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.
- RESHAM KHAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK AHD Other1981 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a pre-emption suit which was subjected to a deficiency in court-fees by the Civil Judge. During revision proceedings before the District Judge, a conditional offer of compromise led to the appointment of a local commission, which failed due to a lack of confidence expressed by the petitioner. The District Judge subsequently dismissed the suit based on statements of the vendor and the plaintiff. The petitioner challenged this dismissal through a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a writ petition was maintainable and appropriate against the order of the District Court. The Supreme Court held that assuming a writ petition could lie against a subordinate court, a civil suit was a more appropriate and adequate remedy to challenge the impugned order in the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, declining to examine the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition is an appropriate remedy when an adequate remedy by way of a civil suit is available to challenge an order of a subordinate court?
- Can a High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction when the petitioner has an alternative and more appropriate remedy available?
- REHMAT ULLAH ETC. vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REHABILITATION AND SETTLEMENT1981 CLC 630 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- REHMAT SHAH ETC. vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT1981 SCMR 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, convicted by a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulation No. 30 for petrol adulteration, filed review petitions against the dismissal of their petitions for leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. Their original writ petitions before the High Court and subsequent leave petitions challenged the constitutional validity of Martial Law Regulation No. 30 and the establishment of Military Courts under the Doctrine of Necessity. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed the leave petitions on the merits, finding that the petitioners had come to court with unclean hands as the prosecution had proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and left the constitutional questions open. In the review petitions, the counsel argued that failing to decide the important constitutional questions constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, relying on an Indian Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held that the cited precedent was distinguishable as it arose from a civil suit rather than discretionary writ proceedings. The Court reaffirmed that discretionary writ relief can be withheld from petitioners with unclean hands, and consequently dismissed the review petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the refusal of a court to decide important constitutional questions when dismissing a writ petition on the ground of unclean hands constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Is the discretionary relief of a writ petition available to a petitioner who approaches the court with unclean hands?
- Do principles governing the necessity of deciding all vital issues in civil suits apply equally to discretionary constitutional writ jurisdictions?
- REHMAT KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1981 PLD Lahore 759 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
- REHMAT BIBI 4 AND OTHERS vs ABDUL LATIF AND 3 Othbrss1981 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This leave petition arises out of a property dispute concerning excess land allotments under refugee rehabilitation laws, specifically involving proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The core legal question was whether orders passed in revision and subsequent remand proceedings without impleading or giving notice to the legal heirs of deceased allottees were lawful and sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that failure to implead and hear the legal heirs of the deceased original allottees in the revision petition rendered the subsequent orders without lawful authority, causing the entire superstructure of later proceedings to fall. The key principle laid down is that judicial or quasi-judicial orders affecting property rights passed without notice to or representation of necessary legal heirs of deceased parties are void ab initio and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed in revision without impleading the legal heirs of a deceased party is without lawful authority?
- Does the failure to issue notice to legal heirs vitiate subsequent remand proceedings and orders?
- Can an allotment cancellation order survive if foundational revisional proceedings were conducted without necessary parties?
- REHMAT ALI vs SAIDULLAH AND 7 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 264 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs ABDUL AZIZ1981 CLC 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-25Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI AND Another vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-26Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI AND Another vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1981 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent regarding a sale transaction dated 10-04-1969. Although the Civil Judge dismissed the suit, the District Judge accepted the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation due to improper jurisdictional valuation and improper presentation of the plaint, as it was received by the Ahlmad while the Civil Judge was on tour. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions, noting that the jurisdictional valuation was within the competent limits of the trial court and that presentation to the Ahlmad was valid under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that under Order IV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a plaint may be presented to an officer duly authorized by the court in its behalf. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Is a plaint validly presented when received by an authorized Ahlmad in the judge's absence on tour?
- Whether presentation of a plaint to an officer appointed by the court satisfies the requirements of suit institution under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- REHAM ALI vs ABDUL AND OTHERS1981 CLC 278 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, BAHAWALPUR vs WORKERS' UNION PARS TEXTILE1981 PLC 82 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-25Read full judgment →
- RAZAK DAD: vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1981 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, initially appointed as a Machine-Man and later serving as a temporary Sub-Inspector, had his services terminated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi. He challenged the termination through a civil suit which was initially decreed in his favor, but upon abatement, the matter went to the Punjab Services Tribunal, which set aside the civil court's decree. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that the Inspector-General of Police was his appointing authority and that his termination by the Senior Superintendent of Police was without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the Inspector-General of Police was indeed the appointing authority and whether the termination was legally competent. The Supreme Court held that the Inspector-General was not the appointing authority, as the relied-upon document was merely a directive to the Deputy Inspector-General to make the appointment, and that the Superintendent of Police was competent to terminate the service. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Inspector-General of Police is the appointing authority for a temporary Sub-Inspector when the initial communication is merely a directive to the Deputy Inspector-General to make the appointment?
- Does rule 12.8 of the Police Rules apply to persons not appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the preceding rules?
- Whether the Superintendent of Police is competent to terminate the services of a temporary Sub-Inspector?
- RAZA AHMAD KHAN vs AHMAD RAZA1981 CLC 441 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
- RASOOL MUHAMMAD vs SHERAZ GUL Alias SIRAJ FTC.1981 SCMR 926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking the enhancement of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the respondent for murder to the death penalty. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in substituting the death sentence with imprisonment for life on the ground of mitigating circumstances arising from a sudden quarrel. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing and restored the dismissed petition, holding that the existence of mitigating circumstances is a question to be determined on the facts of each case, and that a sudden quarrel and underlying provocation can justify a lesser penalty. The Court laid down the principle that the presence of a sudden quarrel and ongoing agitation can constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the imposition of imprisonment for life rather than the death sentence for a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether the suddenness of an affair and an ongoing quarrel can be treated as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition where the delay is primarily attributable to the gross negligence of the Advocate-on-Record?
- Is a single stab blow to a vital part of the body invariably a bar to the imposition of a lesser sentence when preceded by a sudden quarrel?
- RASOOL AHMAD vs MESSRS STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN , .1981 PLC 640 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
- RASHID vs THE STATE---1981 P C r. L J 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- Rao QADEER KHAN vs THB STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in multiple cases involving fraud, forgery, and misappropriation. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail notwithstanding allegations of abscondence, conduct amounting to abuse of process, and the merits of the accusations. The Supreme Court held that the petitions must be dismissed, finding that the petitioner's prolonged abscondence and repeated attempts to abuse the process of law disentitled him to the discretionary relief of bail, regardless of whether the offences fell within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that proven abscondence and the abuse of court process through frivolous or repetitive bail applications independently disentitle an accused person from receiving pre-trial bail.
Questions settled- Does prolonged abscondence disentitle an accused person to the concession of bail?
- Whether repeated applications for anticipatory bail and subsequent absence amount to an abuse of the process of law and court?
- Can an accused person claim bail as a matter of right despite conduct that disentitles them to discretionary relief?
- Rao MUHAMMAD KHALIL vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION1981 PLC 265 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- RAO KHAN vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KAKACHI ,1981 PLC 654 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
- RANJHO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 890 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- Rana SUBHAN ALI vs Ch. GHULAM RASUL AND Other1981 SCMR 1121(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION1981 PLC 423 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- Rana JAHANDAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 6 Other1981 SCMR 703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a dispute over a parcel of land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas situated in Chak No. 54/2-L, Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal, which was initially confirmed in the petitioner's favour as agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the disputed property qualified as 'land' under the relevant settlement laws or as urban property ('ghair mumkin abadi') subject to transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Lahore High Court held that the property was ghair mumkin abadi used for commercial or residential purposes and not for agricultural purposes, thereby setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's order and upholding its transfer to the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's finding of fact based on a correct appreciation of the record was unexceptionable, and rendered the initial agricultural allotment legally invalid as a bar against the respondents' transfer. The key principle laid down is that properties recorded as ghair mumkin abadi without evidence of agricultural use cannot be treated as agricultural land for settlement purposes.
Questions settled- Whether a property recorded as ghair mumkin abadi without evidence of agricultural use can be classified as land for agricultural transfer under settlement laws?
- Can an initial invalid allotment of property as agricultural land serve as a bar to the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- RAJIB vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
- RAJA QURESHI vs MRS. YASMEEN QURESHI1981 PLD Karachi 61 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-31Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs Mst. MISRI JAN1981 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1981 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, previously serving as a Section Officer in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, was appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner (E.A.C.) in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) in relaxation of rules as a direct recruit. He accepted express conditions including surrendering prior service seniority. Subsequently, the Governor of the Punjab issued a notification reverting the appellant to his previous post of Section Officer. The Punjab Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground that he was on probation and could have been terminated without notice. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found that the original appointment was lawfully made by a competent authority in relaxation of rules. The Court held that the subsequent reversion was merely a recall of the earlier valid appointment order based on an erroneous assumption that it should not have been made. Applying the principles of *locus poenitentiae* and *animus revertendi*, the Court held that once an order is acted upon and conditions fulfilled, the authority cannot recall it. The appeal was allowed, and the reversion order declared unlawful.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority recall a validly issued appointment order after the appointee has accepted its terms and fulfilled the underlying conditions?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the government from reverting a civil servant whose appointment was lawfully made in relaxation of rules?
- Can a probationer's reversion be justified as a recall of an appointment order on the assumption that the original appointment should not have been made?
- Raja MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs GENERAL MANAGER, ARMY WELFARE FOOD1981 PLC 454 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-03-18Read full judgment →
- Raja HASSAN AKHTAR AND OTHERS vs AKBAR KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over a plot of evacuee property in Rawalpindi, originally transferred to the second respondent via a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, having purchased the plot from the second respondent, filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the first respondent, who claimed ownership based on a subsequent transfer order. Following the repeal of the 1958 Act by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the second respondent's P.T.D. in 1979. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, suggesting he pursue his civil suit. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel the P.T.D. after the 1975 Act's repeal. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, noting the order was passed without jurisdiction. It directed the parties to resolve their claims within the pending civil suit, allowing the first respondent to amend the written statement to include allegations of fraud, thereby ensuring the civil court determines the matter on merits.
Questions settled- Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner retain jurisdiction to cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a High Court dismiss a writ petition challenging an order passed without jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy in a pending civil suit?
- Raja AMIR ZAMAN vs NASIRUDDIN Alias BHOLA AND 2 OTHRERS1981 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had restrained authorities from announcing the results of an election in which the petitioner was a candidate for the position of Councilor. The core legal question was whether the High Court's discretionary order, which allowed the election to proceed but prohibited the declaration of results pending the resolution of a constitutional petition by a larger bench, was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's impugned order fell within its discretionary jurisdiction and did not violate any established law or principle. The Court reasoned that the petitioner would have the opportunity to present his arguments regarding the issues referred to the Full Bench during the subsequent hearing of the writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's exercise of discretion in regulating the election process was appropriate under the circumstances.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to restrain the announcement of election results pending the resolution of a constitutional petition?
- Is an order by a Division Bench of the High Court to refer a matter to a larger bench subject to interference by the Supreme Court if it involves the exercise of discretion?
- Does the restraint on declaring election results constitute a valid exercise of the High Court's power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Rais KHAIR MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS. vs IMDADULLAH SHAH1981 CLC 1411 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-19Read full judgment →
- Rai TULLEY KHAN vs AHMAD HASSAN KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 1075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's pre-emption suit and subsequent second appeal. The petitioner had filed a suit to pre-empt a sale of land, which was initially decreed by the civil judge. During the limitation period, the original vendees sold the land to a third party, Ahmad Hassan, who possessed an equal right of pre-emption as a village proprietor and was also related to the original vendees. The lower appellate court accepted the subsequent sale and dismissed the petitioner's suit, a view affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. The core legal questions involved the validity of a subsequent sale involving a minor's share, the competence of a natural guardian to effect such a transfer, and the requirement for a pre-locator to retain a superior right of pre-emption up to the date of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent sale was an act of good management and welfare for the minor, that the natural guardian was competent to act, and that the plaintiff must maintain a preferential right of pre-emption up to the date of the decree. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent sale of land by a minor through a natural guardian during the limitation period defeats a prior pre-emption suit?
- Is a pre-emptor required to maintain a preferential right of pre-emption up to the date of the decree?
- Whether a father acting as a legal guardian can transfer property on behalf of a minor if it constitutes an act of good management and welfare?
- Rai SHABBIR AHb4AD vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 755 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
- Rai HAFEEZULLAH TARIQ vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, SARGODHA AND Another1981 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an apprehended preventive detention order issued under Martial Law Order 12. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's interim direction requiring the petitioner to surrender to the Deputy Registrar of the Court as a precondition for hearing the petition, which the petitioner alleged amounted to facilitating his custody by Martial Law authorities. The Supreme Court held that the interim order, properly interpreted as merely informing the Martial Law Headquarters of the petitioner's surrender, was not open to any exception and warranted no interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that interim procedural directions requiring surrender in preventive detention challenges, when interpreted as non-coercive informational notices, do not violate constitutional rights.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can require a petitioner seeking relief against preventive detention to surrender to the court's officer as an interim measure?
- Does an interim order directing a petitioner to surrender and informing Martial Law authorities amount to an unlawful delegation of custody?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Rai ALLAH JOWAYA Ems vs AKBAR KHAN AND ANOTHER.1981 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioners' civil suit regarding the recovery of land revenue as arrears. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were condemned unheard before the demand for land revenue arrears was created against them and recovery proceedings were initiated. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts established that the petitioners had indeed been summoned, heard, and given an opportunity to state their case and settle accounts before the revenue authorities, notwithstanding any informality in procedure. The Court further held that a new factual plea regarding the lack of a signature on the recovery certificate, not raised before the lower courts, could not be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, affirming the principle that procedural informality does not vitiate proceedings where adequate notice and opportunity of hearing have been substantially afforded.
Questions settled- Whether recovery proceedings for land revenue arrears are vitiated if the procedure adopted by the revenue authorities is somewhat informal?
- Can a new factual plea regarding the lack of a signature on a recovery certificate be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the opportunity of hearing given to a party can be interfered with in civil revision?
- RAHMAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND Other1981 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of land allotted to the vendees following a sale transaction. The petitioner, having purchased land from the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, claimed entitlement to an additional 55 kanals and 7 marlas of land allotted later, arguing it constituted 'beshi' (excess) covered by the original sale deed. The trial court, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court concurrently held that the additional land was not the subject matter of the sale and was not covered by the sale deed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to produce the complete sale deed or the plaint to substantiate the claim. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of the additional allotment was a question of fact already determined by the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that a sale deed's recital should be interpreted to include any property subsequently acquired by the vendor regardless of the source. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a sale deed's recital can be interpreted to include property acquired by the vendor subsequent to the sale regardless of the source of acquisition?
- Can a petitioner succeed in a challenge against concurrent findings of fact without providing the essential documents, such as the sale deed and plaint, on the record?
- RAHIMULLAH vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD.,KARACHI , .(1981 PLC 263 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
- RAHIM SHAH MIAN AND 5 Other vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BUX ETC. vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-09Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUR REHMAN vs Ari TRANSPORT CORPORATIONSIND1981 PLC 965 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- RABIA BIBI vs THE STATE AND 5 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 458 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
- R. M. GULISTAN vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION1981 CLC 1500 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
- Qazi ZAMARRUD HUSSAIN vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI1981 PLC 986 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- Qazi ZAHOORUDDIN vs Mir SHAHABUDDIN1981 PLD Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- Qazi YAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 375 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- Qazi SAJJAD AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1981 PLC (C. S.) 525 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Qazi ALLAH DITTA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 453 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
- QASSAM vs DUNYA GUL1981 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
- QASIM SHAH AND Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the convictions and sentences of the four appellants under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the credibility of interested and inimical eye-witnesses without corroboration, and whether the appellants acted in private defence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the participation of the appellants, the presence of motive, and the rejection of the belated plea of self-defence were fully justified by the evidence on record, particularly as the injured eye-witnesses were stamped witnesses whose presence at the spot was indisputable. The ratio decidendi is that injured eye-witnesses provide sterling testimony of their presence, and a plea of self-defence raised belatedly at trial and contradicted by physical and geographical evidence cannot be sustained. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration in a criminal trial?
- Can a plea of self-defence raised for the first time at trial, rather than during commitment proceedings, be accepted?
- Whether the acquittal of one co-accused automatically entitles other co-accused to the benefit of doubt?
- QASIM ALI AND Another vs Mst. HASHAM BIBI AND Another1981 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the allotment of evacuee land situated in the Gujrat District, which was originally allotted to the respondent in 1967. The petitioners challenged the allotment several years later in 1972, but their appeals and subsequent revisions were dismissed by the Settlement Authorities. The High Court also dismissed their writ petition on October 21, 1975. The core legal question was whether the initial allotment of evacuee land was invalid for want of individual notice to sitting allottees of the village. The Supreme Court held that the initial allotment of evacuee agricultural land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme does not require individual notice to persons who have filed claims in the estate, as the arrival of the Rehabilitation or Revenue Officer in the village serves as sufficient notice. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that the disputed land was lawfully allotted to the respondent and was not available for subsequent allotment to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Whether individual notice is required to be given to sitting allottees of a village before the initial allotment of evacuee agricultural land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Does the arrival of a Rehabilitation or Revenue Officer in a village constitute sufficient notice for the initial allotment of evacuee land?
- QAMRUL ISLAM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER---1981 P Cr. L J 586 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- QAMARUZZAMAN vs THE CANTONMENT BOARD, RAWALP1NDI1981 SCMR 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The dispute concerned the annual value and tax assessment of a hotel run by the appellant under the Cantonments Act, 1924. The appellant had filed an appeal before the District Magistrate under section 84 of the Act without depositing the disputed tax amount, leading to the dismissal of his appeal pursuant to section 87(b). The High Court upheld this dismissal and found the writ petition not maintainable due to the failure to fulfill the mandatory pre-condition of depositing the tax. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on this ground and whether the pre-condition of deposit rendered the statutory appeal inadequate. The Court held that the deposit requirement under section 87(b) is mandatory and that the statutory appeal under section 84 was an adequate remedy which the appellant failed to properly pursue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the deposit of the disputed tax amount is a mandatory pre-condition for filing an appeal under section 87 of the Cantonments Act 1924?
- Is the right of appeal under section 84 of the Cantonments Act 1924 rendered inadequate solely because the appellant is required to deposit the disputed tax amount?
- Can a party challenge an assessment on the ground of retrospective enhancement before the superior courts when no such contention was raised in the lower statutory appeal?
- QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN AND Anarneles+D8876 vs THB STATE1981 PLD Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- QAMAR RAZA SIDDIQI vs GHAYAS UD DIN KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court of Baluchistan. The petitioner had filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from recovering a decretal amount passed against him by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, alleging the claim to be false and fraudulent, but both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed his applications for interim relief, and the High Court dismissed his revision inter alia for lack of particulars regarding fraud. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's civil suit was barred under the relevant co-operative societies legislation given his role as secretary. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition was without merit, observing that the petitioner's claim was hit by section 54 read with section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and that the plaint lacked proper particulars of fraud. The petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to pursue other remedies available under the law.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit challenging a decree passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is barred under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Is a plaintiff required to provide specific particulars of fraud in the plaint when alleging a fraudulent decree?
- Does section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 apply to suits by members whose claims fall under section 54 of the said Act?
- QADIR BUX vs BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1574 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- QADIR BAKHSH vs THE STATEP L -D 1981 Karachi 581 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
- QADIR BAKHSH vs SAIF UR REHMAN AND Other1981 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses a dispute concerning state agricultural land previously allotted to displaced persons. The core legal question involved whether the appellant, Qadir Bakhsh, was a properly impleaded party to the underlying revision proceedings, thereby competent to maintain review applications, and whether the appeal had abated due to the death of one of the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant had indeed been properly impleaded as a party before the Settlement Commissioner, that the High Court erred in holding otherwise, and that the appeal did not abate entirely as the interest of the surviving respondents was identical to that of the deceased. Furthermore, the Court found an error patent on the face of the record regarding the respondents' status as members of a criminal tribe. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the review orders of the Settlement Commissioner restoring the ejectment of the respondents were upheld. The key principle laid down is that a party validly impleaded in administrative proceedings is competent to seek review, and an appeal does not abate where the deceased party's interest is fully represented by co-respondents with identical interests.
Questions settled- Whether a party impleaded in revision proceedings before a Settlement Commissioner is competent to file a review petition?
- Does an appeal abate entirely upon the death of one respondent when the interests of the remaining respondents are identical?
- Whether an error patent on the face of the record justifies the setting aside of an order by a Settlement Commissioner?
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LABOUR UNION, RAWALPINDI vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, PUNJAB REGION AND ANOTHER _NIRC,1981 PLC 7 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-10-08Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, LAHORE vs SHAMIM AHMAD AND Another1981 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a decree in favor of the respondent, Shamim Ahmad. The respondent, formerly employed by the West Pakistan Small Industries Corporation, challenged his reversion from the position of Officiating Deputy Manager to Assistant Manager. Following the dissolution of the Corporation and the devolution of its rights and liabilities to the Province of Punjab, the respondent filed a civil suit contesting the reversion. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the Additional District Judge, Lahore, accepted the respondent's appeal and decreed the suit in his favor. The High Court subsequently dismissed the Corporation's Regular Second Appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address critical legal questions regarding the respondent's employment status, specifically whether he was serving during an extended period of probation at the time of the impugned action, the applicability of government rules at the relevant time, and whether the respondent was entitled to statutory protection regarding his reversion.
Questions settled- Whether the respondent was serving during an extended period of probation at the time the action of reversion was taken against him?
- Whether the rules made by the Government were operative at the relevant time of the respondent's reversion?
- Was the petitioner entitled to statutory protection regarding his reversion from the post of Officiating Deputy Manager?
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1981 PLC 132 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs AHMAD HAYAT KHAN AND OTHERS/1981 PLC 107 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs ABDULALI P. JIVANI AND 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 774 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs GHULAM YASIN1981 CLC 135 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-16Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT AND Another vs MUHAMMAD SAEED1981 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB SOCIAL WELFARE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF ASHRAF ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 810 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-05-13Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, BAHAWALPUR vs Sh.1981 PLC (C. S.) 752 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MFSSRS COMBINED TRADERS AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, the Province of Punjab, sought special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed its appeal arising from arbitration proceedings. A dispute over construction payments under an agreement was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award. The award was filed in court, and notices were issued to the parties. The notice addressed to the petitioner was returned by a departmental superintendent with an endorsement citing a lack of specific section details, and the petitioner subsequently filed time-barred objections, which were rejected by the trial court and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the service of the court notice upon the departmental superintendent constituted due service on the petitioner under the relevant procedural and administrative rules. The Supreme Court held that the superintendent was duly authorized as an agent to receive communications under the Manual of Secretariat Instructions, and the refusal to accept service amounted to an evasion of responsibility. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that service upon the authorized departmental agent was valid.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental superintendent is competent to receive court notices on behalf of a government department as a recognized agent?
- Does the return of a court notice by a departmental official with an evasive endorsement constitute valid service?
- Whether objections to an arbitration award filed beyond the prescribed period can be entertained without sufficient cause?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs AMANAT ALI1981 PLD Supreme Court 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a High Court judgment concerning the compulsory retirement of a government servant under Article 178(4)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. The core legal question was whether such compulsory retirement, upon completing twenty-five years of service, is penal in nature and necessitates a show-cause notice under the principle of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court held that compulsory retirement under the said constitutional provision is non-penal and does not carry any stigma or vindictiveness. Consequently, the government possesses absolute discretion to retire an officer in the public interest, a matter left to the subjective satisfaction of the employing authority. The Court ruled that no show-cause notice or formal inquiry is required for such retirement, as it does not constitute removal or dismissal. The High Court’s reliance on the audi alteram partem maxim and the requirement for a show-cause notice was deemed erroneous, as the constitutional amendment specifically intended to grant the government unfettered discretion in this regard. The appeal was accepted, and the retirement order was upheld.
Questions settled- Is compulsory retirement of a government servant under Article 178(4)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 penal in nature?
- Does the compulsory retirement of a government servant after twenty-five years of service require a show-cause notice?
- Can a court sit in judgment over the government's determination of public interest regarding the compulsory retirement of a civil servant?
- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the compulsory retirement of a civil servant under Article 178(4)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB vs ABDUR RAZAQ ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 450 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-02-28Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs Mst. NOOR BIBI AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- PROJECT DIRECTOR, KARKHANA ALAAT-E-ZAREE, BAHAWALPUR vs MUBARIK1981 PLC 104 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- PROF. MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR vs The STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the jurisdiction of a succeeding Sessions Judge to proceed with a trial from the stage where it was left by his predecessors. The petitioner contended that under the amended Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, only an immediate successor could continue the proceedings without a de novo trial, and that a successor of an immediate successor lacked such authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this argument, holding that the terms 'predecessor' and 'successor' cannot be restricted to mean only the 'immediate' predecessor or successor. The Court ruled that inserting the word 'immediate' would amount to reading words into the statute that are not there. Applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act 1897, the Court held that the singular includes the plural, meaning 'successor' includes subsequent successors, thereby enabling any succeeding judge to continue the trial from the stage left by any predecessor.
Questions settled- Whether the term 'successor' in Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is restricted to the immediate successor only?
- Can a succeeding Sessions Judge proceed with a trial from the stage where it was left by a predecessor of his predecessor without recording fresh evidence?
- Does the rule of statutory interpretation under Section 13 of the General Clauses Act 1897 apply to the interpretation of 'successor' in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Presort: Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain And AMIR GUL1981 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for double murder and attempted murder, where the appellant challenged his death sentence. The core legal questions were whether the ocular testimony of related and allegedly inimical witnesses, in the absence of independent corroboration, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the appellant's advanced age (70 years) warranted a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence, finding that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence. The Court held that the testimony of a witness who is a close relative of the accused—specifically the victim's widow who is the appellant's sister—carries significant weight, as there is no reason for her to falsely implicate her own brother in a double murder. The Court affirmed that where ocular testimony is consistent and credible, the non-production of other witnesses or minor medical discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court established that heinous crimes, such as double murder arising from trivial disputes, do not merit leniency based solely on the advanced age of the offender.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a close relative of the accused be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction?
- Does the advanced age of an offender automatically entitle them to a reduction of a death sentence in a murder case?
- Is the non-production of a witness by the prosecution fatal to the case if the defense had the opportunity to examine them?
- Does a discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Presiding Officer Haji JALAT KHAN vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION1981 PLC 302 · Labour Court · 1980-06-27Read full judgment →
- PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES MAZDOOR UNION vs PEOPLES' LABOUR UNION, MANDRA AND 2 OTHERS , . (1981 PLC 279 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
- PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE vs Mian SHEIH1981 CLC 1326 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- POPAT vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- Pirzada NAZIR HASSAN vs MAJOR (RLTD.) EJAZ AHMAD KHAN1981 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court concerning the entitlement to interest accrued on a sale consideration deposit. The petitioner, a vendor, had entered into an agreement to sell a property to the respondent. Following a decree for specific performance in favor of the respondent, the petitioner appealed, and the High Court stayed the execution of the decree, ordering the respondent to deposit the balance sale price of six lakhs in a bank to abide by the appeal's outcome. After the appeal was dismissed and the sale deed was eventually executed through court, the petitioner sought the interest accrued on the deposited amount for the period prior to the registration of the sale deed. The core legal question was whether the vendor was entitled to interest on the purchase money deposited in court while the execution of the decree was stayed at his own instance. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to interest prior to the date of the actual registration of the sale deed, as he could not have withdrawn the money without performing his obligation to execute the deed.
Questions settled- Is a vendor entitled to interest on the purchase price deposited in court during the pendency of an appeal filed by the vendor himself?
- Does a vendor have a legal right to withdraw the balance sale price from court before the execution and registration of the sale deed?
- From what date is a vendor entitled to interest on the sale consideration deposited by the purchaser in court following a decree for specific performance?
- Pir MANZOOR ALI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- PIR GHULAM vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1981 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had dismissed a constitutional petition against an eviction order from a government quarter. The petitioner, who was residing in the premises following the death of the original allottee, Taimur Khan, argued that as a low-paid government servant, he was entitled to residential accommodation. The Civil Estate Officer had issued the eviction order under the Baluchistan Governing Lands and Buildings (Recovery and Possession) Ordinance, 1956. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal right to possess the property. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's status as a government servant did not grant him a legal entitlement to occupy the specific quarter in question, nor did it provide a valid ground for challenging the eviction order in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner's plea for accommodation should be addressed to the relevant administrative department rather than the judiciary.
Questions settled- Does a government servant have a legal right to retain possession of government accommodation solely on the basis of being a low-paid employee?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an eviction order where the petitioner lacks a legal right to the possession of the property?
- Is the plea for residential accommodation by a government servant a valid ground for challenging an eviction order in a court of law?
- PIR BAKHSH vs The STATE1981S C M R 1121(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the trial court, which was upheld by the High Court while acquitting his co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased following a history of local enmity, supported by ocular testimony, motive, and medical evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and noted that the First Information Report was recorded after preliminary investigations, giving time for deliberation. The Court further noted that the eye-witnesses were closely related interested witnesses whose testimony was found entirely false regarding three co-accused, and that the medical evidence contradicted the witness accounts rather than corroborating them. Holding that medical evidence and motive could not corroborate false testimony, and that it was unsafe to sift grain from the chaff where witnesses introduced substantial falsehoods, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony that is disbelieved and proved false regarding a majority of co-accused be relied upon to convict a remaining accused?
- Does medical evidence or motive constitute sufficient corroboration where the primary ocular testimony is found to be false?
- Whether the rule of sifting the grain from the chaff can be applied when eye-witnesses introduce substantial falsehood into their testimony?
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD. vs ANEES CORPORATION ETC.1981 CLC 955 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- PINIO vs THE STATE-Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-01Read full judgment →
- PHULLA AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
- PHOTO AND ANOTHER vs Haji NIHAL AND 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 460 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- PHOOL MUHAMMAD vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 21981 CLC 179 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- PHOOL MUHAMMAD vs S. HASSAN ARIF FATMI AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 1719 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-28Read full judgment →
- PHOOL DIN AND Another vs ABDUL MAJID1981 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioners-tenants concerning a shop situated in Bahawalnagar, on the ground of personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the District Judge accepted the landlord's appeal and ordered eviction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the tenants' second appeal. In the petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that subsequent to the lower court proceedings, the landlord had inherited other shops upon his father's death, which should negate his personal need. The Supreme Court held that the plea of subsequent events could not be raised for the first time before this Court, especially since the father had passed away years earlier while the matter was pending in the High Court and the petitioners had enjoyed the benefit of a stay order. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding the bona fide personal need of the landlord and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot raise a new plea of subsequent developments for the first time in the apex court when such facts were available during the pendency of proceedings before the lower forums.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of subsequent events for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does the inheritance of other properties by a landlord during the pendency of litigation automatically negate a finding of bona fide personal need?
- PATRACO LTD. vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1433 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PARYAL vs PUNHOON AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 265 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- PARADISE CINEMA, SUKKUR vs ABDUL WAHID AND ANOTHER , .1981 PLC 719 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
- PANNU N KHAN Etcs vs MUHAMMAD ANIS AND OTHRES1981 SCMR 1129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-3-1981, which interfered with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 17-1-1981 regarding the transfer of a property. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with a settlement authority's order that was passed strictly in compliance with a final and unchallenged earlier remand judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order contained no defect warranting correction under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and thus the High Court erred in interfering with it. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a settlement order complying with a final remand direction should remain undisturbed in the absence of legal defects.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction with an order passed by a settlement authority in strict compliance with a final and unchallenged remand order?
- Does an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner pursuant to previous judicial directions warrant interference when no legal defect is shown?
- PAM JAN vs MESSRS ALW1N ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI ,1981 PLC 595 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WAREHOUSES AND CARRIERS WORKERS'UNION, KARACHI vs KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD, KARACHIAND 6 OTHER,1981 PLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- QUTUBUDDIN AHMAD KHAN vs Mst. ZOHRA MUSARAT AMIN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 212 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an impugned order of the Additional District Judge dismissing an appeal against orders of the Rent Controller that struck off the defence of the respondent-tenant and rejected the appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as an intervenor. The core legal questions involve whether a person in physical occupation as a former employee of the tenant can claim status as a direct tenant without evidence of direct attornment or landlord acceptance, whether an appeal is competent against the rejection of an Order I, Rule 10 application under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether contempt of court is made out for violating a stay order without authentic prior knowledge. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant failed to establish a direct landlord-tenant relationship, that an appeal against an Order I, Rule 10 rejection is not competent under Section 15 of the Ordinance, and that contempt proceedings fail where the respondents had no definite and authentic prior knowledge of the stay order. The court laid down that a Rent Controller is persona designata where the Civil Procedure Code does not directly apply, that appeals from a Rent Controller are strictly confined to sections specified in Section 15, and that penal consequences for contempt require clear proof of wilful disregard with definite information of the order.
Questions settled- Can a person in physical occupation of a premises as an employee of the tenant claim tenancy status without proving direct acceptance of rent by the landlord?
- Is an appeal competent against an order of the Rent Controller rejecting an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether disobedience of a stay order constitutes contempt of court in the absence of definite and authentic prior knowledge of the order by the alleged contemner?
- PAKISTAN TOILET WORKS, KARACHI vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1981 CLC 1543 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN THROUGH PAKISTAN WESTERN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs Mist. KAKUBAI1981 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, RAFI, LAHORE vs AGRO MARKETING1981 CLC 443 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore, declining to consolidate two cross-suits arising from a contract for the import and local formulation of pesticides. The core legal question was whether the two suits, involving the same transaction and cross-claims of breach of contract, warranted consolidation under the inherent powers of the court. The Lahore High Court held that while the strict conditions for consolidation were rendered impracticable because one suit had already reached the final arguments stage due to an earlier expedited administrative order, the interests of justice and the need to avoid conflicting judgments justified invoking inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court laid down the principle that to prevent contradictory adjudications and abuse of process, where suits arise from the same transaction, a court may direct simultaneous announcement of judgments by expediting the lagging suit, thereby balancing procedural constraints with substantive justice.
Questions settled- Can a civil court consolidate two separate suits in the absence of a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the institution of a subsequent suit or merely stay its trial?
- Is complete identity of all facts and questions of law a strict prerequisite for exercising inherent powers to consolidate or coordinate related suits?
- Can a court direct the simultaneous announcement of judgments in two related suits arising from the same transaction when they are at different stages of trial?
- PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAY BOARD,LAHORE vs MAQSOOD ALI AND 82 OTHERS, .(1981 PLC 307 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of seven consolidated writ petitions concerning whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has revisional jurisdiction over appellate decisions of the Labour Court. The dispute originated from claims filed by Railway Guards for recovery of arrears of wages and allowances under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The Authority under the Act accepted the claims, and on appeal, the Punjab Labour Court modified the reliefs. Revision petitions were subsequently filed before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The core legal question was whether a revision petition is competent before the Tribunal from a decision of a Labour Court acting as an appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The High Court held that the Labour Court, when acting under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, acts under the powers and procedure of that special Act and its rules, not under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Consequently, such proceedings do not constitute a 'case or proceedings under this Ordinance' within the meaning of Section 38(3-a). The Court concluded that the Tribunal lacks revisional jurisdiction, thereby allowing the petitions of the Pakistan Railways and dismissing those of the employees.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 over an appellate order passed by a Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Does an appeal decided by a Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 constitute a 'case or proceedings under this Ordinance' within the meaning of Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does the finality attached to an appellate decision under Section 17(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 preclude further revision under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- PAKISTAN THORUGH CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN RAILWAY BOARD, LAHORE vs GHULAM QADIR1981 PLD Lahore 580 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-29Read full judgment →