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.
- SECRETARY, PROVINCIAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT vs BOARD, PUNJAB ETC1981 PLC 301 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-06Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS vs RENT1981 CLC 1369 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sayyed SAEED HUSSAIN SHAH vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC.1981 PLC 297 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
- SAWAL FAQIR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. KARACHI , .1981 PLC 643 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- SATTARDINO vs XEN, BARRAGE DIVISION, SLIKKUR , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 797 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
- SATTAR SILK INDUSTRIES vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER , .1981 PLC 555 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
- SATTAR SILK INDUSTRIES vs ABDUL MAJEED AND 4 OTHERS1981 PLC 196 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
- SARWAR HUSSAIN vs GHULAM QADIR1981 SCMR 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The landlord filed an ejectment application alleging default in rent payment and unauthorised material alterations. The tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship and claimed ownership over the premises. The Rent Controller evaluated documentary evidence proving the landlord's title by purchase from a lawful allottee, alongside oral testimony establishing tenancy, while noting contradictions in the tenant's own evidence regarding construction of the premises. Finding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and default, the Rent Controller ordered ejectment. This decision was upheld in first appeal by the District Judge and in second appeal by the Lahore High Court, both affirming the concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all three lower forums.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship established by lower forums?
- Does a tenant's failure to produce satisfactory evidence of ownership prevent them from denying the landlord-tenant relationship established by documentary and oral evidence?
- SARWAR ETC. vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 597 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
- SARHAD FLOUR MILLS LTD. vs PUNJAB FLOUR MILLING CORPORATION AND Other1981 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court, which stayed the recovery of a sum of money from the petitioner subject to the furnishing of a bank guarantee. The petitioner, the Sarhad Flour Mills Limited, was nationalised under the Flour Milling Control and Development Act, 1976, and subsequently denationalised in September 1977 under the Flour Milling (Repeal) Ordinance, 1977. Following a notice to pay valuation dues, the petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings through a constitutional writ petition before the High Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's discretion in conditioning the interim stay order on the furnishing of a bank guarantee rather than a simpler security, given the petitioner's financial losses. The Supreme Court held that the imposition of terms for interim relief falls within the discretionary domain of the High Court and that the requirement of a bank guarantee was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with the reasonable exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting conditional interim relief.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can condition an interim stay order on the furnishing of a bank guarantee?
- Does the imposition of a bank guarantee for an interim stay constitute an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of discretion?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary terms imposed by the High Court for granting interim relief?
- SARFRAZ vs THE STATE---Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ AHMED MIRZA vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., .1981 PLC 472 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
- SARDARAN BIBI AND 4 OTHERS vs S. WALI HUSSAIN1981 CLC 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
- SARDARA vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1277 (1) · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sardar SHAFIQ HYDER KHAN LEGHARI vs MEMBER (ABDUL QAYYUM), FEDERAL1981 PLD Lahore 356 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND Another1981 SCMR738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed godown in Rawalpindi. The petitioner's initial claim was rejected and ordered to be auctioned in 1961, which decision attained finality when the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's leave petition in 1972. Notwithstanding this, the property was subsequently transferred to the petitioner's son and later to the petitioner via a deed of association and a Permanent Transfer Deed in 1973. Following eviction proceedings against the second respondent, notice was issued by the Deputy Administrator under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's ensuing writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands by failing to disclose that his son had obtained the property while his own appeal was pending, constituting a device to circumvent the court's prior orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal while clarifying the petitioner's right to appear before the first respondent.
Questions settled- Whether a party who conceals material facts and approaches the court with unclean hands is entitled to discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction?
- What is the proper construction of sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Can a transfer obtained through a deed of association be challenged on the ground of fraud when prior claims over the property were conclusively dismissed by the Supreme Court?
- Sardar MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN vs Raja GUL ZAMAN KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the disposal of land in Rawalpindi, previously allotted to the appellant. The land was subsequently auctioned to respondent 1, an action confirmed administratively by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The appellant challenged this auction, and the same Additional Settlement Commissioner, acting in an appellate capacity, set aside the auction, finding the land was not available for transfer. The High Court, in a constitutional petition, held that this appellate order constituted an impermissible review of the Commissioner's own earlier administrative confirmation, rendering the order without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the initial confirmation of an auction is purely an administrative act, not a judicial or quasi-judicial one. Consequently, the Commissioner was not disqualified from exercising appellate jurisdiction to correct the illegal disposal of land. The Supreme Court clarified that an administrative approval of an auction does not bar the same officer from later adjudicating the validity of that auction on appeal, as such an act does not constitute a review of a judicial order.
Questions settled- Is the confirmation of an auction by an Additional Settlement Commissioner an administrative or a judicial order?
- Can an officer who administratively approves an auction later hear an appeal against that same auction?
- Does an appellate order setting aside an auction constitute a review of the officer's own previous administrative confirmation?
- Is an auction of land valid if the property was not legally available for transfer at the time of the auction?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 230 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD Alias DARA AND Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal arising from a murder case. The petitioners in the first petition challenged their conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the petitioner in the second petition challenged the acquittal of the accused from a charge of murder. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused during a sudden fight, and whether the plea of self-defence was applicable. The Supreme Court held that the case turned purely on the appreciation of evidence, which had been thoroughly examined by the lower courts. The Court affirmed the findings that the occurrence was a sudden fight without premeditation, and that the prosecution's failure to explain the accused's injury did not necessitate acquittal where other evidence was sufficient. The Court reiterated that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a violation of a legal principle was demonstrated. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused during a sudden fight automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a criminal appeal?
- Is a plea of self-defence available in a case of a sudden fight?
- SARDAR KHAN AND 2 Others vs RAJA KHAN AND Another1981 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a challenge to a civil court decree granting possession of agricultural land. The petitioners argued that the suit for possession of agricultural land fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of revenue courts, asserting that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the civil court's jurisdiction was ousted by the nature of the dispute, specifically regarding the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court held that the civil court retained jurisdiction because the plaintiff's plaint explicitly averred that the petitioners were claiming adverse possession, rather than merely being tenants. The Court clarified that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction requires an agreed position between parties regarding a landlord-tenant relationship. Since the petitioners denied the tenancy and claimed adverse possession, the civil court was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the validity of that claim. The petition was dismissed as the legal basis for challenging the civil court's jurisdiction was unfounded.
Questions settled- Does a civil court lose jurisdiction over a suit for possession of land if the defendants claim adverse possession?
- Is the jurisdiction of a civil court ousted in a suit involving agricultural land when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by the defendants?
- Should the jurisdiction of a court be determined solely by the averments in the plaint?
- SARDAR BAIG AND 37 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT1981 PLC 941 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- SARDAR AHMAD KHAN vs ASLEE KHAN AND 7 Other1981 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment concerning land ownership disputes in the former State of Chitral. The petitioner contested the Deputy Commissioner's order, which partially deviated from the Judicial Council's advisory reports, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner acted arbitrarily in reallocating certain land plots. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to decide these disputes and whether his administrative order was subject to interference under writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Commissioner, acting on behalf of the Provincial Government following the merger of Chitral, held the primary authority to adjudicate the disputes, while the Judicial Council served only an advisory role. The Court found the Deputy Commissioner’s decision equitable and proper, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of law. The Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to sit in appeal over administrative decisions where no legal provision has been violated, and that advisory reports do not bind the final decision-making authority.
Questions settled- Can a court exercise writ jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the merits of an administrative decision?
- Does an advisory body's report bind the administrative authority that commissioned it?
- Is an administrative decision made by a Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the Provincial Government subject to interference without proof of legal violation?
- SAQLAIN vs Mst. HAZRA BEGUM AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over evacuee property in Sibi. The petitioner claimed that the property comprised two separate houses (Nos. 1155 and 1155-A) and obtained a transfer order for House No. 1155-A from the Assistant Settlement Commissioner under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The respondents, who asserted the property was a single indivisible unit, successfully challenged this order in revision before the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner's subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the property was divisible and whether the revision before the Settlement Commissioner was competent. The Court held that the determination of whether the property was one unit or two was a question of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities. Furthermore, the Court declared paragraph 5(3) of the revised Settlement Scheme No. VII ultra vires, ruling that the delegated power to frame schemes for the 'transfer' of property under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 did not authorize the creation of separate appellate or revisional forums that override the statutory provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act.
Questions settled- Can a party who failed to object to the jurisdiction of a tribunal during its proceedings challenge that jurisdiction for the first time in a writ petition?
- Does the power delegated to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to prepare schemes for the 'transfer' of property under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 include the power to prescribe separate appellate or revisional mechanisms?
- Is a finding by Settlement authorities on whether an evacuee property constitutes a single indivisible unit or multiple separate units a question of fact immune from interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- SANAULLAH AND Others vs KAMAL DIN1981 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously dismissed a petition for leave to appeal as 'not pressed' following a statement made by the petitioners' counsel. The petitioners sought review on the grounds that their counsel had withdrawn the petition without their consent despite having been paid full fees, and that the original petition involved significant legal questions warranting admission. The Supreme Court examined whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review. The Court held that the dismissal order was based on the explicit statement made by the petitioners' counsel during the hearing. Consequently, the Court determined that any potential error lay solely in the statement made by the counsel, not in the judicial order itself. The Court affirmed that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, as the order correctly reflected the proceedings at the time, and therefore dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Can a party seek review of an order dismissing a petition as 'not pressed' on the grounds that their counsel acted without consent?
- Does a statement made by counsel in open court binding the client constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for review purposes?
- SAMO AND 5 OTHERS vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1981 CLC 1308 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SALOOKA STEELS LTD. vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, COAST GUARDS OF PAKISTANPLD 1981 Quetta · Balochistan High Court · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD KHAN1981 CLC 353 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTRER vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 179 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged the cognizance taken by a Special Judge (Customs) against the applicants for possession of smuggled goods. The core legal question was whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance based on a police report signed by a Superintendent of Police (S.P.), given that the law at the time required a 'complaint' by an authorized officer under Section 185-A(6) of the Customs Act, and whether such a report constituted a valid complaint. The Court held that the cognizance was validly taken. It reasoned that the S.P. was an authorized officer under the relevant Customs General Order, and the document submitted, though styled as a police report, functioned as a complaint for the purposes of the Customs Act. The Court clarified that the definition of 'complaint' in Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not strictly exclude reports by authorized officers when acting in their capacity as designated complainants under special statutes. The principle laid down is that a report submitted by an authorized officer under the Customs Act satisfies the statutory requirement of a 'complaint' regardless of its nomenclature.
Questions settled- Does a report submitted by an authorized officer under the Customs Act constitute a valid 'complaint' for the purpose of taking cognizance, even if styled as a police report?
- Is the definition of 'complaint' in Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exhaustive when applied to special statutes like the Customs Act?
- Does the mere signature of a Superintendent of Police on a challan satisfy the requirement of applying one's mind to the facts for the purpose of filing a complaint?
- SALEEM MUMTAZ SYED vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1981 CLC 280 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- SALEEM HUSSAIN GARDEZI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 4 OTHERS, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 592 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AZIZ SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER vs LABOUR COURT1981 PLC 663 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
- SALDERA vs MUHAMMAD YAR AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether a delay of 38 days in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal or setting aside of a capital conviction can be condoned on grounds of the petitioner's old age, illness, and lack of awareness of the judgment date. The Supreme Court held that delay in filing such petitions by a private complainant will not be condoned unless the petitioner was kept out of knowledge or prevented by some act of the respondents themselves. The Court emphasized that an acquittal creates a precious right to life, protecting the accused from being placed in jeopardy of life through a time-barred petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as barred by time.
Questions settled- Can delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal be condoned on the ground of the petitioner's old age and lack of awareness of the judgment?
- Is a time-barred petition seeking to challenge an acquittal or setting aside of a capital conviction maintainable without showing prevention by an act of the respondent?
- How strictly should the law of limitation be applied when a petition places an accused person's life in peril following an acquittal?
- SALAMAT MASIH BHATTI vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 751 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-04-15Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD ALAM1981 CLC 59 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN BUTT vs Khawaja MUHAMMAD TARIQ1981 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an eviction application filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit arrears of rent, including rent for a month not yet due, and subsequently struck off the tenant's defense for failing to deposit the specific arrears for the earliest month. The appellate court set aside this order, finding the Controller's inclusion of future rent as arrears was defective and allowed for the adjustment of rent paid early. The core legal questions were whether a defective order under the Ordinance invalidates the entire direction, and whether Section 59 of the Contract Act, 1872, applies to proceedings under the Ordinance. The Court held that the Ordinance is a self-contained special law, rendering Section 59 of the Contract Act inapplicable. Furthermore, a defective order under the Ordinance does not invalidate the entire direction; it remains valid for the portion that was legally recoverable. Since the tenant had deposited the total amount legally due by the deadline, no default occurred.
Questions settled- Does the inclusion of future rent as arrears in an order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, invalidate the entire order?
- Are the provisions of Section 59 of the Contract Act, 1872, applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a tenant avoid the consequences of default by adjusting rent deposited in advance against arrears of rent?
- Sajjad Jafri, Advocate And Sh. A. Karim, vs The INCOME-TAX APPELLATE1981S C M R 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a ginning mill owner, challenged the imposition of sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer for a period during which the mill was allegedly leased to a business concern, Messrs Karachi Cotton Ginners, Lyallpur. While the Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal subsequently reversed this decision. The petitioner's application for a reference to the High Court was rejected, and the High Court later decided the question of liability against the petitioner. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner abandoned the lease argument, instead contending that even if the petitioner ginned cotton under contract for the licensee, the untraceability of the licensee did not automatically shift the tax liability to the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the case involves the proper construction of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, specifically regarding the liability of a ginner versus a wholesaler licensee when the latter is untraceable. The Court identified the matter as one of first impression requiring judicial examination of the relevant statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Whether a ginner is liable to pay sales tax under the Sales Tax Act 1951 when the wholesaler licensee is untraceable?
- Does the mere untraceability of a licensed wholesaler shift the burden of sales tax liability to the ginner under the Sales Tax Act 1951?
- Saiyid IQBAL HASSAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which aimed to expunge adverse judicial remarks made against him. The petitioner had initiated suo motu criminal revision proceedings regarding the dismissal of complaints by a Magistrate, despite the fact that another Additional Sessions Judge had already adjudicated upon the same matter. The High Court had criticized the petitioner for acting without jurisdiction and for issuing non-bailable warrants against parties in a matter already disposed of by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to expunge these remarks given the petitioner's claim of bona fide action. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, as a judicial officer, had sufficient information to ascertain that the matter was already pending or disposed of elsewhere. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to expunge the remarks, holding that a judicial officer bears personal responsibility for ensuring jurisdiction is not exercised over matters already settled by coordinate courts.
Questions settled- Can a judicial officer seek expunction of adverse remarks under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the remarks were based on a finding of lack of jurisdiction?
- Does a judicial officer have a duty to verify if a matter is already pending or disposed of by a court of coordinate jurisdiction before initiating suo motu proceedings?
- Is a judicial officer absolved of responsibility for improper proceedings if the error was facilitated by the conduct of subordinate staff?
- SAIFUL LATIF ETC. vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
- SAIFUDDIN vs Haji FIDA HUSSAIN1981 CLC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- SAIDULLAH AND 6 Others vs REHMAT ALI AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a criminal revision petition arising from the dismissal of a complaint in a murder case and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter. The petitioners challenged the High Court's order primarily on procedural grounds, alleging that the complaint was lodged directly in the Court of Sessions in violation of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the complaint was improperly addressed to the Sessions Court rather than the Magistrate. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the complaint had, in fact, been initially lodged before a Magistrate, rendering the procedural objection regarding cognizance moot. Regarding the technical defect in the complaint's heading, the Court held that such a formal error is curable and does not invalidate the proceedings, as the court seized of the matter can direct the complainant to amend the description. The Court further clarified that observations made by the High Court in its order were tentative and would not prejudice the trial court's independent assessment of evidence.
Questions settled- Does a technical error in the heading of a complaint regarding the court's designation invalidate the proceedings?
- Can a court direct a complainant to amend the description of the court in a complaint to correct a formal error?
- Are observations made by a High Court in a revision order binding on the trial court during the subsequent trial?
- SAID MUHAMMAD vs ALI HUSSAIN ETC.1981 CLC 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
- SAID MEER vs IBADAT HUSSAIN AND Another1981 SCMR 1105(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3-3-1980, whereby bail was granted to the respondent accused of murder. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail in a case involving cross-injuries where the respondent was attributed the fatal blow, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the petition has no force and dismissed it, declining to interfere with the High Court's order as all relevant facts and considerations, including the number and nature of injuries on both sides and the background of the occurrence, were duly noted by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of bail by the High Court when all relevant facts and cross-injuries have been properly considered.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail where cross-injuries are involved?
- Is bail to be refused solely on the ground that the accused is attributed the fatal blow in a case of mutual injuries?
- SAID AKBAR vs MESSRS NAZIM SILK MILLS, KARACHI1981 PLC 891 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- SAID AHMAD vs ZAMMURED HUSSAIN AND 4 Other1981 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the acquittal of four respondents in a murder case. The respondents were accused of inflicting deadly injuries on the deceased and two prosecution witnesses following a land dispute over a well. The defense pleaded self-defense, pointing out that two respondents and their female relative sustained unexplained injuries during the occurrence. The trial court rejected the ocular evidence because the injured eye-witnesses were interested and failed to explain the injuries on the accused side, a finding affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the medical evidence and held that the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused side, coupled with the non-examination of independent eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, indicated that the injured witnesses suppressed material facts. Consequently, the presence of injuries on prosecution witnesses did not automatically guarantee their veracity. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the mere fact that a prosecution witness is injured guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony if they fail to explain injuries on the accused side?
- Whether the prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused and their relative in the same occurrence creates a strong circumstance in favor of the defense?
- What is the effect of withholding independent eye-witnesses named in the FIR from testifying at trial?
- SAID AHMAD vs Haji GHULAM MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-03Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR BAIG vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SAEEDULLAH KAZMI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD Supreme Court 42 · Federal Shariat Court · -Read full judgment →
- SAEEDUDDIN vs NASIRUDDIN1981 CLC 1070 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
- SAEED PASHA LODHI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1981 P Cr. L J 398 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
- SAEED NAWAZ vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, disqualifying the petitioner for four examinations due to alleged disturbance and misbehavior in the examination hall. The core legal questions involved whether the domestic tribunal proceedings vitiated due to minor clerical errors in the charge-sheet, non-compliance with procedural instructions like filling Form S. F. 8, and whether adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in accordance with natural justice. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that domestic tribunals are not bound by strict judicial procedures, and as long as fair opportunity is provided to the delinquent to rebut adverse material, the proceedings are valid. The key principle laid down is that domestic tribunals must act in good faith and provide a fair opportunity to correct or contradict prejudicial statements, adhering to the elementary principles of natural justice as established by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether domestic tribunals acting in examination malpractice cases are required to follow the strict and intricate procedures of a judicial trial?
- Does a clerical error regarding the paper name in a charge-sheet vitiate the disciplinary proceedings against a candidate?
- Whether the omission to fill Form S. F. 8 causes prejudice to a candidate when the Centre Superintendent owns the report in the presence of the candidate?
- SAEED AHMAD vs The STATE1981 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against a High Court order that cancelled his bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 326, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge because multiple investigating agencies had found him innocent and placed his name in Column 2 of the police challan. The High Court subsequently cancelled the bail, relying on witness statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court, referencing established precedents, held that while the opinions of investigating officers do not constitute legal evidence, they are relevant to assessing the veracity of the prosecution's case. Given that four separate agencies found the petitioner innocent and he had not abused the concession of bail for over a year, the Court ruled the High Court's cancellation unjustified. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the bail was restored.
Questions settled- Whether the opinion of investigating officers finding an accused innocent constitutes a valid ground for granting bail?
- Does the existence of witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically necessitate the cancellation of bail when multiple investigating agencies have found the accused innocent?
- Is the cancellation of bail justified when an accused has not abused the concession of bail for a significant period?
- SAEED AHMAD KHAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1981 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the departmental authorities. The core legal question addressed is whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities possess the jurisdiction to declare and treat a particular piece of land, specifically Khasra No. 701, as a building site rather than agricultural land. The Supreme Court held that the authorities indeed have the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land, and consequently, their decision cannot be termed as being without lawful authority, rendering the High Court's refusal to interfere unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that factual determinations regarding the classification of land by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities fall within their competent jurisdiction and are not liable to constitutional interference unless shown to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities have the jurisdiction to declare land as a building site instead of agricultural land?
- Can the High Court interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with a factual determination made by the Settlement Authorities regarding the nature of land?
- SAEED AFIMAD KHAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1981 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding the classification of a specific plot of land. The petitioners sought the transfer of land bearing Khasra No. 701, contending that it should be classified as agricultural land rather than a building site. The core legal question was whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities possessed the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land and whether their classification of the property as a building site was subject to judicial interference. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities have the requisite jurisdiction to declare and treat land as a building site. Consequently, the Court ruled that an order issued by these authorities within their jurisdiction cannot be deemed to be without lawful authority, and the High Court's refusal to interfere with such a determination was legally sound and free from error.
Questions settled- Do Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities have the jurisdiction to determine whether a piece of land is agricultural or a building site?
- Can a High Court interfere with a decision of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities regarding land classification if the authorities acted within their jurisdiction?
- SADIQ vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 256 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- SADIQ MOHY UD DIN vs SECRETARY, DISTRICT ALLOTMENT COMMITTEEAND1981 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the High Court holding an Inter Court Appeal to be incompetent. The core legal question is whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent Inter Court Appeal can be condoned as sufficient cause under the law of limitation to file a petition for leave to appeal against the original single bench order, when a binding precedent already existed declaring such appeals incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal is time-barred by 51 days and that the time spent on the incompetent appeal cannot be condoned, as the prior existence of the precedent negates the claim of acting in good faith. The petition was accordingly dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether time spent pursuing an incompetent Inter Court Appeal can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the existence of a prior reported precedent preclude a party from claiming good faith in pursuing a mistaken legal remedy?
- SADIQ ALI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 517 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
- SACHUNAND AND Another vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1981 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, exercising suo motu revisional powers under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, whereby oral gifts of agricultural land made by petitioner No. 1 in favour of his parents were declared void and non-existent for want of registration under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The core legal question was whether an alienation of land that is de facto complete and bona fide can be struck down under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 merely on the ground of a technical defect or lack of registration under the general law of property, where there is no dispute between the transferor and the transferee. The Sindh High Court held that for the purposes of land reforms, the de facto nature of a transaction and the complete parting of possession by the owner are decisive, rather than strict de jure compliance with general property laws meant to resolve disputes between private parties. The court concluded that the Federal Land Commission acted without lawful authority, setting aside the impugned revisional order and restoring the validity of the bona fide alienations.
Questions settled- Whether an oral gift of land can be treated as void under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 solely for want of registration under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Does the term transfer under land reforms regulations contemplate de facto alienations where the transferor has completely parted with possession?
- Can the Federal Land Commission set aside a bona fide transaction that has been accepted and mutated by the provincial land commissioner?
- SACHU AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 914 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- SABOOR KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRANWALA.1981 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 517 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs LT. Col.. (Retd) MUHAMMAD SHARIF1981 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which ordered his eviction from a bungalow in Faisalabad. The landlord had sought eviction on the grounds of personal need for himself and his children. The petitioner argued that the landlord had acquired other accommodation during the proceedings, rendering the eviction unnecessary, and that the landlord's claim lacked good faith due to the timing of the application. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the premises were rented for both residential and commercial purposes, thus requiring a specific type of eviction ground. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts correctly determined the factual issue of the landlord's need and the suitability of the accommodation. The Court further ruled that the petitioner could not raise the plea regarding the nature of the building (residential versus non-residential) for the first time at the Supreme Court level, as it required factual inquiry and was not pleaded in the written statement.
Questions settled- Can a tenant raise a plea that a building is 'non-residential' for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal if it was not pleaded in the written statement?
- Does the acquisition of other accommodation by a landlord during appellate proceedings automatically necessitate a remand for reassessment of personal need?
- What constitutes a 'non-residential building' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- SAAD SHIBLI AND STATE vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER PUTTAN AND Other (A)1981 PLD Supreme Court 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two criminal appeals by special leave concern the governing principles applicable to the grant of consent by a court under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from a prosecution. The core legal questions addressed the breadth of the Public Prosecutor's power of withdrawal, the extent to which instructions from the Executive or Government may be acted upon, and the judicial discretion required of the court in granting or refusing consent. The Supreme Court held that while the Public Prosecutor may act upon instructions from the Government or District Magistrate in a hierarchical administrative setup, the court must independently apply its judicial discretion to objective grounds—such as public policy, public peace, or the administration of justice—rather than acting as a mere rubber stamp or allowing the executive to preempt the judicial process. Applying these principles, the Court dismissed the appeal in the first case where withdrawal was sought on personal grounds and insufficient evidence without justification, but allowed the appeal in the second case where the mass prosecution arose from nationwide election disturbances in March 1977 and withdrawal served a legitimate public policy of ending acrimony and restoring societal harmony.
Questions settled- What are the governing principles applicable to the grant of consent by a court under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the withdrawal from prosecution?
- Can a Public Prosecutor act upon instructions from the Government or District Magistrate when moving an application to withdraw from prosecution?
- Does the power of withdrawal under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the disclosure of objective grounds related to public policy, public peace, or the administration of justice?
- Is a court justified in refusing consent to withdraw from prosecution when the grounds relied upon by the executive merely attempt to preempt the judicial process without furthering justice?
- S.H.M. RIZVI And 5 Other vs MAQSOOD AHMAD AND 6 Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the competence of a service appeal filed before the Service Tribunal regarding a seniority list. The appellants challenged the respondent's decision to approach the Service Tribunal against a seniority list that was explicitly provisional and pending the disposal of objections. The core legal question was whether such a provisional list constitutes a 'final order' under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby vesting the Tribunal with jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was incompetent. The Court ruled that a seniority list inviting objections, which remains unfinalized, does not constitute a 'final order' determining the rights of the parties. Consequently, the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate until a final, determinative order is passed by the departmental authority. The Court established that where departmental authorities fail to finalize such lists, the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved civil servant is to represent the matter to the next higher authority or seek constitutional relief, rather than prematurely invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does a provisional seniority list, against which objections are pending, constitute a 'final order' under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Can a civil servant file an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a seniority list before the departmental authority has finalized it?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a civil servant when departmental authorities fail to dispose of objections to a provisional seniority list?
- S. ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH vs D. L-G. OF POLICE, LAHORE RANGE AND OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 549 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
- S. ZAHIR HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 379 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed by the Province of Sind against an arbitration award in a building contract dispute. The core legal questions addressed whether a party can challenge an arbitrator's appointment after participating in proceedings, whether an award can be set aside for being time-barred despite party acquiescence, and the scope of judicial review regarding an error of law apparent on the face of the award. The court held that a party who participates in arbitration proceedings without protest waives the right to challenge the arbitrator's appointment or jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court ruled that it possesses discretion to extend the time for an award where parties have acquiesced to the proceedings continuing beyond the statutory period. The court affirmed the principle that it cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine evidence or findings of fact, as an error of law requires a specific erroneous legal proposition within the award itself, not merely a disagreement with factual conclusions. Consequently, the court dismissed the objections, modifying the award only regarding the interest rate to comply with legal limits.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the appointment of an arbitrator after participating in the arbitration proceedings without protest?
- Does the court have the discretion to extend the time for an award if parties have acquiesced to the proceedings continuing beyond the statutory period?
- What constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the award under the Arbitration Act?
- Is it permissible for a court to re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact made by an arbitrator when reviewing an award?
- S. YAWAR HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY, KARACHI ,1981 PLC 515 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- S. SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION ,1981 PLC 506 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-03-29Read full judgment →
- S. NIZAM HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN , .1981 PLC 894 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
- S. MUZZAFFAR HASSAN vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT AND 3 OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 640 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
- S. MOHAMMAD ILYAS & SONS LTD., LAHORE vs ABU AHMAD KHAN AND 21981 CLC 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an Additional District Judge's decision to summarily reject an application for an inquiry into an alleged out-of-court compromise between parties in an ejectment appeal. The petitioners claimed a compromise had been reached, increasing rent and requiring the respondent to withdraw proceedings, which the respondent denied. The Additional District Judge dismissed the application, holding that an unadmitted compromise outside court was inconsequential, and proceeded to dismiss the appeal on merits. The High Court held that the finality clause in Section 15(7) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance does not bar the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It further ruled that under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where a compromise is disputed, the court is obligated to conduct a regular inquiry by taking evidence to determine if a lawful agreement was reached. The summary rejection of the application without such an inquiry constituted a non-exercise of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed, the Additional District Judge's order set aside, and the case remanded for an inquiry into the alleged compromise.
Questions settled- Does the finality clause in Section 15(7) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Is a court required to hold an inquiry into an alleged out-of-court compromise when one party denies its existence?
- Can an agreement of compromise outside the court be summarily dismissed if not affirmed by the other party in court?
- What is the proper procedure for a court to follow when a compromise is filed but repudiated by one of the parties?
- S. M. ZAFAR BABAR AND ANOTHER vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 551 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
- S. M. YOUNUS AND 2 OTHERS vs PREMIER MERCANTILE SERVICE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1380 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- S. M. SHARIF vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD Lahore 74 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-23Read full judgment →
- S. M. JUNAID vs PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD Supreme Court 12 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- S. M. JAFFER vs MUHAMMAD ZIAUDDIN1981 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
- S. M. ISHAQUE vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 847 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
- S. M. IRFAN vs 'MESSRS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS, CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING1981 PLC 192 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
- S. M. ANWAR SETHI vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1981 CLC 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
- S. AZHAR ALT vs MESSRS J & P COATS (PAKISTAN) LTD. ,1981 PLC 969 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- S. AHTRAMULLAH vs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION, ,(1981 PLC (C. S.) 726 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- S. ABRAR HUSSAIN RIZVI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT1981 PLC 967 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
- S. ABID HUSSAIN vs FINANCIAL ADVISER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER ,1981 PLC 559 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
- S. ABDUL MAJEED vs M. ANWAR AZIZ AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 978 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-05Read full judgment →
- S. A. RASHID vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 615 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-08-19Read full judgment →
- S. A. KEMAL vs PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD., KARACHI , . (1981 PLC 812 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-11-05Read full judgment →
- S. A. BASEER vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR1981 PLC 494 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-02Read full judgment →
- RUSTOM F. COWASJEE AND 5 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1938-06-05Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM CYCLE FACTORY MAZDOOR UNION vs RUSTAM & SOHRAB CYCLE1981 PLC 414 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM AND 2 Others vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- RUQAYYA SHAHEEN vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1981 CLC 1735 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
- ROORA AND Another vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN & BAHAWALPUR DIVISION AND Anothres1981 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition regarding the transfer of property. The relevant facts indicate that the property was transferred as a house by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the predecessors of respondent No. 2, against which the petitioners subsequently claimed it was a plot with their own constructions under Settlement Scheme No. VI. Following protracted litigation and remands, the Settlement Commissioner examined the entire record and held that the property was a residential house and that there was no proof the petitioners constructed the rooms thereon, thereby upholding the transfer. The High Court affirmed this finding, noting that the petitioners only raised the dispute long after the issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed and failed to establish their claims. The Supreme Court considered whether the property was a house or a building site and whether the construction was raised by the petitioners. Holding that the ultimate settlement authority and the High Court examined the facts in detail and properly determined the property to be a house, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that concurrent factual findings on settlement matters warrant no interference.
Questions settled- Whether a property transferred as a residential house can be claimed by occupants as a building site over which they raised constructions?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed bar subsequent attempts to reopen settlement proceedings after the commencement of ejectment proceedings?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities and the High Court regarding the nature of a transferred property?
- ROHR1 CEMENT WORKS vs MUBARAK HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS,1981 PLC 354 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
- ROHIL AKHTAR vs GULISTAN KHAN1981 CLC 548 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- RIYASAT ALI vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
- RICE MILLING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2121981 PLC 416 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs NAEEM WA HID, .(1981 PLC 946 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION, .(1981 PLC 805 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
- RIAZ-UL-HASSAN vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, MULTAN AND OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 642 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-01-31Read full judgment →
- RIAZ MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD NASIB AND ANOTHER1981 S CM R 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the physical extent of a property transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, having purchased a shop through auction, claimed it consisted of two rooms, while the respondent, a displaced person in possession of the composite property, contended it was a single-room shop. The Settlement Authorities initially ruled in the petitioner's favor, but the High Court remanded the matter due to a lack of application of mind. Upon remand, the Settlement Commissioner determined the shop consisted of only one room, a finding upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact regarding the property's description was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Settlement Commissioner's decision was based on sufficient evidence, including a site plan and auction records describing the shop as triangular. The Court affirmed that findings of fact supported by material on record are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction, reinforcing the finality of administrative determinations when properly reasoned.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Settlement Commissioner when such finding is supported by evidence on the record?
- Does a site plan describing a property as a single triangular room constitute sufficient evidence to determine the extent of a shop auctioned under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Is an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner after remand legally valid if it demonstrates an application of mind to the evidence, unlike the previous order?
- RIAZ ARMED CHEEMA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DUMAN WA LA AND 2.1981 PLC (C. S.) 443 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-30Read full judgment →