds of a cross-complaint and the release of co-accused on bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was directly charged with promptness in the First Information Report for causing fatal firearm injuries supported by medical evidence, and that the case against him warranted trial without interference with the prior bail decisions of other accused persons. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly and promptly implicated in the crime report with corroborative medical evidence, post-arrest bail at the pre-trial stage is properly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an accused directly charged with promptness in the First Information Report for fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the release of co-accused on bail automatically entitle another accused person to the grant of bail?
- Can a cross-complaint filed subsequent to the initial First Information Report justify the grant of bail at the pre-trial stage?
- ABDUL HAMID vs Mian MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 556 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID NIAZI vs Mst. WILTU BEGUM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2255 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID NIAZI vs Mst. WILTU BEG UM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2255 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID KHALIL vs ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, N.-W. F. P., PESHAWAR , .1982 PLC (C. S.) 209 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1981-12-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID JANJUA vs CHIEF ENGINEER AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Research Assistant, challenged his removal from service following unauthorized absence from duty. After failing to resume work despite telegraphic and written directives, he was issued a show-cause notice and subsequently removed from service. His service appeal was dismissed by the Punjab Administrative Tribunal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his removal order and the show-cause notice were issued by the Secretary of the Department rather than the Government, which he alleged was the competent appointing authority. Additionally, he argued that he was denied a personal hearing. The Supreme Court observed that these specific legal points were not argued before the Tribunal and were absent from the impugned order. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain these new arguments, noting the lack of supporting material on the record. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim regarding the lack of a personal hearing, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he had requested one. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that new legal grounds cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without prior adjudication.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise legal arguments for the first time before the Supreme Court that were not argued before the Service Tribunal?
- Is a public servant entitled to a personal hearing if they have not specifically requested one during disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the failure to argue specific points before an administrative tribunal preclude their consideration in a subsequent petition for leave to appeal?
- ABDUL HAMEED vs WING CDR. (RTD.) ZULFIKAR ALI AZIZ1982 CLC 531(2) · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 949 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 491 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs Mst. AMINA BEGUM1982 CLC 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs HOTEL INTER-CONTINENTAL, KARACHIIAND ANOTHER1982 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR1982 PLC (C. S.) 459 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED BEG vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & SETTLEMENT1982 CLC 695 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED AND Another vs Mst. JAFRAN AND Another1982 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a factual controversy regarding the land allotment of Khasra No. 2781 measuring 8 kanals. The core legal question was whether the entire Khasra number had been validly allotted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest and whether its subsequent partial allotment to the appellants was a nullity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of satisfactory evidence showing cancellation of the initial allotment of the entire Khasra number in favour of the respondents, any subsequent allotment of a part thereof to the appellants was a nullity in the eyes of law. The key principle laid down is that an existing land allotment must be formally and lawfully cancelled before any portion of the same land can be legally re-allotted to another person, and subsequent entries cannot override a prior subsisting allotment without clear proof of prior cancellation.
Questions settled- Whether land already allotted to a person can be subsequently re-allotted to another person without prior lawful cancellation?
- Can subsequent administrative records override a prior subsisting allotment in the absence of satisfactory evidence of cancellation?
- Does an allotment of land remain operative if the alleged scoring out or deletion lacks supporting authority or record?
- ABDUL HALEEM vs The STATE And Another1982 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was filed against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents under Sections 420 and 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on the ground that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature. The core legal question was whether the pendency of civil litigation regarding a disputed agreement of sale justifies the quashing of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts and documents, or whether such proceedings ought merely to be stayed. The Supreme Court held that the mere pendency of civil litigation does not extinguish criminal liability where the alleged facts disclose the commission of criminal offences. To avoid conflicting findings between civil and criminal courts, the proper course in such matters is to stay the criminal proceedings until the final conclusion of the civil litigation, rather than quashing them. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the High Court's order by directing that the criminal complaint remain stayed pending the civil proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of civil litigation justify the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated on the same facts?
- What is the appropriate procedure for a court when civil and criminal proceedings involve the same document and subject matter?
- Does the existence of a civil dispute negate criminal liability if the alleged facts disclose the commission of a criminal offence?
- ABDUL HALEEM vs MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN AND Another1982 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a constitutional petition challenging the election of the petitioner to a Town Committee was allowed. The core legal questions involved whether an employee of the Telephone Industries of Pakistan was disqualified from contesting local body elections under section 28 of the N.-W. F. P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979, read with President's Order No. 5 of 1977, and whether the disqualification applied retrospectively to unseat a member already elected. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that disqualifications for Parliament under President's Order No. 5 of 1977 were validly incorporated by reference into the Local Government Ordinance, and that a member could not continue to hold office if subsequently disqualified. The key principles laid down are that incorporation by reference of statutory disqualifications must be given full effect according to its plain language, and that provisions regarding disqualification and removal from a local council apply to sitting members regardless of the date of their initial election.
Questions settled- Are disqualifications from the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies Election Order, 1977 incorporated by reference into section 28 of the N.-W. F. P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Does an employee of the Telephone Industries of Pakistan suffer disqualification from contesting local council elections?
- Can a disqualification provision in the N.-W. F. P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979 apply to remove a member already elected prior to the amendment?
- Whether a member of a local council can be removed from office under section 34-1(a) of the N.-W. F. P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979 upon incurring a disqualification?
- ABDUL HAKIM AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER vs Mst. BEGAN1982 CLC 1670 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs REHMAN AND ANOTHER.1982 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs REHMAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM AND Another vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 975 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arises from the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to death for the murder of Yaseen. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution evidence, particularly the admissibility and weight of statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pursuant to section 265-J, the testimony of a solitary interested eye-witness, and the credibility of alleged weapon recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, noting severe procedural flaws in recording statements under section 164 without proper notice or opportunity to cross-examine, lack of corroboration for the inimical solitary witness, and unconvincing recovery evidence. The court laid down the principle that statements under section 164 admitted under section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including written notice and effective opportunity of cross-examination, and that interested testimony of an inimical witness cannot sustain a capital conviction without independent corroboration.
Questions settled- What are the mandatory procedural requirements for admitting a statement recorded under section 164 as substantive evidence under section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a capital conviction be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary eye-witness who has a background of enmity with the accused?
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to examine independent available witnesses from the locality creates a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
- Does the uncorroborated solitary testimony of an investigating officer regarding the delayed recovery of crime weapons suffice to prove the charge?
- ABDUL HADI AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAL1982 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's civil suit. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the allotment of Plot No. 356, which had been allotted to him on 14-4-1953 and subsequently cancelled due to alleged failure to perform lease agreement terms. The core legal question concerned the burden of proof regarding default under the contract and the production of departmental records. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, affirming that the plaintiff bore the responsibility to utilize coercive legal processes to summon departmental records if the opposing party failed to produce them. The key principle laid down is that a party alleging default must properly invoke legal mechanisms for the production of evidence and cannot shift blame for failing to do so.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to summon departmental records through coercive legal processes if the department fails to produce them?
- Can a party blame the opposing department for non-production of records without resorting to legal coercive processes?
- ABDUL GHANI vs SIND ALKALIS LTD.1982 PLC 420 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1333 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI AND Another vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN 2 AND Other1982 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges land acquisition proceedings initiated by the government for a cement factory, asserting that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was superseded by the Baluchistan Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes in the Rural Areas) Act 1974. The core legal questions concern whether the 1894 Act remains applicable in the province and whether the respondents complied with mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that while the 1894 Act remains valid for purposes outside the scope of the 1974 Act, the current acquisition proceedings were illegal. The holding rests on the finding that the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under Section 4 and Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and failed to execute a necessary agreement under Section 41 for company-purpose acquisitions. The key principle laid down is that mere official Gazette publication is insufficient; the Collector must strictly adhere to Section 45 by serving public notice in the locality, and failure to follow these statutory mandates, including the agreement requirement for company acquisitions, vitiates the entire acquisition process.
Questions settled- Does the Baluchistan Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes in the Rural Areas) Act 1974 impliedly repeal the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is the publication of an acquisition notification in the official Gazette sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- What are the consequences of failing to execute an agreement under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when acquiring land for a company?
- Does the failure to serve public notice in the locality as required by Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vitiate acquisition proceedings?
- ABDUL GHANI AND 7 Others vs COLLECTOR (5 MARLA SCHEME), DISTRICT1982 CLC 2639 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI AND 2 Other vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE AND Another1982 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition in limine. The matter pertained to the appointment of a Lambardar in Chak No. 329/W. B., Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan. The Collector appointed the respondent, but the Commissioner reversed this on appeal. Following revision and subsequent review proceedings, the Member, Board of Revenue, ultimately selected the respondent based on merits and suitability. The High Court declined to interfere under its writ jurisdiction, holding that no individual possesses a vested right to be appointed as a Lambardar, as such appointments are administrative actions aimed at facilitating revenue administration. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that revenue authorities are best suited to assess candidate qualifications and that an alleged error in an administrative choice does not render the decision without lawful authority where no vested right exists.
Questions settled- Does a candidate have a vested legal right to be appointed as a Lambardar under land revenue laws?
- Can the High Court exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction to set aside an administrative appointment of a Lambardar in the absence of a violation of a vested right?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND Other vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1982 PLD Supreme Court 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the defendant-vendee challenged the plaintiff's locus standi. The vendee argued that the pre-emption decree violated paragraph 24(4) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, which restricted landowners with less than a subsistence holding from alienating their land except under specific conditions. The core legal question was whether the statutory restrictions on alienation under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 applied to a pre-emptor seeking to substitute the vendee through a court decree. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that a pre-emption decree is an adjudication by a court and the enforcement of a statutory right, which does not constitute an 'alienation' by the owner within the meaning of paragraph 24 of the Regulation. The Court laid down the principle that a pre-emptor merely substitutes the original vendee in an otherwise valid transaction, and statutory restrictions on voluntary alienations by landowners do not apply to involuntary substitutions resulting from the enforcement of pre-emption rights.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emption decree constitute an alienation by sale, mortgage, gift, or otherwise within the meaning of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Are the statutory restrictions on land alienation imposed on vendors under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 equally applicable to pre-emptors seeking substitution?
- Does the substitution of a vendee by a successful pre-emptor violate statutory prohibitions against the subdivision or alienation of subsistence holdings?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND Another vs MUHAMMAD BUX AND Another1982 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a writ petition filed by the respondent regarding the transfer and resumption of a shop. Shop No. P-17, B-III was transferred to the respondent in 1967, but upon failure to make payment, a demand notice was issued, followed by the resumption of the shop on 30-6-1970. The respondent filed multiple applications seeking time to pay the transfer price, which were initially rejected by the authorities. Subsequently, the High Court accepted the respondent's writ petition. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was the applicability of paragraph 3-A of the Scheme to the respondent's application for payment of the balance price. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent's application was made within 90 days of the resumption order and before the auction was confirmed, paragraph 3-A was applicable with full force. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the decision of the Lahore High Court.
Questions settled- Whether paragraph 3-A of the Scheme applies when an application for payment is made within 90 days of a resumption order?
- Does an auction that has not yet been confirmed render a property unavailable for transfer under the relevant Scheme?
- Can a petition for special leave to appeal be maintained against the acceptance of a writ petition by the High Court in property resumption matters?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND 13 Others vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, L. D. A.1982 CLC 818 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHANG1982 PLC (C. S.) 110 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR AND Others vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR AND Other vs Mst. MUMTAZ1982 PLD Supreme Court 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rental Premises Ordinance, 1979 as time-barred on the ground that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not apply. The core legal question is whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to appeals filed under section 21 of the Sind Rental Premises Ordinance, 1979, thereby allowing the extension of the limitation period for sufficient cause. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the special law prescribes a period of limitation different from that prescribed in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, section 29(2) of the Limitation Act operates to exclude section 5. The key principle laid down is that where a special or local law provides a distinct period of limitation, the combined effect of section 29(2) clauses (a) and (b) of the Limitation Act, 1908 excludes the applicability of section 5 of the said Act.
Questions settled- Does section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to appeals filed under section 21 of the Sind Rental Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 exclude the application of section 5 of the said Act when a special or local law prescribes a different period of limitation?
- Can the principles underlying section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 be invoked for condonation of delay when the statutory provisions of section 5 are expressly or impliedly excluded?
- ABDUL FATEH vs THE VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK ZONAL OFFICE, SUKKUR1982 PLC 595 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BART AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SAEED1982 CLC 2264 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI SIDDIQUI vs Syed KARIM HYDER1982 CLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SAEED1982 CLC 2264 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BAQI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 562 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BAQI vs ABDUL BASIR QURESHI AND Other1982 SCMR 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition regarding the restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights could be sustained when the husband had issued a notice of Talaq (divorce) and had allegedly attempted to subject his wife to unnatural sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the trial court's decree for restitution. The Court held that the trial court erred in granting restitution because the husband had failed to prove the withdrawal of the notice of Talaq, and the finding that the husband attempted to subject the wife to unnatural intercourse provided a valid legal ground to decline the decree for restitution. The judgment reinforces the principle that a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted where the husband's conduct, such as attempted unnatural acts, renders cohabitation unsafe or inappropriate, and where a valid notice of Talaq remains unwithdrawn.
Questions settled- Can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be granted if the husband has issued a notice of Talaq that remains unwithdrawn?
- Does an attempt by a husband to commit an unnatural offence upon his wife constitute a valid ground to deny a decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs RAMCHAND1982 CLC 214 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND Another1982 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the settlement authorities. The petitioner claimed possession of an evacuee property since 1947 and asserted he filed an N.C.H. Form in 1966 under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, though the property was subsequently auctioned to a third party in 1971 and confirmed in 1973. His departmental appeal was treated as a revision under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, and dismissed on merits and limitation, a view affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a finding of fact regarding the non-filing of a transfer form is open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal regarding the non-filing of the form is unimpeachable in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by statutory settlement authorities, such as the non-existence or non-filing of a claim form, cannot be interfered with by the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding the filing of a transfer form in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether an appeal converted into a revision under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 can be dismissed on limitation?
- Does inaction in pursuing a claimed settlement form for several years militate against the assertion of having filed it?
- ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1982 PLC (C. S.) 224 · Service Tribunal · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing an appeal against the conviction of the petitioners for a double murder under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the proper appreciation of ocular testimony, delayed naming of accused in the First Information Report, uncorroborated recoveries of firearms, and interested witnesses in a case involving previous land hostility. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding discrepancies in the First Information Report, lack of corroboration for interested witnesses, and improper reliance on unmatched weapon recoveries and motive carried considerable force, necessitating a complete re-appraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony comes from interested witnesses and is inconsistent with the initial First Information Report, strong and independent corroboration is legally required to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of closely related and interested witnesses requires strong and independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does the omission of an accused person's name from the First Information Report, where the complainant claims prior acquaintance, create serious doubt regarding their subsequent implication?
- Can the recovery of firearms that do not match the crime empties serve as valid corroborative evidence against an accused?
- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence when the lower courts fail to follow well-established rules relating to the appreciation of evidence?
- ABDUL AZIZ AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, RAHIMYAR1982 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition concerning the powers of authorities under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to order dispossession of the petitioners and deliver possession to private respondents. The core legal question raised is whether sections 19 and 32 of the said Act can be invoked for resolving private disputes of title between parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the point raised involves a substantial question of law of general public importance regarding the scope and applicability of the statutory provisions for private title disputes. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further, while directing that security be furnished and the interim order of dispossession remain suspended pending the final outcome.
Questions settled- Do authorities under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 have the power to direct dispossession and deliver possession under sections 19 and 32 for settling private disputes of title?
- Whether sections 19 and 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 can be used to resolve questions of proprietary title between private parties?
- ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER vs SAGHIR KHAN (MINOR)1982 CLC 347 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL ALEEM vs SPECIAL JUDGE (CUSTOMS), LAHORE AND Other1982 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging criminal proceedings before a Special Judge (Customs). The petitioner had raised objections regarding the competency of the criminal proceedings, but the Special Judge formally charged him. After his criminal revision was dismissed, the petitioner sought annulment of the criminal case via a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed on the ground that it would not short-circuit the normal trial procedure through discretionary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's approach, confirming that invoking writ jurisdiction to deflect or short-circuit the normal course of a criminal trial is impermissible. Aligning its decision with established precedent, the Court held that the writ petition was not competent and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether writ jurisdiction can be exercised to short-circuit or deflect the normal course of a criminal trial?
- ABDUL ALEEM vs MEMBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1982 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against the orders of revenue authorities regarding the allotment of disputed land under the Grow-More-Food Scheme. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 reached a compromise to resolve the matter amicably by dividing the disputed land and the associated tube-well in equal shares. The core legal question concerned the final settlement of the land dispute based on the mutual agreement of the contesting parties. The Supreme Court held that the compromise reached between the parties is fair and serves to end the litigation in an amicable manner in accordance with their wishes. The Court laid down the principle that petitions may be disposed of in terms of a lawful and fair compromise arrived at between private parties to put an end to pending litigation, with directions to competent authorities to give effect to the settlement.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be disposed of in terms of a compromise reached between the parties?
- Whether the Supreme Court can direct competent authorities to give effect to a fair compromise settlement between litigants?
- ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST) KARACHI45 TAX 218 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
- ABBAS vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ETC1982 CLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
- AAS MUHAMMAD vs SAKINA BIBI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- AAS MUHAMMAD vs SAKINA BIBI AND OTHER1982 CLC 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- A. S. MUGHAL vs Mst. KHURSHID AZMAT ALI1982 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The respondent-landlady sought eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of personal requirement for her daughter and on having attained sixty years of age. The appellant challenged the maintainability of the application, arguing it was filed beyond the six-month statutory window from the date the landlady attained sixty years, and that Section 14 does not permit eviction for the need of children. The High Court of Sindh accepted the appeal and set aside the eviction order. The Court held that the landlady's application was time-barred under the then-applicable proviso to Section 14, as her own prior petition to the President of Pakistan proved she had attained sixty years more than six months prior to filing. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 14 is a special summary remedy meant strictly for the personal use of the applicant, and unlike Section 15(2)(viii), it deliberately omits the needs of the landlord's children.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment application under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 is maintainable if filed more than six months after the landlord attained sixty years of age under the pre-amended proviso?
- Can subsequent legislative amendments to a procedural or substantive right be applied retrospectively to validate an ejectment application that was incompetent at the time of its filing?
- Does the term 'personal use' under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 extend to the needs of the landlord's children, or is it restricted solely to the personal benefit of the applicant?
- A. NASIM QURESHI AND ANOTHER vs Kh. MAQSOODUL HASSAN Arts1982 CLC 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →