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.
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs RASHID HUSSAIN FAROOQUI AND Other1981 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Sind High Court, which upheld the striking off of the petitioner's defence in an eviction proceeding. The core legal question concerns the legality of striking off a tenant's defence for repeated failure to deposit tentative rent as ordered by the Rent Controller, and whether a plea of mental illness or mere hardship excuses such defaults. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the petitioner's technical pleas and unsubstantiated defense of mental illness, noting that the defaults occurred prior to the alleged onset of the ailment, and that mere hardship does not warrant interference with lawful eviction orders. The ratio decidendi is that persistent failure to comply with tentative rent orders justifies striking off a tenant's defence, and pleas of hardship or unproven medical conditions cannot overturn concurrent findings of rent defaults. The Court dismissed the petition while granting a four-month grace period to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether persistent failure to comply with an order for the deposit of tentative rent justifies striking off a tenant's defence?
- Does a plea of hardship constitute a valid ground for interfering with an eviction order?
- Whether an unproven claim of mental illness excuses defaults in the payment of tentative rent?
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs Kh. MUHAMMAD SADIQ1981 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord for reconstruction. The core legal question was whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's personal need for reconstruction warranted interference by the Supreme Court under special leave jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case was concluded by concurrent findings of fact supported by cogent reasons and that arguments pertaining merely to the appreciation of evidence do not constitute grounds for granting special leave. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact on the question of personal need for reconstruction where the lower forums have properly appreciated the evidence and no principle of law has been violated.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal need for reconstruction can be challenged in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does an argument pertaining merely to the appreciation of evidence constitute a sufficient ground for granting special leave to appeal in an ejectment matter?
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs D. 1. G. OF POLICE, LAHORE RANGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 762 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding the cancellation of an allotment of agricultural land measuring 62 kanals 6 marlas situated in village Nandhir, District Gujranwala, which was originally allotted to respondent No. 3 and subsequently sold to the appellants via a registered sale deed. The core legal question concerns whether a statement made by the allottee in connection with a separate allotment in another village could lawfully be utilized to cancel the allotment of the disputed land on the grounds of fraud. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the cancellation of the allotment by the Deputy Commissioner exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was unjustified and not maintainable based on extraneous statements. The Court laid down the principle that an allotment of land cannot be cancelled based on statements made in entirely separate proceedings concerning different properties without proper independent proof of fraud specific to the land in question.
Questions settled- Whether a statement made by an allottee in connection with an allotment in one village can be utilized to cancel an allotment of land in another village?
- Can the High Court in revisional jurisdiction interfere with a finding of fraud recorded by a Settlement authority?
- Under what circumstances can an allotment made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act be cancelled?
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1153 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TALIB AND Others vs MEMBER (R.), BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1981 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed their writ petition regarding the inheritance mutation of land previously allotted to Mst. Nathi. The petitioners, claiming to be collaterals, had initially challenged the mutation before Revenue authorities, but their appeal was dismissed as time-barred. They subsequently challenged this dismissal through revisions and a writ petition, arguing that the mutation should have been handled under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme rather than the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were debarred from challenging the orders because they had initiated the proceedings themselves and failed to challenge the Collector's finding on limitation in their writ petition. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the question of whether sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay in filing an appeal was a question of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners could not re-agitate objections that were or could have been raised in the time-barred appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge an order in a writ petition if they failed to challenge the finding of limitation on which that order was based?
- Is the question of whether sufficient cause exists for condoning delay in filing an appeal a question of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue authorities?
- Are parties who initiate proceedings before a forum debarred from challenging the jurisdiction of that forum in subsequent writ proceedings?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by Revenue authorities regarding the limitation of an appeal?
- MUHAMMAD TAJ vs The STATE1981SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to an accused charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, while in police custody for a separate arms offence, allegedly pushed a Head Constable into a well while attempting to escape, resulting in the officer's death. The petitioner argued that the act constituted a rash and negligent act under Section 304-A rather than murder, and sought bail due to the duration of his incarceration. The Supreme Court declined to determine the nature of the offence at the pre-trial stage, holding that doing so would usurp the trial court's jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to deny bail, noting the petitioner's direct responsibility for the fatal injuries and the circumstances of the incident, which occurred while the petitioner was in custody for another offence. The Court also declined to consider the argument regarding trial delay as it had not been raised before the lower courts.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court determine the specific nature of an offence at the bail stage without usurping the jurisdiction of the trial court?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the incident resulting in death occurred while the accused was in police custody for another offence?
- Should an appellate court consider arguments regarding trial delay that were not raised before the lower courts?
- MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs THE STATE----Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULEMAN MALIK vs LEVER BROTHERS PAK. LTD., RAHIM YAR KHAN/1981 PLC 31 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SUBHAN vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SUALEHEEN AND 9 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ MAZHAR AND 12 OTHERS1981 CLC 1039 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Syed MUHAMMAD SHAKIR1981 SCMR 1166, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the tenant's eviction. The core legal question was whether an erroneous reference by the Rent Controller to subsection (6) of Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959—despite the absence of a prior order directing the deposit of rent—vitiated the eviction order where the tenant was admittedly a chronic defaulter in paying rent. The Supreme Court held that the mistaken reference to the provision did not invalidate the eviction order, as the tenant was undeniably a defaulter without just cause and the courts below correctly found that eviction was warranted due to overall default. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a technical or erroneous reference to a statutory subsection in an eviction order does not vitiate the order where the substantive ground of default is fully established and doing so would cause no injustice.
Questions settled- Does an erroneous reference to subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 vitiate an eviction order where no prior deposit order was made but default in rent is admitted?
- Whether a chronic defaulter who denies the relationship of landlord and tenant can successfully challenge an eviction order on technical grounds of misquoted statutory provisions?
- Is special leave to appeal warranted against concurrent findings of lower forums ordering eviction of a tenant who admittedly failed to pay rent?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs S. D. M. TRIBUNAL1981 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) Tribunal, Garhi Yasin, which issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner based on a police report under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal issued the warrant in disregard of Section 5 of the Act, which ordinarily requires a summons, and that the police report lacked the necessary particulars of the alleged acts. The High Court of Sindh observed that the Tribunal failed to record any reasons or demonstrate that the petitioner's immediate arrest was necessary to prevent the apprehended acts, as mandated by Section 5. Furthermore, the court noted that the police report contained only vague and general allegations without specifying the date, time, and place of the alleged acts, or under which clauses of Section 14 they fell. The High Court held that a mere list of pending cases or substantive offences does not satisfy the statutory requirement of providing specific particulars. Consequently, the court declared the proceedings initiated against the petitioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether a Tribunal under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 can issue a non-bailable warrant instead of a summons without recording specific reasons showing that immediate arrest is necessary?
- Can proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 be validly initiated on a police report that lacks specific details of the time, place, and nature of the alleged acts?
- Does the mere pendency of criminal cases or a list of past charges against a person suffice to classify them as a habitual offender under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM1981 CLC 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOTRI, .1981 PLC 670 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 Other vs MASTER MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 31981 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated regular first appeal arose from two pre-emption suits filed on the final day of limitation with deficient court fees. The trial court initially granted both sets of plaintiffs time under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to make up the deficiency, which was duly deposited within the allowed timeframe. However, the trial court subsequently dismissed both suits, finding that the plaintiffs had obtained the extension based on incorrect statements regarding their efforts to secure revenue records and that the suits were consequently time-barred. The Lahore High Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that in the absence of positive mala fides, gross negligence, or contumacy, the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 149, CPC and Section 28 of the Court Fees Act 1870. The High Court further held that once unconditional time was granted and complied with, the trial court could not unilaterally review its order through general issues without formal review proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a court review an unconditional order extending time under Section 149 CPC without a formal application for review?
- Does filing a suit on deficient court fees on the last day of limitation automatically constitute mala fide or gross negligence?
- Under what circumstances can a court refuse to grant time to supply deficient court fees under Section 149 CPC?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 Other vs Malik ALLAH DITTA1981 PLD Lahore 318 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose out of a suit filed by the respondent challenging a decree on the ground of fraud, which was decreed by the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Additional District Judge, section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the insertion of subsection (2) via the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, requiring a challenge to a decree on the ground of fraud to be made by an application to the court that passed the decree rather than by a separate suit. The petitioners applied for the dismissal of the respondent's suit based on this amendment, which the appellate court dismissed. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate court's view, holding that the amendment is not retrospective and does not affect suits that were filed and decided before its enactment, notwithstanding the general principle that an appeal is a continuation of a suit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has retrospective effect on suits filed and decided prior to its enactment?
- Does an appeal being a continuation of a suit render section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to pending appeals arising from suits decided before the amendment?
- Can a suit instituted and decided before the amendment of section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed on the ground that fraud must now be challenged via an application under the amended provision?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUB AND 2 Other vs KHALID RASHID AND 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 734 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND Another vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM AND Other1981 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a compromise decree passed in pre-emption suits, which stipulated that respondents were allowed one year to execute the decree upon payment of a specified sum, failing which the decree would stand cancelled and the rival pre-emptors' suit would stand decreed. The core legal question revolves around whether the stipulated one-year period for execution commenced when the original incorrect decree was passed or when it was subsequently rectified by the trial court to reflect the correct land area. The Supreme Court held that the agreed period of one year could not start running until an executable decree came into existence following its rectification. The Court affirmed the principle that time for execution under a conditional compromise decree does not run against a decree-holder while the decree remains unexecutable due to an erroneous decree-sheet requiring correction.
Questions settled- Whether the period stipulated in a compromise decree for taking possession starts from the date of the original decree or from the date when an erroneous decree-sheet is rectified?
- Does a compromise decree remain inexecutable until clerical or descriptive errors in the decree-sheet are corrected by the trial court?
- MUHAMMAD SIBTAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHER Alias SHERA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF, vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 761 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 704 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, who was accused of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in F.I.R. No. 69/78. The core legal question revolves around whether post-arrest bail should be granted when there are two conflicting cross-versions of the same incident, specifically where the accused party also sustained injuries and instituted a cross-complaint summoning the complainant party as accused. The court held that where a private complaint relates to a cognizable and non-compoundable offence and cross-versions exist with injuries sustained by the accused, it cannot be determined with certainty at the bail stage as to which side was the aggressor, thereby bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the existence of a counter-version supported by prima facie probability and injuries to the accused warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when there are two conflicting cross-versions of an incident involving cognizable offences?
- Does the existence of injuries on the person of the accused provide a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is there a distinction between a private complaint and a registered police case pertaining to a cognizable and non-compoundable offence regarding the application of section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA AND 81981 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a writ petition regarding the disposal of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question involved the validity and precedence of competing association agreements entered into with the original transferee of a disputed shop and house. The Supreme Court held that the prior association agreement entered into by respondent Muhammad Ibrahim remained valid notwithstanding the temporary cancellation of the primary transfer order, as the transfer was subsequently restored through ongoing proceedings within the same departmental hierarchy, and payments had been duly adjusted from his compensation book. The Court further affirmed that association agreements executed after the original transferee's entitlement was determined but before the formal transfer order were permissible under the instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a primary property transfer annuls a prior association agreement entered into by the transferee?
- Can an association agreement be legally executed after a person's entitlement to a property is determined but before the formal transfer order is passed?
- Whether an associate's failure to independently challenge the cancellation of a transfer invalidates their claim under an association agreement?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD YOUNAS AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the transfer of evacuee property to the respondent, arguing that the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) in his favor precluded the reopening of the case by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner further contended that the respondent's appeal was time-barred and that the auction sale, once confirmed, could not be set aside. The Supreme Court observed that during the appellate proceedings, the petitioner had explicitly abandoned his claim to the property, requesting the cancellation of the auction and a refund of the purchase price. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent's application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII was pending at the time the P.T.D. was erroneously issued to the petitioner, rendering the transfer legally flawed under the governing rules. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner, having waived his rights and failed to challenge the subsequent administrative findings, could not maintain his writ petition. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold the transfer of the property to the respondent.
Questions settled- Can a party who has explicitly requested the cancellation of an auction and the refund of the auction price later challenge the transfer of that property to another claimant?
- Does the pendency of a claim form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII preclude the valid issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed to another party?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order where the petitioner has previously abandoned their interest in the subject matter during administrative proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1981 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the cancellation of a land lease granted to the petitioner under a fifteen-year lease scheme. The core legal question was whether the Revenue Authorities' finding of fact—that the petitioner was not an actual cultivator and had manipulated revenue records to secure the lease—could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The Collector had cancelled the lease upon finding the petitioner was a Chaukidar, not a cultivator, and that the Khasra Girdawari entries were forged. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the forgery and the petitioner's status. The Court affirmed that findings of fact by Revenue Authorities, especially when supported by the original record, are generally beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court established that the presumption of correctness attached to a Jamabandi entry is rebutted when evidence demonstrates that the underlying Khasra Girdawari entries were forged, and no premium can be granted to a beneficiary of forgery.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by Revenue Authorities regarding the forgery of revenue records in a writ petition?
- Does the presumption of correctness attached to a Jamabandi entry persist when the underlying Khasra Girdawari entries are proven to be forged?
- Is a person who is not an actual cultivator entitled to a lease under a scheme specifically reserved for genuine cultivators?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1981 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR1981 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing a service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a Patwari who had been compulsorily retired from service by the Deputy Commissioner, initially challenged the dismissal order in a civil suit, which abated pursuant to Section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. Following abatement, he sought copies of relevant orders to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. When the appeal was ultimately filed on 6-2-1975, the Service Tribunal held that it was barred by limitation because the petitioner failed to demonstrate diligence or provide documentary evidence of efforts made during a 38-day period prior to filing. The Supreme Court evaluated the Tribunal's decision and held that no fault could be found with the finding regarding lack of diligence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, affirming the rejection of the time-barred appeal.
Questions settled- Does a lack of documentary evidence showing diligent efforts to procure necessary copies justify the dismissal of a service appeal as barred by limitation?
- Can a service appeal filed past the statutory period of limitation be condoned without a sufficient explanation for delay after the abatement of a civil suit?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 722 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR AND Other1981 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the dismissal of successive writ petitions concerning the adjustment and cancellation of Produce Index Units under settlement laws. The core legal question is whether a second writ petition seeking the same relief on the basis of a subsequent report is maintainable after the dismissal of an earlier writ petition and review application on the same allegations, and whether it is barred by the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the second writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court as it was barred by the rule of res judicata and lacked merit. The key principle laid down is that a subsequent writ petition seeking identical relief based on grounds available or arising from the same controversy is barred by res judicata once an earlier petition and review challenging the core administrative order have been dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a second writ petition on the same allegations is barred by the rule of res judicata after the dismissal of an earlier writ petition?
- Does a subsequent report regarding entitlement constitute a fresh ground sufficient to overcome the bar of res judicata in constitutional jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the petitioners, Muhammad Sharif alias Billa and Muhammad Sharif alias Channa, for the murder of Muhammad Sharif alias Pahara under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the petitioners' guilt were supported by sufficient evidence, particularly concerning the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the corroborative value of weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts correctly appraised the evidence. The Court found the eyewitness accounts trustworthy, noting they were corroborated by the recovery of a pistol matching the bullet extracted from the deceased and a blood-stained knife. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the occurrence in a busy street during daylight and the high number of injuries sustained by the deceased effectively eliminated any possibility of mistaken identity. The conviction and sentence were upheld as the findings were based on solid, corroborated evidence.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of a weapon matching a bullet extracted from a deceased victim provide sufficient corroboration for eyewitness testimony?
- Can the occurrence of a crime in a busy street during daylight hours eliminate the possibility of mistaken identity?
- Is a conviction sustainable when eyewitness accounts are corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of incriminating weapons?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Another vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOHAIL Etc.1981 PLD Supreme Court 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by tenants against an appellate order for their ejectment. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should re-evaluate evidence in rent matters where the legislature has abolished the right of second appeal, and whether a landlord operating a business in a residential area is precluded from claiming personal use of a shop. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be invoked merely to re-examine findings of fact or to act as an appellate court. The Court affirmed that a landlord’s operation of a business in a residential area does not disprove the bona fide requirement for a shop. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is not designed to correct decisions merely because they are perceived as wrong; it is restricted to ensuring that inferior tribunals do not flout statutory provisions or established law, and it should not be used to circumvent legislative intent regarding the finality of rent orders.
Questions settled- Does the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction empower it to re-evaluate evidence in rent cases as if it were a second appeal?
- Can a landlord who operates a business in a residential area claim a shop for personal use under the rent laws?
- Is a tribunal's decision subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction merely because the decision is perceived as wrong?
- Does the abolition of second appeal in rent matters permit the filing of writ petitions to challenge final appellate orders?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs Mst. RASOOL BIBI AND 8 ANOTHER1981 CLC 533 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal concerns a dispute over land partition. The appellants challenged a partition ordered by a Tehsildar, asserting that a prior private partition had already occurred, thereby granting them title to specific land parcels. The trial court rejected the plaint under the belief that the suit was barred by the jurisdiction restrictions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The core legal question was whether a civil suit challenging a revenue partition on the basis of a prior private partition is barred by the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 172(2)(xviii) of the said Act. The Court held that the suit was maintainable. It reasoned that a plea of private partition inherently involves a question of title, which falls outside the bar of jurisdiction imposed by the Act. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when deciding to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court must rely solely on the averments in the plaint rather than the defendant's pleadings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the case remanded for trial.
Questions settled- Is a civil suit challenging a revenue partition barred by Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 when the plaintiff claims title based on a prior private partition?
- Does a plea of private partition involve a question of title?
- Should a court consider the defendant's pleadings when deciding to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Another vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against a dower decree passed by a Family Court. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Family Court over a surety, the alleged misreading of evidence regarding the Kabeen Nama without a handwriting expert, and the applicability of the Evidence Act versus Rules of Muslim Law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that objections regarding the surety's liability were abandoned at the trial stage and not raised before the appellate or high courts, that findings on evidence and handwriting do not warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction, and that a party cannot adopt a course of action at trial and later challenge it. The key principle laid down is that points not raised or expressly given up at trial, and omitted before lower appellate forums, cannot be urged before the Supreme Court in a constitutional challenge.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding the liability of a surety before the Supreme Court when the issue was given up at the trial stage?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere with a Family Court's appreciation of evidence regarding a Kabeen Nama warrants interference under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a party challenge the procedure or rules of evidence adopted by a Family Court when they willingly participated and led evidence without objection during the trial?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 6 OTHERS vs THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & POWER1981 PLC (C. S.) 562 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 3 Other vs SULEMAN And4other1981 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 2 Other vs THE STATEPLD 1981. Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ CHEEMA vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC.S PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC.S Anwar Sipra, Advocate Instructed By S. Inayat Hussain Advocate On Record1981 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed by ad hoc Sub-Engineers of the Punjab Irrigation Department whose services were terminated following scrutiny under Martial Law Instruction No. 21. The core legal questions involved whether ad hoc appointees acquired a vested right to continue in service, whether the inclusion of a military officer in the Selection Committee vitiated the proceedings, and whether regular recruitment could be initiated while ad hoc employees held the posts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that ad hoc appointments are stopgap arrangements liable to termination without notice or assigning cause under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, upon the availability of regularly recruited candidates. The Court ruled that the petitioners had no vested right to regular retention, that the termination orders were competently made by the Superintending Engineer, and that the department was under a legal obligation to pursue regular recruitment. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed and the Punjab Services Tribunal's decision upholding the termination was affirmed.
Questions settled- Whether an ad hoc civil servant has a vested legal right to continue in service or resist regular recruitment?
- Can the services of an ad hoc appointee be terminated without notice or assigning reasons under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Does the inclusion of a military officer in a scrutiny committee vitiate a termination order lawfully passed by the competent civilian authority?
- Is a government department barred from initiating regular recruitment while ad hoc employees are still holding the posts?
- MUHAMMAD SHAHABUDDIN AND ANOTHER vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1556 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAH NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD ABBAS1981 CLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAH AND Others vs HAYAT KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 1045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' second appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for a declaration of occupancy tenancy rights over government-allotted land by way of adverse possession. The core legal question was whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking a declaration of occupancy tenancy under the government based on adverse possession, and whether the petitioners could relitigate claims previously rejected in earlier rounds of litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not claim occupancy tenancy under the government by adverse possession and that the suit was barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, as well as being barred by the principle relating to prior concluded litigation involving the same subject-matter. The key principle laid down is that status as an occupancy tenant under the government cannot be acquired by adverse possession, and civil court jurisdiction is barred in matters where the revenue authorities are empowered to act under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912.
Questions settled- Whether a person can claim the status of a government occupancy tenant by adverse possession?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding matters which the Collector or revenue authorities are empowered to dispose of under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
- Can a party relitigate a previously decided claim concerning land tenancy rights by merely altering the form of pleadings?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE GHAURI vs MESSRS KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING1981 PLC 673 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the petitioner's conviction and sentence of death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Haji Abdul Rahman. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular and circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding nighttime identification, interested witnesses, and whether a previous statement of a witness under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be treated as substantive evidence when the witness was won over and not examined by the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence, including consistent ocular testimony and corroborative recoveries of blood-stained clothing and a weapon at the instance of the accused, and that a prior statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of a witness who gave conflicting versions cannot be treated as substantive evidence. The court laid down the principle that a witness making contradictory statements at different stages is unworthy of credence, and such evidence must be ruled out.
Questions settled- Whether a previous statement of a witness recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be treated as substantive evidence when the witness has been given up as won over?
- Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained on the basis of related eye-witnesses corroborated by circumstantial evidence of recoveries?
- How should the testimony of a witness who makes contradictory statements at different stages of the proceedings be viewed by a court of law?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUDDIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1981 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee property in Karachi, specifically regarding a room or shop illegally constructed by the petitioner on the ground floor after partition. The core legal question is whether a claimant whose appeal regarding an unauthorized construction was dismissed by an Additional Settlement Commissioner, which order became final, can subsequently re-agitate their claim based on a later judicial interpretation of the law, and whether transfer documents erroneously issued can override a final administrative adjudication. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is bound by the final order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and cannot re-agitate the matter based on subsequent legal developments. The Court laid down the principle that a final and unchallenged order regarding property entitlement attains finality and cannot be reopened due to subsequent changes in judicial interpretation of the law, and that an unauthorized construction subsequently erected cannot form the basis of a valid evacuee property claim contrary to a final binding determination.
Questions settled- Can a claimant re-agitate a property claim based on later judicial interpretations of law after an adverse administrative order has attained finality?
- Does an erroneously issued Permanent Transfer Deed override a final and binding order rejecting a claim regarding an unauthorized construction?
- Whether an unauthorized construction erected after partition on evacuee land can be treated as evacuee property?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 879 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 366 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 991 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE AND Another1981 SCMR 237(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, facing prosecution under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fraud and forgery regarding a shop's power of attorney and sale deed, appealed against the Lahore High Court's refusal to stay criminal proceedings pending the decision of a prior civil suit between the parties. The core legal question was whether simultaneous criminal proceedings and civil litigation involving the same subject matter amount to an abuse of court process and warrant a stay of the criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that while criminal proceedings are not automatically stayed by civil litigation, a stay should be granted where criminal liability depends on or is intimately connected with the civil outcome to prevent conflicting decisions and grave injustice. However, considering the prolonged delay of nearly nine years, the Court directed that while the recording of evidence may proceed, the final criminal judgment must await the conclusion of the civil suit. The appeal was partly accepted on these terms.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of civil litigation connected with the same subject-matter?
- Does pursuing simultaneous civil and criminal remedies amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- What guiding principle should be applied in exercising discretion to stay criminal proceedings during civil litigation?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE AND 9 Other1981 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE ETC.1981 CLC 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 749 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 883 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR AND 2 Others vs Haji GHULAM SABIR1981 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for special leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding an ejectment order against tenants. The tenants failed to deposit rent for July 1974 by the statutory deadline of 15th August 1974, depositing it instead on 7th September 1974. The core legal questions were whether the landlord's previous acceptance of late rent payments created an estoppel preventing him from objecting to the late deposit in 1974, and whether the tenants' belief that summer vacations excused the delay constituted a valid defense. The Supreme Court held that the landlord's prior generosity did not estop him from enforcing the statutory requirement. Furthermore, the Court rejected the tenants' excuse regarding court closures, noting that judicial officers were available during vacations and that the tenants failed to deposit the rent immediately upon the courts' reopening. Consequently, the Court upheld the order striking off the tenants' defense and dismissed the petitions, though it granted a three-month grace period for vacating the premises subject to continued rent payment.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's previous acceptance of late rent payments create an estoppel against objecting to subsequent late payments?
- Can a tenant rely on the closure of civil courts for summer vacations to excuse a failure to deposit rent by the statutory deadline?
- Is an order striking off the defense of a tenant justified when rent is not deposited within the statutory time limit?
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND, HYDERABAD AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARDAR AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALIM KHAN ETC. vs CHIEF SETTLMENT & REHABILITATION1981 SCMR 1240(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court considered a petition for special leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition regarding the determination of land entitlement under settlement laws. The petitioners' verified claim had previously been adjudicated, reviewed, and finalized up to the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. Subsequently, an additional area of land under another Khewat was cancelled by the Officer on Special Duty upon discovering fraudulent tampering and collusion in the record office. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' subsequent writ petition in limine on grounds of finality and collusion. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the newly claimed Khewat was not examined in the prior round and that the Officer on Special Duty lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that if the petitioners claimed greater entitlement based on newly discovered facts, their remedy was to seek review of the earlier decisions. Absent such review, the earlier decisions attained finality and the question could not be reopened.
Questions settled- Can a party reopen a settlement entitlement that has attained finality up to the Supreme Court without seeking a formal review based on newly discovered facts?
- Whether the discovery of alleged additional land entitlement under a different Khewat justifies bypassing the finality of earlier settlement adjudications instead of seeking a review?
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 373 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST , .1981 PLC 184 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST , ,1981 PLC 779 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND Other vs BEGUM MUSARRAT BASHIRUL HASSAN AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Supreme Court 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court arose from an ejectment petition filed by a landlady against her tenant regarding the ground floor of a residential bungalow. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use as residence, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The appellate courts also noted that the tenant had converted the residential building into a commercial non-residential building by installing a printing press without the written permission of the Rent Controller, as mandated by Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The tenant contended that long-term acquiescence by the landlady barred conversion objections and rendered personal residential use claims incompetent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 11, a residential building retains its character unless written permission from the Rent Controller is obtained. The Court further ruled that concurrent findings establishing bona fide personal requirement were independently sufficient to sustain the eviction order.
Questions settled- Does a residential building retain its residential character if converted to commercial use without the written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a landlord's alleged long-term acquiescence to commercial use validate the conversion of a residential building without statutory permission from the Rent Controller?
- Is a concurrent finding of bona fide requirement for personal use sufficient on its own to sustain an order of ejectment regardless of illegal conversion issues?
- MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN KHAN SUMBEL vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 494 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAFDAR vs DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION ETC.1981 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQUE KHOSO vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND1981 PLC (C. S.) 621 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs S. D. M., MALIR & TRIBUNAL CITY COURT, KARACHI1981 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Alias MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 Other1981 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning a consolidation of holdings case. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in finding that the respondents had not consented to consolidation schemes numbered 334, 335, and 336, arguing that the court ignored evidence of consent given by one Bashir Ahmad. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the documents purportedly evidencing this consent were ever presented before the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to admit this additional evidence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision was also predicated on the finding that the respondents were not served in time for their appearance before the Collector, a point the petitioner failed to refute. Finding no merit in the contention that the respondents were consenting parties, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, affirming that appellate courts will not consider evidence not previously placed before the lower forum.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner introduce additional evidence in the Supreme Court that was not presented before the High Court?
- Does the failure to serve notice on respondents in consolidation proceedings invalidate the claim of consent?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's factual findings regarding consent when the petitioner fails to challenge all grounds of the impugned order?
- MUHAMMAD SAADULLAH KHAN vs POSTMASTER GENERAL AND Other1981 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant in the Postal Department, sought special leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal regarding his compulsory retirement. The petitioner was retired under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, upon completing 25 years of service qualifying for pension. The Service Tribunal had declined jurisdiction, holding it could not adjudicate the validity of an order retiring a civil servant in the public interest. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including the legality of retirement orders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions raised regarding the scope and nature of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as well as the petitioner's claim of being denied a hearing and the legality of a second review of his service record, required further consideration. The Court ordered the appeal to be heard on the existing record, granting parties liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of an order retiring a civil servant in the public interest?
- Does the retirement of a civil servant constitute a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Can a civil servant be subjected to a second review of their service record for the purpose of compulsory retirement after having already completed the qualifying period of service?
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ RANA vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 501 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ CHUGHTAI vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD REHMAN vs GUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. , .1981 PLC 527 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1981 PLC 815 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAUF vs MESSRS MAKRAN FISHERIES LTD. AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a labour dispute where a supervisor was dismissed following allegations of misbehaviour with female staff. The petitioner challenged his dismissal, arguing that he was not served with a second show-cause notice and that his termination was not effected via a valid written order. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the domestic enquiry was fair and the misconduct was proven. Regarding the legal questions, the Court held that Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 does not explicitly mandate a second show-cause notice prior to dismissal. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner’s proven misconduct rendered his appeal to natural justice hollow. Crucially, the Court laid down that the discretionary remedy of a writ petition is unavailable to a party who approaches the court with 'unclean hands.' Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioner’s conduct precluded him from seeking equitable relief, regardless of technical procedural arguments regarding the dismissal process.
Questions settled- Does Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 mandate a second show-cause notice before the dismissal of a workman?
- Is a petitioner who has committed serious misconduct entitled to the discretionary remedy of a writ petition?
- Does a written dismissal order issued after an oral termination satisfy the requirements of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- MUHAMMAD RAUF KHAN vs MESSRS NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD1981 PLC 516 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS , _1981 PLC (C. S.) 723 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN AND Another vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 446 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs CHIRAGH DIN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1733 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Ch. BASHIR AHMAD1981 PLD Supreme Court 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition regarding the eviction of a tenant from an evacuee property. The core legal question was whether, following the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, a transferee landlord remains legally obligated to serve a notice under Section 30 of the repealed Act to a statutory tenant before initiating ejectment proceedings. The petitioner argued that such a right to notice was preserved under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, were of a transitory and temporary character designed to manage the immediate post-partition settlement of refugees, rather than creating permanent rights. Consequently, the Court ruled that the obligation to issue notice did not survive the repeal of the Act. The Court affirmed that the protection afforded by Section 30 was not intended to be perpetual, and the landlord's liability to serve notice ceased upon the repeal of the statute.
Questions settled- Does the obligation to serve notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 survive the repeal of the Act?
- Are the provisions of Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 regarding notice and protection permanent or transitory in nature?
- Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 preserve the right to notice under a repealed statute if the underlying provision was of a temporary character?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Other1981 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' appeal concerning the acquisition of property under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question revolves around whether the time spent prosecuting a writ petition in the High Court in good faith could be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purposes of a delayed petition before the District Judge under section 7 of the Waqf Ordinance. The Supreme Court noted that differing opinions had been rendered by the High Court in analogous cases, where similar matters had been remanded for a proper determination of limitation after recording evidence. Upon concession by the respondents, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the District Judge, Sheikhupura, to frame an issue on limitation and decide the matter independently. The key principle established is that the time spent pursuing a writ petition under a bona fide belief may warrant exclusion under limitation principles, and consistent treatment should be accorded to similarly situated litigants.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent pursuing a writ petition in the High Court can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act when filing a subsequent petition under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961?
- Whether an appellate court should adopt a consistent approach in remand matters for similarly situated litigants facing identical questions of limitation?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 4 Others vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal as time-barred. The petitioners had filed the appeal with significant delay, attributing it to misinformation provided by their counsel's clerk, who allegedly claimed the initial writ petition had been admitted for hearing. The High Court refused to condone the delay, noting the absence of a supporting affidavit from the clerk and the fact that the original writ petition was dismissed in the presence of the petitioners' counsel. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's discretionary refusal to condone the delay was justified. The Court held that the explanation provided was insufficient, particularly given that the counsel was present when the writ petition was originally dismissed. The Court affirmed that misinformation or failure of communication between a counsel, their clerk, and the client does not automatically constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the High Court's exercise of discretion unexceptionable and dismissed the petition, upholding the principle that procedural negligence by a legal representative does not warrant the condonation of substantial delay.
Questions settled- Whether misinformation provided by a counsel's clerk to a client constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Is the refusal of a High Court to condone delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal subject to interference if the explanation offered is unsubstantiated?
- Does the presence of a counsel at the time of an order's pronouncement preclude a party from claiming ignorance of that order to justify a delay in filing an appeal?
- MUHAMMAD RAFT Etc. vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REV.), SARGODHA1981 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition that challenged an order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). The Additional Commissioner had allowed a revision application and directed an ejectment suit to be decided afresh according to law. The core legal question concerned the effect of the prescribed limitation period under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, where an Assistant Collector decides a case after the maximum period of sixty days. The Supreme Court held that upon the expiry of sixty days, the case automatically stands transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, rendering any subsequent decision by the Assistant Collector without jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the legal position that the matter is deemed pending before the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication and dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, when an Assistant Collector fails to decide an ejectment suit within the maximum period of 60 days?
- Does an order passed by an Assistant Collector in an ejectment suit after the expiry of the prescribed 60-day period remain with jurisdiction?
- Whether a revision petition is competent against an ejectment order passed beyond the statutory 60-day period?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Mst. SURTA BI1981 CLC 208 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-11-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, LAHORE AND ANOTHSR, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 483 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 680 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD FSC 115 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI KACHELO AND 2 OTHERS vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND1981 CLC 1503 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI AND 6 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD IDRIS1981 CLC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QAYYUM vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN ETC.1981 P Cr. L J 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QASIM AND 3 Others vs Haji FAZAL SHAH AND Other1981 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed writ petitions filed by the first respondent regarding the cancellation of Provisional Transfer Orders (P.T.O.) issued for evacuee shops purchased at a public auction. The core legal questions involve the competency of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of a P.T.O. and whether sufficient evidence existed to prove that the compensation books utilized by the respondent for payment were forged. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that leave cannot be granted on the basis of new material not produced before the High Court, and directed that the proper course for the petitioners, upon acquiring new evidence, is to seek a review of the High Court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not entertain new documentary evidence for the first time that was not part of the record before the lower court, and parties must seek review before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal on the basis of material not placed before the High Court?
- What is the proper course of action for a party that obtains relevant settlement department records after the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court?
- Whether an Assistant Settlement Commissioner is competent to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of a P.T.O.?
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 192 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-10-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND ANOTHER vs KARAMAT HUSSAIN SHAH AND 6 OTHERS1981 CLC 812 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-04-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ/ vs JIAND RAI AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 867 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs The STATE1981 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe through a co-accused, which was recovered during a raid. The petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to prove the first instalment of the bribe as a key witness was not examined, and that the main witness's testimony lacked corroboration. The Supreme Court held that although the first instalment was not proved, the petitioner's presence at the complainant's house at the pre-arranged time and the recovery of arrest warrants against the complainant from his possession provided sufficient corroboration. The Court also declined to entertain a new plea regarding the lack of prosecution sanction as it was not raised before the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for bribery be sustained if the payment of an earlier instalment of the bribe is not proved beyond reasonable doubt?
- What circumstances can serve as sufficient corroboration of an accomplice or interested witness's testimony in a bribery case?
- Can a plea challenging the validity of prosecution sanction be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the courts below?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER, .(1981 PLC (C. S.) 506 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION/1981 PLC 275 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →