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.
- SPED MUHAMMAD vs MAZHAR ALI KHAN1981 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of rent appeals filed beyond the prescribed thirty-day period under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, accompanied by applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. The core legal question is whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to appeals under section 21 of the Ordinance, and consequently dismissed the applications for condonation of delay as well as the time-barred appeals. The key principle laid down is that where a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that provided in the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, unless expressly made applicable by the legislature.
Questions settled- Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an appeal filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does section 29(2) of the Limitation Act exclude the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act to special or local laws prescribing a different period of limitation?
- Can delay in filing a rent appeal under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Soofi ABDUL REHMAN vs MESSRS KARACHI SHIPYARD St ENGINEERING WORKS1981 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
- SOHRAB vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI ,1981 PLC 862 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- SOHARA vs RASHID AHMAD AND Other1981 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment disposes of a regular second appeal and a civil revision arising out of two pre-emption suits, both instituted on the last day of limitation with deficient court-fees. The core legal question concerns the harmonious interpretation and interplay between Order VII, Rule 11(c) and Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the court's obligation or discretion to grant time to make up deficient court-fees, and the effect of such extension on the plea of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that Order VII, Rule 11(c) and Section 149 must be read together. While the court is normally bound to grant time to rectify court-fee deficiencies, this indulgence and the saving of limitation cannot be extended in cases marked by contumacy, positive mala fides, dishonesty, or higher degrees of negligence (such as deliberately paying a ridiculously low court-fee merely to gain time). Applying this principle, the court found the plaintiffs' conduct in both cases to be mala fide and lacking in bona fides. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the pre-emption suit in the revision petition and upheld the dismissal of the suit in the second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order VII, rule 11(c) and section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are to be read together when granting time to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
- Is a court bound to grant time to a plaintiff to make good a deficient court-fee under Order VII, rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in cases of contumacy or positive mala fides?
- Does the payment of a ridiculously low court-fee on the last day of limitation raise a presumption of lack of bona fides and mala fide conduct on the part of the plaintiff?
- Can a plaintiff claim the benefit of section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to save limitation where the initial institution of the suit was tainted by negligence of a greater degree or dishonesty?
- Smt. VIDAYABAI AND 3 OTHERS vs MOORANJMAL1981 CLC 903 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUL ARFEEN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHOREP L, D 1981 Karachi 437 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF AND 4 OTHEER1981 CLC 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ DIN AND ANOTHERs vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1981 CLC 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
- SIND TEXTBOOK BOARD (NON-GAZETTED) EMPLOYEES' UNION vs SIND1981 PLC 330 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SANOHAR vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF, .1981 PLC 843 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MIRPURKHAS vs Hafiz ABDUL QADIR1981 PLC 600 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD vs BADAL KHAN , .1981 PLC 743 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs Raja MUHAMMAD BUX1981 PLC 905 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs JAFFAR ALI AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs MESSRS AL-MOHAMMADI1981 PLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, challenging a judgment of the Social Security Court which held that an establishment was no longer liable to pay contributions after changing its name and partnership composition. The core legal question was whether an establishment, once notified under the Ordinance, ceases to be subject to its provisions upon a change in its name or the addition of a new partner. The High Court held that the establishment remains subject to the Ordinance, emphasizing that the Ordinance is a beneficial and remedial legislation intended to ameliorate the lot of the working class. The Court ruled that the identity of an establishment is not defined by its name or the specific composition of its partnership, but by the nature of the business and the employment of workers. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's judgment, affirming that the respondents must continue to register secured workers and pay contributions as required by law.
Questions settled- Does a change in the name of an establishment exempt it from the application of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
- Does the addition of a new partner to a firm alter the status of an establishment for the purposes of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
- How should the terms 'employee' and 'establishment' be interpreted in the context of beneficial legislation like the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
- SIND CONSTRUCTION Co. vs THE KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI1981 CLC 1282 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR KHAN and MAKHU vs BARKHURDAR AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 884 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR And 2 Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the concurrent convictions of three appellants for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in light of allegations that the witnesses were 'chance witnesses,' discrepancies between medical evidence and the prosecution's version of events, and the evidentiary value of forensic recoveries delayed in transit. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the convictions. The Court held that reliable ocular testimony cannot be discarded based on speculative medical opinions regarding a victim's post-injury volitional capacity. It further established that delays in forwarding forensic samples to a Chemical Examiner do not automatically invalidate the evidence, provided the articles were properly sealed at the scene and there is no proof of tampering or bad faith by the police. The judgment reinforces that judicial reliance on medical evidence must be cautious, as doctors' opinions on volitional acts are variable and secondary to credible eyewitness accounts, and that forensic delays require cross-examination to establish prejudice.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony be rejected solely based on a doctor's hypothetical opinion regarding a victim's ability to perform volitional acts after receiving a fatal injury?
- Does an inordinate delay in sending blood-stained articles to a Chemical Examiner automatically render the forensic evidence inadmissible?
- Is the testimony of witnesses who are not recorded haris in revenue records necessarily unreliable in a murder case?
- SIKANDAR ALI vs SIND SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND Other1981 SC M.R 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sind Services Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his dismissal from the position of Treasury Clerk. The petitioner had been dismissed for willful absence from duty following a departmental inquiry. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as non-maintainable due to the departmental appeal being time-barred, and whether the departmental authority's consideration of the appeal on merits implied a condonation of delay. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that, regardless of the procedural issues surrounding the departmental appeal and the alleged condonation of delay, the findings of the inquiry officer regarding the petitioner's willful absence were supported by ample material. The petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence, such as medical certificates or proof of unlawful detention, to justify his long absence. Consequently, the Court determined that remanding the case to the Tribunal would serve no useful purpose, as the underlying disciplinary findings were substantively sound.
Questions settled- Does a departmental appellate authority's decision to consider an appeal on merits imply a condonation of delay?
- Is a service appeal maintainable before a Tribunal if the preceding departmental appeal was time-barred?
- SIKANDAR ALI BALOCH vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS LTD. ,1981 PLC 240 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE AND Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves the proper appreciation of ocular and circumstantial evidence in a criminal murder trial arising from a dispute over illicit relations and an ensuing fatal attack with hatchets. The Supreme Court evaluated the findings of the lower courts, which had relied on eyewitness testimonies, motive, and recovery of blood-stained weapons, and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the concurrent appraisement of evidence by the trial court and the High Court suffered from no error of law or fact warranting interference, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial?
- Does the recovery of blood-stained weapons corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
- Whether conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code is sustainable when multiple accused participate in a fatal attack?
- SIDDIQ vs THS STATE--Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-15Read full judgment →
- SHUJA UD DIN vs Haji MASITEY KHAN AND Another1981 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlords against the tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit rent, but the tenant defaulted on payments for multiple months. Consequently, the Rent Controller struck off the tenant's defence and ordered eviction. An appellate court remanded the case, holding that the tenant should have been granted an opportunity to prove sufficient cause for the default, namely illness. However, the High Court set aside the remand order and restored the eviction order, finding the plea of illness to be an afterthought not raised before the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether a tenant defaulting on rent deposits is entitled to an opportunity to establish sufficient cause for delay when such a plea was never raised before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that where no proper plea of illness was taken at the appropriate stage before the Rent Controller, the tenant cannot claim a right to an inquiry, and upheld the High Court's decision. The key principle established is that a defence of sufficient cause for rent default cannot be entertained if it is raised for the first time on appeal without having been pleaded before the Rent Controller.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can raise a plea of illness for the first time on appeal to justify a default in rent deposit?
- Is a Rent Controller bound to hold an inquiry into sufficient cause for rent default when no such plea was raised in the reply to the default application?
- Does an order striking off a defence for non-payment of rent warrant interference when the default is admitted and unexcused?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1981 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was dismissed and his sentence of life imprisonment along with a fine was maintained. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of ocular testimony in the absence of corroborating circumstantial evidence, particularly after the co-accused was acquitted and the High Court discarded the recovery evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the credibility of the eye-witnesses were based on valid reasons and did not warrant interference, though it granted the benefit of section 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the period of jail custody. The key principle laid down is that reliable and unimpeached ocular testimony alone can sustain a conviction for murder even if corroborative circumstantial evidence is discarded, provided the witnesses have no motive to falsely implicate the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when circumstantial evidence of recovery is discarded?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal merely because a co-accused was acquitted on different evidentiary considerations?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 285 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND OTHERS1981 PLC 212 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1981S C M R 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from the dismissal of a revenue Patwari by the Settlement Officer, Multan, acting under powers conferred by a government notification. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that the Settlement Officer lacked the legal competence to dismiss him because the petitioner was not involved in settlement work and his services were not placed at the Settlement Officer's disposal. The core legal question was whether the notification conferring the powers of a Collector upon the Settlement Officer was limited only to matters concerning settlement work, thereby rendering the dismissal order ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the notification was widely expressed and conferred all powers of a Collector (except those under Chapter VI of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887) upon the Settlement Officer, without restricting his jurisdiction to settlement-related duties. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the Settlement Officer acted within his jurisdiction as a Collector. The key principle established is that where a notification confers the full powers of a Collector upon an officer without explicit limitation to specific departmental functions, that officer may exercise administrative powers, including disciplinary authority, over subordinates within the district.
Questions settled- Does a notification conferring the powers of a Collector upon a Settlement Officer limit that officer's jurisdiction solely to settlement-related work?
- Can a Settlement Officer exercise disciplinary powers over a Patwari if the notification conferring Collector powers does not explicitly restrict those powers to settlement duties?
- Is a Settlement Officer who is granted the powers of a Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 subordinate to the District Collector in the exercise of those powers?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, FAISALABAD AND OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 745 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs SAID MUHAMMAD SHAH1981 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan with a delay of 84 days, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner submitted that his counsel failed to inform him of the date of hearing or the eventual dismissal of his revision petition by the Lahore High Court, and further pleaded that an attack of enteric fever subsequently prevented him from filing the petition in time, producing a medical certificate in support. The primary legal question was whether counsel's failure to inform a client of a judgment, coupled with a doubtful medical certificate, constitutes sufficient cause to condone delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Court rejected the medical certificate as an afterthought, noting it implausibly anticipated a future rest period extending over six weeks from the date of issuance. The Court held that a litigant bears the primary obligation to remain informed about the status of his case, and counsel's failure to notify him does not per se constitute sufficient cause to condone long delay.
Questions settled- Does a counsel's failure to inform a client of the outcome of a case constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a medical certificate that purports to anticipate a future period of illness and bed rest be accepted to explain a delay in filing?
- Does a litigant bear an independent duty to keep informed about the progress and decision of their case?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs RAJADA AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Supreme Court 591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal examined whether a sale of agricultural land effected in contravention of section 8 of the Punjab Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1951, and possession taken thereunder, could be used by vendees to plead the bar of limitation against a pre-emption suit filed within one year of the subsequent attestation of the sale mutation. The core legal question was whether the statutory invalidity under the tax act rendered the 1951 sale incomplete or void for the purposes of the pre-emption law and the starting point of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the invalidity or infirmity attaching to the sale was restricted solely to the incidence and payment of agricultural income-tax and did not render the sale incomplete or void for pre-emption purposes. The transaction constituted a complete sale upon delivery of possession in 1951, from which date limitation for filing the pre-emption suit commenced. The key principle laid down is that statutory restrictions on land transfers intended to prevent the evasion of agricultural income-tax do not invalidate the underlying transaction for other civil purposes such as pre-emption, and possession taken pursuant to such a transaction starts the period of limitation.
Questions settled- Does a violation of section 8 of the Punjab Agricultural Income-tax Act 1951 render an oral sale of agricultural land void or incomplete for the purposes of pre-emption?
- From what date does limitation start for a pre-emption suit when possession is delivered under a sale affected by a tax evasion restriction?
- What is the scope and legal effect of statutory invalidity attached to land transfers under agricultural income-tax legislation?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 536 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-07-27Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN1981 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the alienation of agricultural land allotted to a widow under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The core legal questions were whether a High Court judge is bound by a Full Bench decision on a point of law when the Supreme Court has subsequently declared the law to the contrary, and whether a reference to a Full Bench automatically disposes of the underlying constitutional petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court judge correctly followed the Supreme Court's binding precedent over the earlier Full Bench decision. The Court established that under the Constitution, any decision of the Supreme Court on a question of law is binding on all other courts in Pakistan, superseding conflicting High Court Full Bench decisions. Furthermore, a reference to a Full Bench for a specific legal question does not automatically dispose of the underlying constitutional petition, which remains subject to final adjudication. The Court also rejected technical arguments regarding limitation, finding them unsubstantial in the context of the rehabilitation proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a High Court judge bound to follow a Full Bench decision on a question of law when the Supreme Court has subsequently declared the law to the contrary?
- Does a reference to a Full Bench for a specific legal question automatically dispose of the underlying constitutional petition?
- Does a widow allotted land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme in lieu of a limited estate in India become an absolute owner competent to alienate it?
- SHER JANG vs MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts ordering the eviction of the petitioner from a property due to default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming ownership through a purchase deed, could challenge the eviction order based on the landlord-tenant relationship established by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim of ownership failed because his sale deed was both subsequent to and unregistered compared to the respondents' prior, registered sale deed. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court affirmed that an unregistered, subsequent sale deed cannot supersede a prior, registered sale deed. Furthermore, as the petitioner failed to establish ownership, the finding of default in rent payment remained uncontested and valid. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, maintaining the eviction order.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent unregistered sale deed take precedence over a prior registered sale deed?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord-tenant relationship be challenged in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction if they fail to pay rent and their claim of ownership over the property is legally invalid?
- SHER BAHADUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL ETC.1981 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Election Tribunal's decision to set aside local government elections held on 25-9-79 in Electoral Unit No. 25, Union Council, Peelo Wance, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha. During the polling, all contesting candidates had mutually agreed with the Presiding Officer to exclude women voters and treat their votes as spoiled ballot papers. Subsequently, certain respondents filed an election petition challenging the election on the ground that women were prevented from voting, leading the Tribunal and High Court to set aside the election. The core legal question was whether candidates and a Presiding Officer can lawfully agree to disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court held that registered voters possess a statutory right to vote which candidates cannot waive or compromise, and that an agreement depriving voters of their franchise is void ab initio as being against public policy and law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a candidate have the right to refuse or not accept a vote from a registered voter?
- Can a Presiding Officer legally agree with contesting candidates to disenfranchise women voters?
- Is an agreement between candidates to exclude certain voters considered void ab initio as against public policy?
- SHER BAHADAR vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION1981 PLC 443 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MURTAZA ALI vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 41981 SCMR 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against the resumption and subsequent auction of evacuee property by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The property was originally transferred to a Jammu and Kashmir claimant, Khawaja Ghulam Muhammad, under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The core legal question was whether the resumption of this property, following the transferee's departure from Pakistan, was lawful and whether the appellant, who had an agreement to purchase the property from the original transferee, had locus standi to challenge the resumption. The Supreme Court held that the resumption was lawful because the proprietary rights remained vested in the Central Government under the terms of the transfer, as the transferee had not paid the full value to secure unconditional ownership. The Court further held that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the cancellation of the P.T.D. as he had not informed the authorities of his interest, and the original transferee had abandoned the property. The key principle laid down is that where property is transferred to a Jammu and Kashmir claimant subject to Central Government proprietary rights, the transferee's rights are conditional, and the government may resume the property upon the transferee's repatriation or disappearance.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of evacuee property to a Jammu and Kashmir claimant under Settlement Scheme No. VI vest unconditional proprietary rights in the transferee?
- Does a person claiming an interest in evacuee property through an agreement to sell have locus standi to challenge the resumption of that property by the Settlement authorities?
- Can the Settlement authorities resume property transferred to a Jammu and Kashmir claimant if the transferee has left the country and cannot be located?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs HUMAYUN KABIR AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose from an order of the Additional District Judge, Sukkur, staying the execution of a compromise decree under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent No. 3, whose husband (respondent No. 2) had signed the compromise application on her behalf using a special power of attorney, filed a separate civil suit challenging the validity of the decree on grounds of fraud, forgery, and interpolation of the power of attorney. The applicant contended that a separate suit was not maintainable as an appeal was the proper remedy, and that the compromise signed by the authorized advocate was binding. The High Court held that a separate suit for declaration was maintainable because the remedy of appeal was of a limited nature and inefficacious for resolving complex factual disputes of fraud. The Court also noted that the newly added Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 did not apply retrospectively to this suit. However, to prevent prejudice to the decree-holder and address potential collusion, the Court modified the stay order, directing that the execution proceedings be stayed only upon respondent No. 3 furnishing security for the decretal amount.
Questions settled- Whether a separate civil suit challenging a compromise decree on the grounds of fraud and forgery is maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal is available but is inefficacious?
- Does the bar on separate suits under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply retrospectively to suits filed before the promulgation of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980?
- Can an attorney delegate the power to compromise a suit to an advocate if the attorney himself was not granted the power to compromise in the original power of attorney?
- Should a court staying execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impose terms as to security to protect the interests of the decree-holder?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AKHTAR vs SQN./LDR. (RTD.) Shaikh GHULAM1981 CLC 453 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating a property pending the disposal of a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether a receipt for earnest money, which contemplated a future formal agreement, constituted a binding contract for sale sufficient to warrant an interlocutory injunction. The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, as the receipt indicated an agreement on price and subject matter. The court emphasized that disputed contentions regarding fraud, misrepresentation, or the adequacy of consideration are matters for trial and not for interlocutory adjudication. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, subject to the plaintiff depositing the balance of the sale consideration. The key principle laid down is that for interlocutory injunctions in specific performance suits, the court must assess the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, while recognizing that breach of a contract to transfer immovable property is generally not adequately compensated by money alone.
Questions settled- Does a receipt for earnest money that contemplates a future formal sale agreement constitute a binding contract for the purpose of an interlocutory injunction?
- Should the court decide disputed questions of fraud and property valuation at the interlocutory stage of a suit for specific performance?
- Is the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property considered adequately compensable by money alone?
- What are the three essential criteria for granting an interlocutory injunction in a suit for specific performance?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASIF vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate court, directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the landlady for her family. The core legal question revolved around whether a residential building, having been rented out for non-residential purposes (a bakery), loses its residential character and whether the landlady could seek its eviction for residential use. The Lahore High Court held that putting a residential building to non-residential use without the written permission of the Rent Controller under the relevant rent restriction law or the prior sanction of municipal authorities does not change its structural or legal character as a residential building. Consequently, the landlady was legally entitled to seek ejectment for her family's residential needs. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the use of a residential building for a non-residential purpose with the agreement of the landlord have the effect of converting it into a non-residential building under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a residential building be converted into a non-residential building without the permission in writing of the Controller?
- Is a landlord entitled to seek the ejectment of a tenant from a structurally residential building for personal residential requirements even if it was initially let out for business purposes without statutory conversion permission?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 7 OTHERS1981 CLC 1654 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- Sheikh JAVED RASHID vs Mu CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 515 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ISRAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL RAHIM vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL HAMID vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1981 PLD Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals arising from separate eviction applications filed by a landlord against two different tenants. The Rent Controller recorded evidence in one case and mechanically copied it into the other, denying the respondents an independent trial and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in their respective cases. The core legal question was whether this procedure, which effectively bypassed separate trials, was legally sustainable. The High Court held that the procedure was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice, as well as the statutory requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to provide tenants a reasonable opportunity to show cause against eviction. The court affirmed that every proceeding must be decided on the material recorded within that specific proceeding, and evidence from one case cannot be imported into another without independent examination. Consequently, the court upheld the appellate authority's decision to set aside the eviction orders and remanded the cases for a fresh, independent trial, emphasizing that the mechanical copying of evidence caused grave prejudice to the respondents.
Questions settled- Is it legally permissible for a Rent Controller to record evidence in one case and copy it verbatim into another case without independent examination?
- Does the mechanical copying of evidence from one case into another without allowing separate cross-examination constitute a violation of natural justice?
- Can a Rent Controller decide an eviction application based on evidence recorded in a separate proceeding?
- Does the failure to provide a tenant a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in an eviction proceeding vitiate the trial?
- SHEBAR KHAN vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT KARACHI1981 PLC 360 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-23Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT MANZOOR vs The STATE1981 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to grant bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, who was accused of firing the fatal shot, sought bail on the grounds that other co-accused had been granted bail, that the prosecution case was allegedly belied by the investigation, and that there were inconsistencies between the First Information Report and the post-mortem report regarding the injuries sustained. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail constituted an arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court had properly considered the relevant factors and that the attribution of the fatal shot to the petitioner justified the denial of bail at this stage. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with the High Court's discretion when it has been exercised reasonably and not perversely.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in bail matters?
- Is it appropriate for the Court to conduct a detailed assessment of evidence at the bail stage when a fatal shot is attributed to the accused?
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs ZULFIQAR AHMAD AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 13 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the legality of a police raid, search, and seizure of goods from the petitioners' shops under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the search complied with the mandatory statutory requirements of Sections 162, 163, and 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the presence of a Magistrate during the raid cured any procedural non-compliance. The Court held that the search was illegal because the authorities failed to obtain a search warrant, record the grounds for belief, or provide the required notice to the occupiers. It further ruled that the presence of a Magistrate, acting merely as a witness rather than in a judicial capacity, did not validate the search. Consequently, the Court declared the search, seizure, and all subsequent departmental and judicial proceedings to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that strict adherence to statutory search conditions is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the entire process, requiring the immediate restoration of seized property to the aggrieved party.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a Magistrate during a police raid validate a search conducted without a warrant under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the illegality of a search and seizure vitiate all subsequent departmental and judicial proceedings?
- Are the procedural requirements for search and seizure under the Customs Act, 1969, mandatory or merely technical?
- Can a police officer conduct a search under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, without recording the grounds for their belief?
- SHAUKAT HAYAT AND Others vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-27Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT AND 2 Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the procedural validity of transferring statements under Section 33 of the Evidence Act 1872 without strict proof of the witnesses' unavailability, and whether a conviction could be sustained on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness when physical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version of events. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to satisfy the strict requirements of Section 33 of the Evidence Act 1872, as the process server's hearsay report regarding the witnesses' abscondence was insufficient. Furthermore, the Court found the ocular testimony unreliable because it contradicted the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and the physical circumstances of the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment establishes that the prosecution must strictly prove the conditions for transferring evidence under Section 33, and that a conviction cannot rest on unreliable ocular testimony that contradicts established physical facts and medical findings.
Questions settled- Is a process server's report based on hearsay sufficient to satisfy the requirements for transferring a witness's statement under Section 33 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular testimony contradicts the medical evidence and the physical facts of the crime?
- What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to examine material witnesses who were available to testify?
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 169 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND Another1981 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the disqualification of a student by the University of the Punjab for using unfair means during an examination. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of "reasonable opportunity of showing cause" under Rule 20(a) of the University Rules, specifically whether it mandated the cross-examination of witnesses or formal trial-like procedures. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that disciplinary proceedings in educational institutions do not require the strict procedural formalities of a criminal trial. The Court reaffirmed that authorities must act in good faith and ensure the student is aware of the allegations and given a fair opportunity to respond. The key principle laid down is that educational authorities possess broad discretion to maintain discipline, akin to a parent or guardian. Consequently, there is a presumption of regularity in such proceedings unless the student proves mala fides. Absent such proof, authorities are not compelled to provide formal charge-sheets, administer oaths, or allow cross-examination, provided the essential principles of fairness are met.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of a 'reasonable opportunity of showing cause' in university disciplinary proceedings mandate the cross-examination of witnesses?
- Are educational institutions required to follow the strict procedural formalities of a criminal trial when disciplining students for using unfair means?
- Under what circumstances does the burden shift to university authorities to establish charges against a student through formal evidence?
- Is a student entitled to a formal charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings conducted by a university?
- SHAUKAT ALI And AOTHER vs Mst. SHUI KHELAY1981 PLD Supreme Court 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a custody dispute under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 and the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. The mother filed for custody of her minor children following her husband's death, which was allowed by the Guardian Judge (Civil Judge) and affirmed by the High Court. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an appeal against an order passed by a Civil Judge acting as a Guardian Judge/Family Court lies to the District Court under Section 14(1)(b) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, or to the High Court under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 read with Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive right and not a matter of procedure. Section 25 of the 1964 Act only regulates the trial procedure before the Family Court and does not govern appeals. Therefore, an appeal against an order of a Family Court presided over by a Civil Judge lies to the District Court under Section 14(1)(b) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, rendering a direct appeal to the High Court incompetent.
Questions settled- Does the word 'procedure' in Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 include the right of appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
- Which forum has appellate jurisdiction over an order passed in a guardianship matter by a Family Court presided over by a Civil Judge?
- Does Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 impliedly repeal or override Section 14 of the same Act in guardianship cases?
- SHARIF KHAN vs PERVEZ1981 PLD Peshawar 149 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- SHARIE UD DIN AND Others vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN1981 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which arose from a dispute over compensation for land acquired under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. The petitioners claimed additional compensation for a 'pucca' structure (Haveli) allegedly existing on the acquired land. Despite multiple remands by appellate authorities and findings of fact by the Land Acquisition Collector that no such structure existed, the petitioners persisted in their claim, relying on a technical interpretation of the Commissioner's initial remand order. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner's remand order constituted a binding finding of fact regarding the existence of the structure, or merely a direction to consider the claim. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner's order, when read as a whole, merely directed the Collector to consider the petitioners' claim, not to accept the existence of the structure as a proven fact. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the consistent factual findings of the authorities.
Questions settled- Does a remand order directing an authority to consider a claim constitute a binding finding of fact on the merits of that claim?
- Can a party rely on a technical interpretation of a remand order to override consistent factual findings made by lower authorities?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of remand that does not conclusively determine the existence of a disputed structure?
- Shariat Petition No. 28 Of 1979 (Karachi) HABIBUR REHMAN vs GOVERNMENT1981 PLD F SC 131 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
- SHAREEF KHAN vs MESSRS M. F. SONS INDUSTRIES, .1981 PLC 912 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUS SALAM SIDDIQUI vs Syed HIZABRUDDIN HUSSAIN1981 CLC 31 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD JALALUDDIN1981 SCMR 1189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the striking off of the petitioner's defence in rent proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller and the appellate authority were justified in striking off the tenant's defence due to the failure to comply with a conditional remand order regarding the production of evidence and the payment of rent arrears. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had engaged in dilatory tactics, failing to comply with the specific directions of the High Court's remand order, which required the production of evidence on the first date of hearing. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions to dismiss the appeal and maintain the order striking off the defence. The key principle laid down is that where a remand order is conditional upon the timely production of evidence or compliance with procedural directions, a court is fully justified in refusing adjournments and closing the case if the party deliberately employs dilatory tactics to avoid such compliance.
Questions settled- Is a court justified in striking off a tenant's defence when the tenant fails to comply with a conditional remand order requiring the production of evidence?
- Can an appellate authority refuse an adjournment request when a party has previously engaged in dilatory tactics to avoid service and compliance with court orders?
- Does the failure to comply with a conditional remand order regarding the production of evidence justify the closure of a party's case?
- SHAMSHER ABBAS vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 660 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM vs NIAMAT ALI1981 SCMR 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a custody dispute concerning a minor son aged about 11 or 12 years. The Guardian Judge and the High Court concurrenty held that the welfare of the minor lay in the custody of the father, considering that the child was over seven years of age, the mother lacked sufficient means and proper support, and the father had adequate financial resources to maintain and educate the child. The core legal question was whether the welfare of the minor, who was ailing and illiterate, necessitated custody with the mother despite the father's financial capacity and the personal law rule favoring paternal custody after the age of seven. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the welfare of the minor were justified, as the mother lacked the means and ability to properly care for and educate the child. The key principle laid down is that while the welfare of the minor remains the paramount consideration in custody matters, personal law presumes such welfare lies with the father after the child attains the age of seven, absent compelling reasons to the contrary.
Questions settled- Does the welfare of a minor above the age of seven lie with the father under personal law when the mother lacks sufficient means and ability to look after the child?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the custody of a minor absent compelling reasons?
- SHAMEER vs BOARD OF REVENUE Etc.S1981 SCMR 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Lahore High Court, concerning the grant of tenancy in State agricultural land. The petitioner was the highest bidder at an auction, but the Divisional Commissioner recalled his approval pursuant to a government directive suspending auctions, before a formal allotment letter was issued by the Collector. The core legal questions involved whether a vested legal right or contractual obligation was created without a formal written order under the relevant statute, and whether the competent authority possessed the power to recall the approval. The Supreme Court held that no tenancy or vested right is created under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, until a written order is passed by the Collector and possession is taken with permission. Furthermore, the authority possesses locus poenitentiae to recall an unexecuted order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a vested legal right is created in State land without a written order passed by the Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Does a competent authority possess the power to recall an unexecuted order or approval under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained to enforce a disputed contractual obligation regarding State land leasehold rights?
- SHAMAUN vs THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION, PUNJAB GOVERNMENT, LAHORE1981 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Christian social worker, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition and review petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had challenged the posting of a non-Christian Headmaster at Sacred Heart Cathedral High School and the supersession of certain Christian teachers following the nationalization of Christian educational institutions under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. He relied on an unsigned note of an interview with the President of Pakistan and a Law Department opinion, invoking fundamental rights to manage minority institutions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that executive assurances outside the law lack statutory force and cannot be enforced through court process, and that there is no fundamental right regarding the posting, transfer, or promotion of public servants. Furthermore, a social worker lacks standing to challenge service matters affecting others not party to the proceedings. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing principles regarding the enforceability of executive assurances and standing in service matters.
Questions settled- Does an assurance held out by the Executive outside the four corners of the law have the force of law or bind the courts?
- Can a social worker maintain a constitutional petition challenging the posting, transfer, or promotion of employees in an institution where they are not employed?
- Is there a fundamental right with regard to the posting, transfer, or promotion of a headmaster in a nationalized educational institution?
- SHAMAS UD DIN vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES THROUGH CHIEF SETTLEMENT1981 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the entitlement to land transfer based on the filing of a specific claim form (Form No. 9373). The High Court had previously remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with a specific direction to determine the true filer of the form and transfer the land accordingly. Upon remand, the Chief Settlement Commissioner determined that the respondent (Nizam Din) had filed the form but proceeded to transfer the land to the petitioner (Shamas-ud-Din) based on extraneous considerations. The High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside this transfer, holding that the Commissioner was bound by the earlier remand order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that factual findings by the Settlement Commissioner are binding and that the Commissioner is legally obligated to strictly comply with remand directions. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash an order that violated its previous mandate, as there was no misreading of evidence or legal error.
Questions settled- Is a factual finding made by a Chief Settlement Commissioner binding on the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a subordinate authority have the discretion to deviate from the specific directions contained in a High Court remand order?
- Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an order of a Settlement Commissioner that violates a previous remand direction?
- SHAMAD AND 147 OTHERS vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1981 CLC 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- SHAKIR ALI KHAN AND Others vs TAUHID AHMAD KHAN ETC.S1981 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the petitioners seeking the removal of walls obstructing a passage. During the final arguments, the petitioners applied to produce additional evidence in the form of a site plan that had been annexed to the plaint but not formally proved during the trial. The trial court rejected this application, noting that another plan had already been exhibited. The petitioners challenged this rejection through a revision petition before the District Judge, which was dismissed, and subsequently filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, which was also dismissed. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion regarding the production of additional evidence. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision was a discretionary matter under the Code of Civil Procedure, and since there was no lack of lawful authority, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, establishing that the production of additional evidence is not a right but a matter of judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Is the production of additional evidence a matter of right or judicial discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a High Court interfere in a writ petition against an order of a civil court regarding the production of additional evidence where no lack of lawful authority is shown?
- SHAILAJA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR1981 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind, which had dismissed her constitutional petition challenging the acquisition of her land in Hyderabad City. The core legal questions involved whether the land acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to alleged non-compliance with Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and whether the land ought to have been acquired under the Hyderabad Development Authority Act instead. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice suffered from the manner of land measurement and noted that possession had already been taken and storage tanks constructed on the disputed land. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that discretionary constitutional relief is unwarranted where physical possession has changed and development has been completed.
Questions settled- Whether non-compliance with procedural rules regarding land measurement vitiates land acquisition proceedings without proof of prejudice?
- Whether land required for an authority must exclusively be acquired under its specific development act rather than the general Land Acquisition Act?
- Does the completion of construction and taking over of possession preclude discretionary constitutional interference against land acquisition?
- Shaikh ABDUL SATTAR vs MESSRS OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1981 PLC 177 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- SHAHSAWAR (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) vs Syed NAJAMUL HASSAN ETC.S1981 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, representing the original plaintiffs, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that disallowed an amendment to their plaint. The plaintiffs had originally sued for a share in land inheritance, conceding in their pleadings that a certain individual, Mst. Janat Bibi, was the daughter of the propositus, Ahmad Shah. After the trial court dismissed the suit based on Shia inheritance law—finding the plaintiffs were distant kindred excluded by the daughter—the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint at the appellate stage to deny Mst. Janat Bibi’s parentage. The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiffs had previously admitted her parentage in both the original plaint and a related cross-suit. The Court found the proposed amendment lacked bona fides, noting the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence or specific sources for their new, contradictory stance after seven years of litigation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that an amendment changing the fundamental factual basis of a case, particularly when lacking good faith and contradicting prior judicial admissions, should not be permitted.
Questions settled- Can a party amend their plaint to introduce a plea that contradicts their previous judicial admissions?
- Is an amendment to a plaint permissible if it is not bona fide and intended to prolong litigation?
- Can a court deny an amendment to a plaint at the appellate stage if it fundamentally alters the case?
- SHAHRO KHAN AND Others vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND, ANOTHER1981 SCMR 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal directed against judgments of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioners' writ petitions. The petitioners, who were previous yearly lessees of State land for temporary cultivation in District Muzaffargarh, claimed a right to the continued allotment or lease of such lands either on a tender basis or under a notified fifteen-year lease scheme. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners possessed a legally enforceable right to obtain State land leases and whether paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 applied to expired temporary State land tenancies. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no vested right to demand fresh leases of State land, as the governing conditions granted absolute discretion to the Government, and that the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895, rendered the terms of such grants effective notwithstanding any contrary law. Consequently, the petitioners, having ceased to be tenants upon the expiry of their leases, lacked the locus standi to maintain the writ petitions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Questions settled- Do tenants holding State land on a yearly tender basis possess a legal right to demand the renewal or grant of a fresh lease?
- Does the Government retain absolute discretion in the selection of lessees for State agricultural land under the Colonization of Government Lands Act?
- Does paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 apply to temporary State land tenants whose leases have expired?
- What is the effect of section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, on conditions and limitations contained in a grant of land by the Government?
- SHAHID RABBANI vs MESSRS HOECHST PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI, .1981 PLC 691 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
- SHAHID HUSSAIN vs LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1981 PLD Supreme Court 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for a permanent injunction under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to repeated failure to produce evidence. The petitioner's subsequent appeal before the District Judge was dismissed on the ground that it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree-sheet as required by Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code. The High Court upheld this dismissal in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that a dismissal under Order XVII Rule 3 was merely an order and not a judgment requiring a decree-sheet. The Supreme Court held that a decision under Order XVII Rule 3 is an adjudication on the merits that conclusively determines the rights of the parties, operating as res judicata, and thus constitutes a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code. Consequently, an appeal against such a decision is incompetent without a certified copy of the decree-sheet. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order dismissing a suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitutes a decree requiring a certified copy to be filed with an appeal?
- Does a dismissal under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 operate as res judicata between the parties?
- Is an appeal competent under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it is filed without a certified copy of the decree-sheet?
- SHAH WALI KHAN vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs KHUSHAL MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
- SHAH HUSSAIN vs KOTRI TEXTILE MILLS , .1981 PLC 871 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
- Shah BOO ALI JAN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS LUCKY SILK & GENERAL MILLS, KARACHI1981 PLC 497 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT HUSSAIN vs ASIF NAVEED ETC.1981 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT HUSSAIN QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 522 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAFIULLAH vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI , .1981 PLC 304 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
- SHADOO vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 610 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHABIHUR RAZA vs S. P., CRIME BRANCH, LAHORE AND OTHERS, ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 688 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- SHABIH UR-RAZA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 641 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMED ABBASI vs UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI AND OTHER1981 PLD Karachi 596 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These intra-court appeals arose from suits filed by a bank for the recovery of substantial sums against the appellants, alleging conspiracy and unauthorized advances in connivance with a bank manager. The core legal question concerned whether documents not produced along with the plaint or within the initial timeline could be received in evidence at a belated stage under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the non-production of documents at the initial stage under Order VII, rules 14 and 18 does not absolutely bar their subsequent reception, as Order XIII, rule 2 and section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grant the court judicial discretion to admit them upon showing good cause and in the interest of justice. The key principles laid down are that the court exercises sound judicial discretion considering the authenticity of the documents, reasons for non-production, absence of dilatory intent, and the overarching demands of justice, and that a mislabeling or omission of a specific provision in an application does not defeat relief if the substance warrants it.
Questions settled- Whether documents not produced with the plaint under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be received in evidence at a subsequent stage of the suit?
- What considerations govern the exercise of judicial discretion by a court under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for admitting late documents?
- Does the failure to cite the correct provision of law in an application seeking an extension of time or production of documents vitiate the application if the substantive relief is permissible under another provision like section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE------1981 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sh. ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE AND Another1981 SCMR 893(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court regarding the interim custody (sapurdari) of a truck. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting custody of the vehicle to the respondent, who was in possession of the truck at the time it was seized by the police, despite the petitioner's claim of ownership. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was consistent with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner conceded the respondent was in possession of the vehicle at the time of police seizure and acknowledged that the vehicle had frequently changed hands, there was no legal justification to interfere with the High Court's decision. The principle laid down is that under Section 520, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the party in possession of property at the time of its seizure by the police is eligible to retain its custody pending the establishment of a better right or title by another claimant.
Questions settled- Is the person in possession of a vehicle at the time of its seizure by the police eligible for its interim custody (sapurdari) under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a claim of ownership automatically entitle a party to the interim custody of a vehicle if they were not in possession at the time of seizure?
- Sh. WALI MUHAMMAD vs SHAHNAZ NASEEM AND Other1981 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld concurrent findings by the Guardian Judge and the appellate court granting custody of a minor child to his mother, the respondent. The petitioner, the paternal grandfather, sought custody based on his superior financial means and a prior written agreement with the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its limited constitutional jurisdiction by refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the minor's welfare and the respondent's fitness. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law in the High Court's order. The Court affirmed that financial means are only one factor in determining the welfare of a minor and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally immune from interference in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the minor's prolonged stay with the grandfather during litigation created a new right to custody, emphasizing that the welfare of the minor remains the paramount consideration.
Questions settled- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the welfare of a minor subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a prior written agreement between parents regarding child custody override the court's determination of the minor's welfare?
- Can a party rely on the duration of a stay order obtained during litigation to argue for the continued custody of a minor?
- Is the financial status of a claimant the sole determining factor in deciding the custody of a minor?
- Sh. SHAH NAWAZ vs PROVINCE OF sirsiD AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 618 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND Other1981 SCMR 979(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a second appeal filed by respondent-landlords and passed an eviction order against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, reversing the First Appellate Court's decision. The core legal questions involve whether mere ownership of other property in the same urban area by a landlord bars an eviction claim, and whether the respondents' witnesses failed to depose regarding personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that mere ownership of other property in the same urban area is not by itself a ground to refuse an eviction application on the ground of personal requirement, and dismissed the petition due to a failure to place copies of witness depositions on record to substantiate the petitioner's claims. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's ownership of other property in an urban area does not automatically negate their bona fide personal requirement for evicting a tenant.
Questions settled- Is mere ownership of property in the same urban area by a landlord sufficient ground to refuse an eviction application based on personal requirement?
- Can a petitioner challenge the appreciation of evidence regarding bona fide requirement without placing copies of witness depositions on the record?
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION LINK1981 PLC (C. S.) 676 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD AHSAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BA HAWALNAGAR Etc.1981 PLC (C. S.) 743 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- Sh. MEHTABUDDIN AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL SATTAR AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 828 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
- Sh. FAZAL KARIM vs SETTLEMENT & RHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 31981 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioner, a local, sought the transfer of a shop in his possession, which the Settlement Commissioner had previously transferred to respondent No. 4, a claimant displaced person, by treating the petitioner's shop and respondent No. 4's shop as a single unit. The petitioner challenged this finding, alleging that the successor Settlement Commissioner's decision was contrary to the record and that the revision had been improperly reheard. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Settlement Commissioner's finding regarding the property being a single unit could be challenged and whether the property remained available for transfer to the petitioner. The Court held that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was within jurisdiction. Furthermore, because the property had already been transferred to the respondent for over twelve years, there was no available property for transfer to the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VII. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that a validly transferred property cannot be re-transferred.
Questions settled- Can a property already transferred to a claimant displaced person be transferred to a local under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to determine whether two shops constitute a single unit for transfer purposes?
- Can a court interfere with a transfer order that has remained in effect for over twelve years?
- Sh. ABDUL AZIZ 7 AND Others vs Kh. HASAN JOO AND 5 Otaers Resp9ndents1981 SCMR 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the tenants' Second Appeal from Order in a rent case. The landlords filed an ejectment application against the tenant petitioners on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement for reconstruction, and personal use. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge accepted the landlords' appeal and reversed the findings. The High Court held that no wilful default was committed, but upheld the finding regarding bona fide need for reconstruction and personal use. The core legal questions relate to whether the pleas of personal use and reconstruction are mutually destructive, and whether sufficient evidence existed to prove bona fides for reconstruction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the pleas of personal use and reconstruction are not mutually destructive, and that obtaining an approved site plan alongside the statutory safeguards under the rent law demonstrates the bona fides of the landlord's intention to reconstruct.
Questions settled- Are the pleas of personal use and reconstruction mutually destructive in ejectment proceedings?
- Does the production of an approved site plan sufficiently establish the bona fides of a landlord's intention to reconstruct?
- What statutory safeguards and guarantees ensure a landlord reconstructs the premises after obtaining eviction?
- SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT (G. M.), NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, ZONAL OFFICE, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD JAVED KHAN AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing a junior clerk's application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The respondent employee claimed ad hoc relief and special pay benefits, but the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed his claim solely on the ground of limitation without addressing the merits. The High Court held the grievance notice and petition were within time and further ruled on the merits of the claim. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and held that the grievance notice was not time-barred on the facts of the case, but found merit in the petitioner's contention that neither the Appellate Tribunal nor the High Court had properly addressed the core statutory requirement under section 25-A(1) as to whether the claimed benefits were guaranteed or secured by law, award, or settlement. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for decision on merits in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 is barred by time when the employer's refusal was communicated via a general head office advice rather than a direct communication to the employee?
- Does the limitation period for approaching a Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 run from the date of the original refusal or from the final response to the employee's grievance?
- Whether the High Court, upon setting aside an appellate tribunal's order on a preliminary point of limitation, should remand the case for a decision on merits rather than deciding the merits itself without addressing specific statutory objections?
- SENIOR BUDGET & ACCOUNTS OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS vs MAZHAR HUSSAIN,1981 PLC 641 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- SECURITY PAPERS LTD., KARACHI vs REHMAT AL!1981 PLC 838 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-06Read full judgment →
- SECURITY PAPERS LTD. No, IV AND ANOTHER vs SIND LABOUR COURT1981 PLC 898 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the employers challenging the order of the Sindh Labour Court which had set aside the dismissal of a Security Guard (respondent No. 2) and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The petitioners contended that the respondent was not a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, that the grievance notice was improper, and that the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 was inapplicable to their establishment due to an amendment. They further argued that no right of appeal existed under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for proceedings initiated under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The High Court held that the incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 into Standing Order 12(3) made the entire procedure, including the right of appeal under Section 37(3), available to aggrieved workmen. Since the petitioners had an alternate, adequate remedy of appeal which they had already filed and kept pending, the writ petition was dismissed as premature and not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether the incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 into Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 includes the right of appeal under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does the exclusion of an establishment from the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 take away the statutory remedy of a workman under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available and has already been initiated by the petitioner?