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.
- HASHMAT ALI NASIM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB ETC1981 PLC (C. S.) 502 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-06-17Read full judgment →
- HASHIR AHMAD vs KAMALUDDIN ETC.S1981 SCMR 1180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a land settlement dispute. The petitioner, an informer (Mukhbir), challenged the settlement of land in favor of respondent No. 2, arguing that the land was urban and could not be settled against a rural claim. While the petitioner's application initially succeeded, the High Court overturned this decision in its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in its factual findings regarding an earlier 1963 cancellation order and argued that the second Mukhbari application should not have been set aside. The Supreme Court examined the record and found no justification to doubt the High Court's factual determination that the 1963 order had been set aside in 1968. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's second Mukhbari application was barred by the principle of res judicata given the peculiar circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's revisional interference was legally justified and that the petitioner's claim was unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply to successive Mukhbari applications regarding the same land settlement?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's factual finding regarding the status of a prior administrative order?
- Is a second Mukhbari application maintainable when a previous cancellation order regarding the same land has already been adjudicated?
- HASHIM vs The STATE1981 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
- HASHIM AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND Another1981 P Cr. L J 692 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
- HASHIM ALIAND BAGH ALI vs BAGH ALI HASHIM ALI1981 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil petitions arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over land possession and the validity of sale transactions. The petitioner challenged the sale of his share of land to the respondent, seeking a declaratory suit and permanent injunction. The trial court granted an interim injunction, which was later vacated by the District Judge. The High Court, in revision, partially restored the injunction based on its assessment of possession regarding specific Khasra numbers. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in its determination of possession and its exercise of discretion regarding the interim injunction. The Court held that the High Court's assessment of possession, based on the Khasra Girdawari and the existence of sale mutations, was neither improper nor arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the High Court's findings were tentative and that the burden of proof remains on the petitioner to disprove the sale deeds and mutations. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court and dismissed both petitions.
Questions settled- Does a Khasra Girdawari possess greater evidential value than a sanctioned sale mutation in determining possession?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretionary order regarding an interim injunction if the findings are tentative?
- Is a finding of possession by the High Court in revision proceedings sufficient to sustain an interim injunction without explicit findings on the balance of convenience?
- HASAN MUHAMMAD vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND 5 OtherPLD 1981. Lahore 132. · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- HAROON AKHTAR AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. KHATOON HADI1981 CLC 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs TAJ MEHMUD AND OTHFRS1981 CLC 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ AND OTHERS vs The STATE1981 SCMR 979 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, upheld by the Lahore High Court. The petitioners challenged their conviction, arguing that the plea of self-defense regarding person and property was sustainable based on the prosecution's own evidence. They further contended that since the High Court acquitted two co-accused based on the same evidence, the remaining convictions were unsafe, particularly regarding the specific role attributed to one petitioner. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence, the nature and location of injuries, and the venue of the occurrence. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court were well-founded, noting that the injuries sustained by the victims were inconsistent with the defense version and suggested the victims were overwhelmed. The Court affirmed that discrepancies in injury details do not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case when the overall evidence is consistent. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments.
Questions settled- Can a plea of self-defense be sustained when the medical evidence and the venue of the occurrence contradict the defense version?
- Does the acquittal of some co-accused on the same evidence necessarily invalidate the conviction of remaining accused?
- Do minor discrepancies in the description of injuries automatically undermine the credibility of the prosecution's ocular evidence?
- HAMID KHAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal and convicted the petitioner for rape under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable based on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and a retracted confession, particularly given the delay in lodging the First Information Report and the trial court's initial acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the prosecutrix's testimony, corroborated by medical findings of fresh lacerations and a chemical examiner's report confirming semen stains on a recovered bed-sheet, provided sufficient evidence for conviction. Furthermore, the Court determined that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the victim's fear of the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that a retracted confession, if proven voluntary, remains admissible, and that circumstantial evidence can effectively corroborate a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases, overcoming inconsistencies in the defence's narrative.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for rape be sustained on the solitary statement of the victim when supported by medical and chemical evidence?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case if the delay is explained by the victim's fear?
- Is a retracted confession admissible as evidence if it is found to have been made voluntarily?
- HAKIM vs KARAM KHAN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1303 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- Hakim Syed MUHAMMAD WARSI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1981 PLD F SC 111 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- Hakim MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-03Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI vs MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI AND ANOTHER __ vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1981 CLC 225 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI AND Another vs ATTA MUHAMMAD AND Another1981 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a suit seeking a declaration of ownership over agricultural land granted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912. The original grantees executed an agreement to sell in 1970 to the appellants, explicitly stating that the sale deed would be executed only after proprietary rights were acquired. After acquiring proprietary rights in July 1975, the grantees instead sold the land to the respondents, who challenged the validity of the 1970 agreement as violative of Section 19 of the Act. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge and High Court held the 1970 agreement void under Section 19. Reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell that defers transfer of ownership until after proprietary rights are conferred does not create a present interest, charge, or encumbrance, and thus does not violate Section 19. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's dismissal of the respondents' suit.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell land subject to the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 violate Section 19 if execution of the sale deed is expressly postponed until proprietary rights are acquired?
- Whether an agreement to sell immovable property by itself creates any interest in or charge on such property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Can a purchaser who buys land with knowledge of a registered prior agreement and pending civil litigation claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
- HAKIM ALI AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1981 CLC 1539 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
- HAJI SOOMAR HAJI HAJJAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR LTD.1981 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan staying a civil suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The plaintiffs/appellants had filed a suit for recovery alleging fraud against the defendants/respondents, despite the existence of an explicit arbitration clause in their commercial agreements. The respondents applied for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, which was granted by a Single Judge and affirmed by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal.
The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a suit should be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 upon the application of a party charged with fraud, where allegations of fraud are asserted in the plaint by the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the stay of the suit. The Court laid down the principle that the mere assertion of fraud by a plaintiff in a suit does not automatically oust an agreed arbitration clause. Courts will ordinarily stay the suit on the application of the party accused of fraud unless that party itself seeks a public judicial inquiry, or unless a prima facie case of fraud is established.
Questions settled- Does the mere allegation of fraud by a plaintiff in a plaint disentitle a defendant from seeking a stay of suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Under what circumstances can a party charged with fraud insist on enforcing an arbitration clause against a plaintiff who files a civil suit?
- Can a court refuse to stay a civil suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 where no prima facie case of fraud is established?
- Haji SIKANDAR vs KHAN MUHAMMAD1981 CLC 1527 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUNICIPAL, COMMITTEE, GUJRANWALA Andother1981 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by certain observations made by the High Court while disposing of a claim for interlocutory relief. The petitioner contended that these observations were factually incorrect and contrary to an inspection note prepared by the District Judge. The Supreme Court held that observations made by a court while disposing of interlocutory applications are inherently tentative in nature and do not prejudice the final adjudication of the suit. The Court clarified that the trial court is obligated to decide the suit based on the evidence presented before it, with the discretion to inspect the premises if necessary. Furthermore, expressing concern over the inordinate delay in a suit filed in 1973, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings before the end of the long vacation. The petition was dismissed, with the clarification that the trial court remains unencumbered by the High Court's preliminary observations.
Questions settled- Are observations made by a court while disposing of an interlocutory application binding on the trial court during the final adjudication of the suit?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to inspect premises in dispute despite prior observations made by a superior court in interlocutory proceedings?
- Can a party claim prejudice based on tentative observations made by a High Court in an interlocutory order?
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Mst. RANI AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SARFARAZ ALI vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 987 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, JHANG AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 243 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN1981 PLD Karachi 498 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BHAWALPUR AND 4 Other1981S C M R1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed an Intra-Court Appeal and set aside a writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner sought the refund of Rs. 30,000 deposited to release a purchased house from attachment, which had been ordered by the Cooperative Department to recover dues from previous owners who had mortgaged the properties. The core legal questions involved whether the deposit was made under coercion, whether the prior mortgages were valid, and whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretion to deny constitutional relief based on the petitioner's conduct and failure to implead necessary parties. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner voluntarily deposited the amount to save the property from auction, that the departmental proceedings and records were genuine, and that discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction was rightly withheld due to the petitioner's adverse conduct and omission of necessary parties. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional remedies may be refused to a petitioner who seeks the return of funds paid to secure a benefit, particularly where the challenge involves disputed questions of fact and omits necessary co-depositors.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner who deposits money to prevent the auction of an attached property can subsequently claim a refund through constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a mortgage executed before the actual disbursement of a loan create valid security upon the subsequent advancement of funds?
- Whether the non-joinder of necessary parties such as co-depositors disentitles a petitioner from obtaining relief in a writ petition?
- Haji MOHABBAT AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-17Read full judgment →
- Haji MIR AFTAB AND 4 Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
- Haji MAJID vs Haji IMAMUDDIN1981 CLC 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 against an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The landlord sought ejectment of a shop to establish a cloth business for his educated, unemployed son. The tenant resisted eviction arguing lack of bona fide requirement, past rent increases, previous failed eviction proceedings involving another son, past criminal litigation under Section 145 Cr.P.C., lack of proof of financial capability, and the landlord's re-letting of an unrelated cabin. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction order. It held that previous litigation regarding a different son does not bar a fresh cause of action for another child. A landlord has the prerogative to choose suitable accommodation among available shops. Moreover, demand for higher rent in the past does not negate bona fide need if proved independently, and the landlord is not required to affirmatively prove availability of business funds unless explicitly challenged in the written statement.
Questions settled- Does a previously dismissed ejectment petition filed for one son bar a subsequent ejectment petition grounded on the personal requirement of another son?
- Is a landlord legally required to produce affirmative evidence of sufficient capital or funds to commence a business when establishing personal bona fide requirement if the tenant did not raise such an objection in the written statement?
- Does a historical increase in rent or prior demand for enhanced rent defeat an independently established bona fide requirement for personal use?
- Does the landlord retain the prerogative to choose which particular shop among multiple units is suitable for his or his child's business needs?
- HAJI M. ZAKARIA & Co. vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND1981 CLC 615 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-04Read full judgment →
- Haji LAL BUX vs THE STATE ETC.1981 P Cr. L J 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-23Read full judgment →
- Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD AND Others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, AND Other1981: SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed 166 days beyond the period of limitation, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether illiteracy, village residency, displacement or disruption caused by floods, and delay attributable to instructions given by counsel to collect additional documents constitute sufficient cause to condone a significant delay in filing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that neither the personal circumstances of the petitioner nor the acts or advice of counsel regarding the collection of documents provide a sustainable legal basis for condoning such extensive delay. The petition was accordingly dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that vague and insufficient grounds, including reliance on counsel's delay in gathering documents or general hardships like floods and illiteracy without establishing a direct, continuous legal disability, do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the law of limitation.
Questions settled- Does illiteracy and residence in a flood-affected village constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of 166 days in filing a petition?
- Whether delay caused by a counsel asking a party to obtain copies of additional documents is a valid ground for condonation of limitation period?
- Haji HABIB vs HAJI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- Haji GULA KHAN AND 6 Other vs AND 2 Other1981 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs RAMCHAND AND 6 OTHERS1981 CLC 825 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-25Read full judgment →
- Haji FAZAL KARIM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND Other1981 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition against the striking off of a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller denied the tenant natural justice by striking off the defence without a full-fledged trial or formal evidence recording. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted within lawful authority. The Court clarified that while a tenant is entitled to an opportunity to show cause before a defence is struck off, this does not require a formal trial or the framing of issues. The requirement of natural justice is satisfied if the tenant is made aware of the default and given an opportunity to offer an explanation. If a request for adjournment is vexatious or intended to delay, the Rent Controller is justified in refusing it to ensure the expeditious disposal of rent cases.
Questions settled- Does the striking off of a tenant's defence under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 require a full-fledged trial or the framing of issues?
- What constitutes sufficient opportunity for a tenant to show cause before their defence is struck off for non-payment of rent?
- Can a Rent Controller refuse an adjournment request when considering the striking off of a tenant's defence?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to interfere in writ jurisdiction when a Rent Controller has not acted illegally or with material irregularity?
- Haji FAIZ AHMAD AND 9 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 628 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
- Haji DIN MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1981 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court dismissing an application for an ad interim injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the disputed land during the pendency of a civil revision petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing the temporary injunction and whether the petitioner was entitled to special leave to appeal against the discretionary order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the issuance of a temporary injunction is a matter of discretion and that the High Court committed no error of law or fact, particularly where the petitioner failed to approach the court with clean hands regarding the nature of possession and where any potential sale would remain subject to the outcome of the pending litigation. The Court laid down the principle that the refusal of a discretionary temporary injunction by the High Court, supported by valid reasoning, does not warrant interference or the grant of special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the refusal of a temporary injunction by the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court through special leave to appeal?
- Does a sale of property during the pendency of litigation remain subject to the result of that litigation?
- Can a party that fails to approach the court with clean hands claim an ad interim injunction as of right?
- Haji Choudhry ABDUL REHMAN (THROUGH' HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 6 Others1981 CLC 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- Haji AHMAD SAEED vs Mst. HASHMI BEGUM AND 7 OTHERs1981 CLC 551 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL GHANI/Tenant vs MAKHAN BANO/Landlord1981 CLC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
- HAIDER vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- HAIDER HUSSAIN MIRZA vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ere.1981 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
- HAIDER ALI vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Another1981 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Hussain, by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondent killed the deceased with a spear, supported by eyewitness testimony and the recovery of a weapon. The High Court had acquitted the respondent, finding the eyewitnesses unreliable due to discrepancies regarding the number of blows inflicted and the presence of witnesses, and concluding that the prosecution's version of the incident was improbable. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and upheld the acquittal. It held that the eyewitnesses' testimony was inconsistent, particularly regarding the number of spear blows, which suggested they may not have witnessed the actual incident. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the weapon unreliable as it was discovered in a place of joint possession, failing to establish exclusive possession by the respondent. The Court concluded that the High Court's assessment of the evidence was reasonable and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can eyewitness testimony be considered unreliable if there are significant discrepancies regarding the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased?
- Does the recovery of an incriminating object from a place of joint possession establish exclusive possession by the accused?
- Is an appellate court's finding of fact based on a reasonable appraisal of evidence subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Hafiz MUSTAJAB AHMAD vs Mst. AZIZ FATIMA AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 583 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 2 OTHERS vs GULZAR AHMAD1981 CLC 116 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-22Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Another vs ABBAS KHAN AND Another1981 SCMR 1233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the Sind High Court at Karachi, which had upheld the appellate court's finding regarding a dispute over the sale of a residential quarter. The core legal question concerned whether findings of fact recorded by a first appellate court can be interfered with in revision on the ground of incorrect appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court are final and binding, and cannot be interfered with merely on the basis that they are based on an incorrect appreciation of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower appellate forums in the absence of any jurisdictional defect or misreading of record.
Questions settled- Are findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court final and binding?
- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact in revision merely on the basis of incorrect appreciation of evidence?
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANOTHE1981S C M R 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition, which had challenged his ejectment ordered by the District Judge. The core legal questions involved the computation of limitation for filing an appeal against the Rent Controller's order and whether the tenant committed a default in the payment of rent based on the disputed rate of rent. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court, declining to interfere with the lower appellate court's findings on questions of fact and its decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal, was unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by lower appellate courts and the exercise of discretion regarding condonation of delay, when supported by cogent reasons, warrant no interference in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether limitation for filing an appeal against a Rent Controller's order should be computed from the date of preparation of the copy or the date of delivery of the copy when no notice was issued by the copying department?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the tender of rent at a lower rate than established amount to a default in payment of rent?
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD AMEEN ETC vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And Other1981 PLD F SC 23 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions challenged the validity of Martial Law Regulation 115 (Land Reforms 1972), Act II of 1977, and various pre-emption enactments, asserting they were repugnant to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. The core legal question concerned the Federal Shariat Court's jurisdiction to determine the vires of these laws, particularly regarding land ownership ceilings, compulsory acquisition, and compensation adequacy. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to declare Martial Law Regulation 115 and Act II of 1977 invalid, as these laws are constitutionally protected and validated by the Constitution itself, which the Court cannot review. The Court affirmed that while it possesses jurisdiction to examine other enactments for repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions, it cannot indirectly nullify constitutional provisions. The judgment established that the State has plenary authority to regulate property rights for public welfare, including land reforms, and that constitutional immunity bars judicial review of specific protected legislation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that provisions regarding pre-emption and limitation periods in pre-emption laws are procedural and not repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, dismissing the petitions.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to declare Martial Law Regulation 115 repugnant to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah?
- Can the Court declare a provision of the Constitution repugnant to Islamic Injunctions?
- Is the limitation period for pre-emption suits repugnant to the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet?
- Does the State have the authority to impose a ceiling on land ownership in the interest of public welfare?
- Hafiz FAZALURRAHMAN (THROUGH HIS 7 Heirs) vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1981 CLC 1136 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hafiz ABDUL MUQTADIR AND ANOTHER vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-25Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZURREHMAN vs THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE CANTT.1981 CLC 185 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a tenant's writ petition challenging concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Additional Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Additional Rent Controller appointed under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, in light of the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and whether the eviction of a government servant teacher would be detrimental to the public interest under section 22 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The court held that the Central Government is empowered to appoint an Additional Controller of rents, that the challenge to the officer's authority amounted to a collateral attack which cannot be entertained without impleading the government, and that the de facto doctrine protects official acts from collateral invalidation. Furthermore, the assessment of whether an eviction is detrimental to the public interest is a question of fact left to the courts below. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down principles regarding the de facto doctrine in collateral proceedings and the scope of writ jurisdiction over concurrent factual findings.
Questions settled- Whether the Central Government has the legal power to appoint an Additional Rent Controller under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Can the title or authority of a public officer be challenged collaterally in rent proceedings without impleading the government and through a writ of quo warranto?
- Does the de facto doctrine validate official acts done under colour of right to prevent public inconvenience?
- Whether the eviction of a government servant who is a teacher by profession constitutes an eviction detrimental to the public interest under section 22 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- HAFEEZULLAH AND Others vs COLLECTOR, MULTAN AND Other1981 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the management of an impartible agricultural holding within the municipal limits of Multan. The core legal question was whether the Collector, acting under paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, possessed the authority to eject tenants and appoint a Tehsildar as the manager of the land. The appellants contended that the Collector lacked the power to eject tenants or appoint a Tehsildar, arguing that management should have been entrusted to one of the co-sharers. Counsel for the respondents conceded that paragraph 23 does not authorize tenant ejectment, which is governed by paragraph 25, nor does it explicitly authorize the appointment of a Tehsildar. The Court, based on an agreement reached between the parties, held that the Tehsildar could continue as manager, provided the appellants were restored to possession as tenants, subject to potential ejectment proceedings under paragraph 25. The Court directed the restoration of the appellants' possession as tenants, emphasizing that any future ejectment must strictly follow the procedure prescribed in paragraph 25 of the Regulation.
Questions settled- Does paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 authorize a Collector to eject tenants from an impartible holding?
- Can a Collector appoint a Tehsildar as manager of an impartible holding under paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Under which provision of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 must proceedings for the ejectment of tenants be initiated?
- HAFEEZUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD SULEMANPLD 1981- Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the respondents' convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to sections 304 Part II and 323, respectively, reducing their sentences. The complainant challenged this reduction, arguing that the assault with a sota on the head resulting in a depressed fracture demonstrated an intention to kill or knowledge under clause 4thly of section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, warranting a murder conviction. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances, noting that the attack was sudden, involved a single blow with a blunt weapon without repetition, and lacked premeditation or shared intention under section 34. The Court held that the strict requirements of clause 4thly of section 300 were not met as the act was not shown to be so imminently dangerous as to cause death in all probability. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings and the sentence under section 304 Part II, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a single unrepeated blow with a blunt weapon on the head necessarily attract clause 4thly of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a sudden fight lacking premeditation?
- Is a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when death results from a single sota blow?
- HABIBULLAH vs S. E. IRRIGATION, LOWER BAR! DOAB CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 474 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs MUHAMMAD AMJAD AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS ETC.1981 PLC 605 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by a railway employee challenging his reversion and subsequent disciplinary orders. The appellant, a railway mate, admitted to unauthorized absence, leading to disciplinary action without a formal inquiry. The core legal question was whether the appellant's mercy petition to departmental authorities satisfied the mandatory grievance notice procedure required by Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before approaching the Labour Court. The Court held that while the Labour Court erred in strictly interpreting the form of the grievance notice—as no specific format is prescribed by law and a mercy petition can constitute sufficient notice—the appeal lacked merit on factual grounds. The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with the quantum or nature of a penalty imposed by departmental authorities where the charge was admitted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, establishing that while grievance procedures under the Ordinance are flexible regarding form, they remain a mandatory prerequisite for litigation, and courts will not substitute their discretion for departmental disciplinary decisions.
Questions settled- Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, prescribe a specific form or method for a worker to bring a grievance to the notice of an employer under Section 25-A?
- Can a mercy petition or departmental appeal be treated as sufficient compliance with the grievance notice requirement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is a Labour Court or appellate court empowered to substitute its own views regarding the quantum or nature of a penalty imposed by departmental authorities?
- MUHAMMAD AQIL KHAN vs FALAK SHER1981 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, N. W. F. P, AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises from a judgment of the N.W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings under the N.W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Service Tribunal accepted his appeal, set aside the dismissal order due to inquiry violations, but directed a fresh inquiry while withholding reinstatement and back benefits pending the outcome. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal, upon setting aside a dismissal order on technical grounds, exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a fresh inquiry and declining automatic reinstatement with back benefits. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order did not amount to an illegal remand, as the Tribunal merely indicated that the department was not precluded from proceeding correctly after setting aside the defective order, and that the petitioner did not automatically become entitled to reinstatement or salary without specific determination by the competent authority. The petition was accordingly dismissed with clarification.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a fresh departmental inquiry when setting aside a dismissal order on technical grounds?
- Does the setting aside of a dismissal order by the Service Tribunal automatically entitle a civil servant to reinstatement and back benefits?
- Whether declining to pass an order of reinstatement while directing a fresh inquiry amounts to an illegal remand by the Service Tribunal?
- HABIBULLAH KHAN (REPRESENTED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) Petitioner vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1981 CLC 761 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- HABIB-UR-REHMAN SIDDIQUI AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD Supreme Court 17 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- HABIB SULTAN vs ALLAH DITTA Etc.1981 CLC 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs MEHR MUHAMMAD SHAHID AND Another1981 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondents against their tenant, Habib Bank Ltd., regarding a residential property in Faisalabad. The respondents sought eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement for residence, specifically for the respondent Muhammad Shahid, who intended to marry and establish a legal practice. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment based on the personal requirement ground, rejecting the default claim. The District Judge upheld the personal requirement finding while reversing the default finding. The High Court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding personal requirement. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the respondents failed to establish 'requirement' as opposed to a mere 'desire' and argued that the evidence regarding the respondent's marriage was insufficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the term 'required' was clearly established through the Urdu expression 'derkar hai' used in the pleadings and evidence. The Court affirmed that parental testimony regarding marriage arrangements is sufficient in the context of prevailing social customs, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding bona fide personal need were justified.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'derkar hai' in an ejectment application satisfy the legal requirement of proving 'requirement' for personal use?
- Can parental testimony regarding a child's marriage plans be accepted as evidence of bona fide personal requirement in an ejectment case?
- Is a concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding personal requirement of premises subject to interference in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- GULZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 973 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- GULZAR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1981 SCMR 1252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the allotment of agricultural land. The petitioner, a displaced person from India, was allotted agricultural land within municipal limits on a temporary basis. Subsequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner declared the land to be urban land via a notification under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, depriving the petitioner of the land. The core legal questions involve whether section 16 of the said Act protects temporary allottees and whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possesses the power to convert agricultural land into urban land. The Supreme Court held that section 16 protects only persons on whom land has been permanently settled, and that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's power to declare land as urban land is clearly derived from section 2(3)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as having no merit, laying down the principle that temporary allottees do not enjoy the statutory protections afforded to permanent allottees under the Act.
Questions settled- Does section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 protect temporary allottees from being deprived of their allotted land?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the power to convert agricultural land into urban land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- GULZAR AHMED vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LANDS), PUNJAB AND Other1981 SCMR 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the cancellation of a land allotment. The core legal question involves the competence of the Settlement Commissioner to set aside an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and whether excess land allotment due to miscalculation warranted penalizing the allottees for fraud. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to set aside the said order, and since the excess land resulted from miscalculation without any fraud or misrepresentation by the respondents, the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted rightly in cancelling the excess allotment while permitting its purchase under settlement policy. The key principle laid down is that an allottee cannot be saddled with responsibility for official miscalculation of land, and appellate/revisional hierarchies must respect statutory delegation of powers.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Commissioner is competent to set aside an order passed by an Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Can an allottee be held responsible for an excess land allotment caused by official miscalculation in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner?
- GULOO vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 857 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
- GULLA Alias GUL HASSAN vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-24Read full judgment →
- GULISTAN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- GULISTAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS , .1981 PLC 760 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-17Read full judgment →
- GULAB SHAH Appellant vs GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH1981 CLC 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- GUL vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 393 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-01Read full judgment →
- GUL REHMAN vs MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI , . (1981 PLC 512 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
- GUL NARAS KHAN vs GOVERNOR, N. W. F. P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, D. G. KHAN AND OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 519 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN TAHIRANI vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER, .(1981 PLC (C. S.) 662 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 616 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
- GUL HAIDER, vs The STATE1981S C M R464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a High Court judgment reversing an order of acquittal passed by the trial court, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of ocular testimony and dying statements, whether medical opinion stating death was instantaneous overrides direct witness testimony, and the appropriateness of the death sentence in the absence of evidence showing the origin of the quarrel. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was flawed and caused a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court reaffirmed the principle that expert medical evidence is merely confirmatory or explanatory; where direct, forthright, and credible ocular evidence exists, contradictory medical opinion cannot outweigh it. The Court further held that because the appellant came armed to the deceased's door and fired immediately upon it being opened, the act was a premeditated, cold-blooded murder, leaving no ground for imposing the lesser penalty.
Questions settled- Can a High Court set aside a trial court's order of acquittal where the trial court's assessment of evidence was contrary to established legal principles?
- Does a medical expert's opinion regarding instantaneous death outweigh credible and direct ocular testimony and a dying declaration?
- Is the lesser penalty under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable when an accused arrives armed at the victim's residence and shoots him immediately upon the door opening?
- GUL AMIN AND Another vs Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM1981 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
- GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD KARACHI vs STARKO LTD. KARACHI1981 CLC 1667 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over a cotton supply contract between Gul Ahmed Textile Mills and Starko Ltd., referred to arbitration under the Karachi Cotton Association (KCA) Bye-laws. The core legal questions were whether an arbitration agreement existed despite the contract not being on the prescribed official form, whether contract registration with the KCA was a condition precedent for arbitration, and whether a subsequent alleged settlement superseded the original contract, thereby nullifying the arbitration clause. The Court held that the contract, which incorporated KCA rules by reference, constituted a valid arbitration agreement despite the form deviation. It further held that registration prior to the appointment of arbitrators satisfied the Bye-laws, and that the alleged settlement was merely a claim under the original contract, not a novation. Consequently, the arbitration clause remained effective. The key principles laid down are that domestic tribunals are not bound by strict technical rules of evidence, and that an arbitration clause survives unless a subsequent agreement explicitly replaces the original contract.
Questions settled- Does a contract that incorporates association rules by reference constitute a valid arbitration agreement even if not executed on the association's official form?
- Is the registration of a contract with the Karachi Cotton Association a condition precedent for invoking arbitration under its Bye-laws?
- Does an alleged settlement of a dispute arising from a contract necessarily operate as a novation that extinguishes the original arbitration clause?
- Are arbitrators acting as a domestic tribunal bound by the strict technical rules of evidence and procedure?
- GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS Lro., KARACHI vs Haji UMER BEG & SONs1981 CLC 806 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
- GROUP CAPTAIN (RETIRED) SHAFI AHMED AND 6 OTHERS vs OFFICER ON1981 CLC 751 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GRINDLAYS BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS GRINDLAYS BANK LTD., KARACHI ,1981 PLC 520 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN (Now GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P.)1981 PLD Supreme Court 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Land was acquired for a canal, and an award of compensation was announced. The respondents filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the court regarding the compensation, which the Collector initially refused as time-barred. However, under section 18-B, the Additional Commissioner directed a reference, and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation. On appeal, a Full Bench of the High Court held that once the Collector makes a reference, the court is incompetent to go behind it to determine if the initial objection application was filed within time. The core legal question was whether a reference can be thrown out by the court on the ground that the application to the Collector was not made within six months. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the designated court's jurisdiction is circumscribed by sections 19, 20, and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act, and it cannot examine the validity of the reference or the timeliness of the application made to the Collector, which is a matter in the exclusive domain of the Collector.
Questions settled- Whether a court can go behind a reference made by the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine if the initial application was barred by limitation?
- What is the scope and extent of jurisdiction exercised by the designated Court under the Land Acquisition Act?
- Is the proviso to section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act fixing the time for making an application directory or mandatory?
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FEEDER DIVISION, HYDERABAD vs Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM AND OTHERS1981 PLC 490 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-11Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Another vs MUHAMMAD AMIN1981 SCMR 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of Punjab sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent Executive Engineer's appeal for five advance increments. The core legal question was whether holders of A.M.I.E. qualifications were entitled to five advance increments sanctioned by the Finance Department's circular for N.P.S. 17 posts of Engineers requiring graduation as the minimum qualification, despite the circular being later recalled. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Service Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity, as the departmental construction of the rules initially granted the benefit and the recall of such an order was not permissible to divest the accrued entitlement. The Court laid down the principle that when departmental construction and rules create an entitlement based on the minimum qualifications of the post held, subsequent withdrawal cannot invalidate the accrued benefits of the incumbents.
Questions settled- Whether holders of A.M.I.E. qualifications are entitled to advance increments granted for engineering posts requiring graduation as a minimum qualification?
- Can a departmental construction granting financial benefits to employees be unilaterally recalled to their detriment?
- Does the denial of advance increments by a provincial government raise a substantial point of law requiring examination under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 10 OTHERS1981 CLC 1148 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, EDUCATION AND 2 Others1981 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had accepted a Letters Patent Appeal and quashed the Federal Government's order decertifying the Punjabi film 'Khatarnak' for public exhibition. The core legal question concerned the true interpretation, scope, and intent of the phrase 'opportunity of representing his case' under Rule 21(3) of the Censorship of Films Rules, 1963, and whether the Federal Government acted mechanically without applying its mind. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's Division Bench misconceived the nature of the matter, which was a simple case involving conflicting versions between the Censor Board and the film producer. The Court found that the respondent was afforded a proper opportunity to represent his case through a show-cause notice and a detailed written reply, and the Federal Government was justified in accepting the report and recommendations of the Censor Board without needing to record elaborate reasons. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
Questions settled- What is the scope and true import of the phrase 'opportunity of representing his case' under Rule 21(3) of the Censorship of Films Rules, 1963?
- Whether the Federal Government is required to record elaborate reasons when accepting the recommendation of the Censor Board to decertify a film in a case involving conflicting versions of fact?
- Can a court substitute its own opinion for that of the Federal Government regarding the exhibition of an obscene or vulgar film?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MIN1STRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD vs JAMSHED HUSSAIN AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Central Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's service appeal regarding the fixation of his pay upon his appointment as a Lecturer under the Federal Government. The respondent, formerly serving under the Provincial Government of Punjab, had been promised two advance increments over and above his previous substantive pay upon selection through the Public Service Commission, a commitment subsequently sanctioned by the President. However, the Ministry of Finance later objected, treating him as a person already in government service under delegated financial rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, declining to grant leave in view of the high-level commitments and formal presidential sanction involved, while leaving the broader legal question regarding the interpretation of 'government service' for an appropriate future case.
Questions settled- Whether an employee serving under a Provincial Government is considered to be already in Government service for the purpose of delegated powers concerning advance increments upon appointment to the Federal Government?
- Does a commitment made by the Public Service Commission and sanctioned by the President preclude the Ministry of Finance from subsequently altering the pay fixation of a civil servant?
- What constitutes 'Government Service' under the rules governing the grant of premature increments for first appointments?
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND Others vs RIFAT PAR PERVEEN1981 SCMR 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment striking down Rule 18 of the Bolan Medical College prospectus, which mandated a 12-year parental residency in Baluchistan for admission eligibility. The core legal question concerns the validity of this rule and the High Court's jurisdiction to order the creation of extra seats. The Supreme Court held that the rule was unreasonable and discriminatory, as it created an arbitrary classification among domiciled candidates without a rational nexus to the object of the legislation. The Court affirmed that delegated legislation, such as college admission rules, is subject to judicial review on grounds of unreasonableness. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court held that while High Courts may determine candidate eligibility, they should not direct the creation of extra seats, as this falls under the internal management of the college. Instead, the Court emphasized that High Courts should prioritize admission-related writ petitions to ensure they are resolved during the relevant academic session, thereby avoiding the need for consequential seat creation.
Questions settled- Can a rule in a college prospectus be struck down on the ground of unreasonableness?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to order the creation of an extra seat in a professional college?
- Is a classification requiring 12 years of parental residence for domiciled candidates a reasonable classification?
- What is the proper scope of the High Court's authority when reviewing admission decisions of educational institutions?
- GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 21981 PLD Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SIDDIQUE vs SELECTION COMMITTEE. BOLAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS1981 CLC 725 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM RAZA vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 834 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs PARVEZ AHMAD AND Othhrss1981 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court which disposed of a second appeal in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties in a rent matter. The core legal questions are whether a counsel has the implied authority to enter into a lawful compromise on behalf of their client, and whether the compromise violated the provisions regarding the adjustment of suits. The Supreme Court held that the counsel, holding a general power-of-attorney without reservations, had full authority to enter into a compromise on the instructions of the client, and that the compromise was lawful and fell within the frame of the original ejectment application for reconstruction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a counsel authorized to plead and act for a party possesses the inherent authority to enter into a lawful compromise unless expressly restricted by the power-of-attorney, and such a compromise based on the pleadings does not violate Order XXIII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether an advocate authorized to plead and act for a party has the authority to enter into a lawful compromise without a specific restriction in the power-of-attorney?
- Can a compromise in an ejectment appeal be challenged on the ground that the counsel acted without the consent of the client?
- Whether a compromise providing for reconstruction of a building violates Order XXIII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the original ejectment application sought the premises for reconstruction?
- GHULAM RASUL UNAR vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 604 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND Others vs Hajan BAKHTAWAR AND Another1981 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order modifying a temporary injunction granted by a trial court in a suit for declaration of ownership regarding urban property. The central legal question was whether the High Court erred in allowing ejectment proceedings before a Rent Controller to continue despite a status quo order granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's modification was legally sound and did not prejudice the petitioners. The Court reasoned that the High Court's order permitted the continuation of the Rent Controller's proceedings but expressly maintained the status quo regarding the physical ejectment of tenants. Consequently, the petitioners remained protected against actual dispossession during the pendency of the suit, even if the Rent Controller issued an ejectment order. The principle laid down is that while proceedings before a special forum like a Rent Controller may be allowed to proceed, a civil court's injunction maintaining status quo can effectively protect parties from the physical consequences of those proceedings, such as actual eviction, until the final adjudication of the underlying ownership dispute.
Questions settled- Can a High Court modify a temporary injunction to allow proceedings before a Rent Controller to continue while maintaining status quo on physical possession?
- Does the continuation of ejectment proceedings before a Rent Controller necessarily violate a status quo order regarding the property's physical possession?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BAGHAR CIRCLE, HYDERABAD1981 PLC 603 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD ZAKARIA AND ANOTHER1981 P Cr. L J 369 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RABBANI vs PERSONNEL MANAGER, DELLINGHAM NATIONAL1981 PLC 445 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →