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.
- GHULAM RABBANI AND 19 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1981 PLC 269 · Labour Court · 1978-06-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SIND1981 PLC (C. S.) 616 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR DAHIR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERS, .(1981 PLC (C. S.) 709 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NAZIR vs THE STATE1981 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Ghulam Nazir, was convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Mst. Dhayani and for causing simple hurt to Mst. Malookan, receiving a death sentence and imprisonment, respectively. The High Court upheld these convictions and the death sentence. The appellant sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, specifically challenging the appropriateness of the death penalty. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the murder, noting that the appellant's unsuccessful marriage proposal occurred over a decade prior, and there was no evidence the deceased had spurned him. Furthermore, the injury to Mst. Malookan was incidental to her intervention. Given the lack of a discernible motive and the circumstances surrounding the incident, the Court held that the extreme penalty of death was not warranted. Consequently, the Court altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the other sentences imposed by the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a clear motive is a relevant factor in determining whether to impose the death penalty?
- Can the Supreme Court alter a death sentence to life imprisonment when the motive for the crime remains obscure?
- GHULAM NABI, AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 468 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1981 SCMR 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld orders passed by revenue authorities regarding land consolidation proceedings in village Kapurowali, Tehsil and District Sialkot. The petitioner challenged the consolidation scheme, alleging that the redistribution of land resulted in the fragmentation of his holdings into more plots and an inequitable allocation of land quality. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had demonstrated valid grounds to interfere with the consolidation scheme finalized by the revenue authorities. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139), the Court observed that the mere splitting of holdings into different plots is not a valid ground to challenge consolidation proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his factual claims, as the record indicated that the number of his plots had actually decreased post-consolidation and that the overall quality of his land allocation had improved.
Questions settled- Does the splitting of land holdings into different plots constitute a valid ground for challenging consolidation proceedings?
- Can a petitioner successfully challenge a consolidation scheme based on allegations of inferior land quality when the record demonstrates an overall improvement in land allocation?
- GHULAM NABI SHAH AND Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 830 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND Others vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Other1981 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over agricultural land where the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction in the civil court to restrain respondents from dispossessing them, claiming to be tenants. The core legal question is whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred to entertain a suit for injunction where the relationship of landlord and tenant forms the basis of the claim. The Supreme Court held that the Lahore High Court rightly dismissed the revision petition in limine, finding that the suit was barred under the Punjab Tenancy Act and was exclusively maintainable in a Revenue Court. The key principle laid down is that where the cause of action is founded on a tenancy relationship regarding agricultural land, the jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted by virtue of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for permanent injunction based on a tenancy relationship regarding agricultural land is barred in civil courts?
- Does Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act oust the jurisdiction of civil courts in suits between landlords and tenants?
- Whether the High Court can declare the correct position of law regarding court jurisdiction when a revision petition is agitated before it?
- GHULAM NABI AND Another vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND Other1981 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the cancellation of land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The second petitioner, the original allottee, executed a power of attorney and an agreement to sell in favour of the first petitioner, and subsequently applied for cancellation of the allotment to obtain alternate land. The Collector allowed the cancellation. The first petitioner's appeals before the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the transaction was hit by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. A subsequent writ petition before the Lahore High Court was dismissed in limine on the ground that the first petitioner, relying merely on an agreement to sell, lacked locus standi to challenge the cancellation, while the allottee herself had sought it. The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and does not amount to a transfer under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, confirming that the first petitioner had no locus standi. Furthermore, the principal's right to act and seek cancellation personally superseded any power of attorney. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell land create any interest in the property so as to confer locus standi to challenge its cancellation?
- Whether the right of a principal to seek cancellation of a land allotment is abrogated by the creation of a power of attorney?
- Does an agreement to sell government land amount to a transfer within the meaning of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- GHULAM NABI AND 6 Others vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT1981 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court vacating an earlier stay order granted in a writ petition challenging the resumption of land by the Thal Development Authority. The interim stay was conditioned upon the petitioners furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer for the payment of mesne profits within one month. The petitioners failed to furnish the security, instead filing an affidavit undertaking to make over the produce in case of an adverse decision. The High Court vacated the stay upon application due to non-compliance. The core legal question was whether the High Court's discretionary order refusing to condone non-compliance with its unambiguous interim condition warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not shift the blame for non-compliance onto the designated officer when the court order was clear and unambiguous, and that the High Court's refusal to condone the delay was a matter of pure discretion with which the apex court will not interfere. The key principle laid down is that unambiguous interim conditions imposed by a superior court must be strictly complied with, and discretionary decisions regarding the condonation of non-compliance will not ordinarily be interfered with.
Questions settled- Can a party substitute a court-ordered security bond with an affidavit undertaking without complying with the explicit terms of an interim stay order?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to condone non-compliance with an interim order condition?
- Does an administrative officer's misdirection relieve a litigant from strict compliance with an unambiguous judicial order?
- MAHMOOD AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 389 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND 4 Other vs ABDULLAH AND 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 364 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND 26 Others vs Seth MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND 4 Other1981 SCMR 889 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' regular first appeal regarding a suit for specific performance of a property sale contract. The property in question was valued at Rs. 1,35,000. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed a civil miscellaneous application requesting the conversion of the petition into an appeal as of right. The core legal question was whether the petition could be converted into an appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, given the valuation of the subject matter, and whether such an appeal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, noting that the valuation exceeded the threshold for an appeal as of right and that no limitation period was prescribed for such conversion under the Limitation Act or the Supreme Court Rules, allowed the application. The Court held that the petition should be treated as an appeal, directing the payment of requisite court fees and security deposits, thereby establishing that a petition for special leave may be converted into an appeal as of right where the statutory valuation criteria are met and no limitation bar exists.
Questions settled- Can a petition for special leave to appeal be converted into an appeal as of right if the subject matter valuation meets the constitutional threshold?
- Is there a prescribed period of limitation for converting a petition for special leave into an appeal as of right under the Supreme Court Rules?
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs CHAIRMAN, SELECTION BOARD, PRINCIPAL, KING1981 CLC 274 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought admission to a medical college, claiming entitlement to 20 additional marks for National Cadet Corps (N.C.C.) training under the National Cadet Corps and Women Guards Act, 1973. Although the petitioner submitted an initial certificate with his application, authorities rejected his claim because the formal certificate was produced after the application deadline. The core legal question was whether a candidate should be penalized for the late issuance of a formal certificate when the underlying qualification was completed in time and evidence was produced before the final selection process. The Court held that merit must be determined based on facts existing at the relevant time of selection, not merely the date of application. It ruled that a candidate cannot be deprived of rights due to administrative delays in issuing certifications. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to grant the petitioner admission, noting that technicalities should not override substantive merit when the candidate has fulfilled the underlying requirements.
Questions settled- Should merit for medical college admission be determined at the time of application or at the time of final selection?
- Can a candidate be denied N.C.C. marks for late submission of a certificate if the training was completed before the deadline?
- Does the late issuance of a formal certificate by authorities justify the exclusion of a candidate from admission?
- GHULAM MURTAZA MEMON vs SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LTD., KARACHI ,1981 PLC 668 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND Another1981 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the petitioner's bail. The petitioner had initially been granted bail by the Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. Subsequently, the High Court cancelled this bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, based on allegations that the petitioner had misused the concession of bail by threatening the complainant and witnesses, which were supported by a police report and an affidavit. The core legal question was whether the High Court's cancellation of bail was justified when the accused failed to controvert the allegations of misuse through a counter-affidavit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner consistently failed to file any affidavit denying the serious allegations of witness intimidation. The key principle laid down is that where allegations of misuse of bail are supported by evidence, such as an affidavit, the failure of the accused to file a counter-affidavit to controvert those specific allegations justifies the cancellation of bail.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an accused to file a counter-affidavit controverting allegations of bail misuse justify the cancellation of bail?
- Is the cancellation of bail by the High Court appropriate when allegations of threatening witnesses are supported by an affidavit and remain uncontradicted by the accused?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs RETURNING OFFICER, KAMOKE AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the order of a learned Single Judge who allowed a writ petition and declared the appellant's election as a Member and Chairman of a Municipal Committee to be without lawful authority due to his disqualification as a depot-holder on the date of the election. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto when the appellant's temporary disqualification had been removed subsequent to the election via resignation, and an election petition was also pending. The Lahore High Court held that although the appellant was disqualified on the relevant date of election, the disqualification was temporary and had been removed prior to the challenge, and in light of relevant precedents and the need for consistency in judicial decisions, the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge was improper. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the writ petition dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a person disqualified as a depot-holder on the date of election can retain office if the disqualification is removed subsequent to the election by resignation?
- Can a voter file a constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto against the election of a member when an election petition is also pending?
- Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to unseat a member whose temporary disqualification has been cured before the final determination of the matter?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA ETC,1981 PLC (C. S.) 581 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs ALTAF HUSSAIN Andanother1981 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondents' revision petition and set aside the dismissal in default of their pre-emption suit. The suit had been dismissed in default under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a date fixed for filing an amended written statement, and moreover, the dismissal occurred during the early hours of the day contrary to the High Court Rules and Orders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the dismissal in the early hours of the day warranted interference. The Court held that an order passed by the High Court restoring a suit dismissed in default does not ordinarily call for interference by the Supreme Court, particularly when the dismissal was prematurely executed in the early hours of the day. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be dismissed in default during the early hours of the day contrary to the High Court Rules and Orders?
- Does an order of the High Court restoring a suit dismissed in default ordinarily call for interference by the Supreme Court?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD SHEERAZI vs THE STATE1981 PLD Quetta 18 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1981 CLC 804 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 634 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Alias GAMAN AND Mst. SAIRAN BIBI vs THE STATE THE STATE (A) Criminal Procedure Code (V Of 1898)1981 PLD F SC 120 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MEHDI vs MESSRS HASHMI CAN COMPANY LTD., KARACHI , .1981 PLC 210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KARIM vs MESSRS METROPLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI , . (1981 PLC 660 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JILANI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD , ..1981 PLC (C. S.) 748 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JEHANGIR AND 8 OTHERS vs MESSRS SABINA COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI,1981 PLC 697 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 711 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference arose before the High Court of Sindh following the death of one member of a Division Bench that had previously allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted the accused via a signed short order, with detailed reasons to be recorded later. An application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed praying for a rehearing of the appeal on the ground that no reasoned judgment had been delivered. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to rehear an appeal decided by a short order where detailed reasons could not subsequently be recorded, and whether the surviving Judge could record the reasons. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that finality attached to the signed short order, which was validly passed with jurisdiction after hearing both sides and followed by a release writ. Consequently, the Court held it could neither review the acquittal nor rehear the appeal, but the surviving Judge could write his individual reasons to assist appellate review.
Questions settled- Can the High Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rehear a criminal appeal decided by a signed short order after the demise of one of the bench members before detailed reasons were recorded?
- Does finality attach to a signed short order of acquittal passed by a Division Bench in a criminal appeal where the parties were afforded a hearing?
- Can a surviving Judge of a Division Bench record reasons in support of an earlier short order when the other member of the Bench has ceased to be a Judge before detailed reasons were recorded?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 876 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Mst. FARZANA (MINOR)1981 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a maintenance dispute involving a minor daughter. The petitioner challenged an ex parte maintenance decree, arguing that his non-appearance before the Family Court was justified. The core legal question was whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree and whether a revision petition under the Code of Civil Procedure was competent against an appellate order passed under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to provide a valid explanation for his absence or his prolonged failure to inquire about the case status. The Court affirmed the lower courts' refusal to set aside the ex parte decree, emphasizing that a party cannot unilaterally boycott judicial proceedings based on personal assumptions about the case's merits or alleged judicial bias. The Court further endorsed the view that the revision petition was incompetent, as the appellate order under the Family Courts Act had attained finality. The key principle established is that a litigant cannot abandon proceedings based on subjective assessments of the case; they must appear and assist the court, seeking redress for grievances through proper legal channels.
Questions settled- Can a party unilaterally boycott court proceedings based on their own assessment of the case's merits?
- Is a revision petition under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent against an appellate order passed under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- Does a party's subjective belief regarding judicial bias justify non-appearance in court proceedings?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs I..O. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 867 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS vs Mir Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 21981 CLC 1400 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1981 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the cancellation of land allotments by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the ex parte cancellation of allotments, following substituted service via press citation, was legally valid and whether the procedural requirements for service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied to proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings were valid, dismissing the petitions. The Court ruled that Section 23 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, which grants settlement officers powers akin to a civil court for summoning witnesses, does not incorporate the entirety of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly the specific rules for service of summons under Order V. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that allotments obtained through fraudulent means—such as using unofficial claim forms or altering verified district details—are liable to cancellation. The judgment establishes that settlement authorities possess the requisite jurisdiction to cancel fraudulent allotments and that substituted service is permissible when personal service is evaded.
Questions settled- Does Section 23 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act incorporate the service of process provisions found in Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a settlement authority cancel an allotment if it was obtained through fraudulent alteration of the verified claim district?
- Is substituted service by press citation legally sufficient when a party evades personal service in settlement proceedings?
- Does the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme prohibit the allotment of land based on the copy of a verified claim meant for the claimant?
- GHULAM DASTGIR AND 6 OTHERS vs HIDAYAT AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 3 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs THE STATEPLD 1981 Federal Shariat Cou · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AL! SHAH vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR1981 PLC (C. S.) 739 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AL! AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 441 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 173 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs The STATE1981 SCMR 809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that confirmed the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for the murder of Zulfiqar and the attempted murder of Muhammad Zafarullah. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, and the weight to be accorded to defense evidence, specifically a newspaper report alleging the culprit was masked. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution's case was robust, supported by a prompt FIR, a credible dying declaration attested by a medical officer, and the testimony of an injured eyewitness. The Court rejected the defense's reliance on a newspaper report, characterizing it as a mischievous and unreliable document that contradicted established facts. The Court affirmed that eyewitnesses who are not interested or chance witnesses, especially when corroborated by medical evidence and a dying declaration, provide sufficient grounds for conviction. The judgment reinforces the principle that defense evidence, such as newspaper reports lacking verified sources, cannot override consistent, direct prosecution evidence in a daylight murder case.
Questions settled- Does a newspaper report alleging a masked assailant constitute reliable evidence when it contradicts a prompt FIR and a dying declaration?
- Can the testimony of an injured eyewitness be considered sufficient for conviction in a murder case?
- Is a dying declaration corroborated by a medical officer's certificate admissible and reliable evidence?
- GHAZI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 354 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- GHAZAN AND Others vs HAYAT ALI AND Another1981 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising out of a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the transaction in dispute was a sale or a gift, and whether the High Court could interfere in a second appeal with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of witnesses and the nature of the transaction under sections 100 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that where the first appellate court overlooked several relevant circumstances apparent on the record which established that the transaction was a sale, its finding of fact stood vitiated, and the High Court was legally justified in interfering with such a finding in second appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in a second appeal with a finding of fact regarding the nature of a transaction?
- Does overlooking relevant circumstances apparent on the record vitiate a finding of fact by the first appellate court?
- Whether a transaction stated to be a gift can be scrutinized to determine if it is actually a sale in a pre-emption suit?
- GHARIB SHAH AND 6 Other vs ABDUL SATTAR1981 PLD Quetta 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-06-12Read full judgment →
- GHAFOOR MUHAMMAD vs ABDUR REHMAN1981 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a plot of land situated in a Katchi Abadi in Lyallpur. The core legal question involves the entitlement of rival claimants to the transfer of proprietary rights under the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi) Act, 1972, following the statutory cancellation of earlier allotments. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact rendered by the High Court regarding actual possession and ownership of alternate property—which established that the respondent was in possession and that the petitioner owned another house—were well-founded on the record and immune from interference. The Court affirmed that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of possession or construction. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in limine, establishing that concurrent findings of fact by the High Court regarding possession and disqualifying ownership will not be disturbed by the apex court absent legal perversity.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and ownership of alternate property?
- Does the statutory provision of the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi) Act, 1972 cancel earlier allotments of land falling within a Katchi Abadi?
- Can a claimant who owns another house successfully claim proprietary rights under the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi) Act, 1972?
- GFIULAM HUSSAIN vs MESSRS N. V. DEMEYER LALZATE ,1981 PLC 762 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, T & G, WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS vs Appellate Tribunal1981 PLC 357 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-05Read full judgment →
- Fir MUHAMMAD KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 476 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-11-13Read full judgment →
- FIAJI AHMED AND 2 OTHERS vs R. G. SEHWANI COOPERATIVE HOUSING1981 CLC 897 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- FEROZE vs LAL AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 11 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05Read full judgment →
- FEROZE KHAN vs MESSRS M. F. SONS FOOD INDUSTRIES1981 PLC 926 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 847 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court appeal arose from a suit filed by the Government of Pakistan against the National Bank of Pakistan and M/s. Dabistan Limited for the recovery of a loan advanced for film production, which was guaranteed by the Bank. The core legal question was whether the guarantee provided by the Bank stood discharged because the Government, as the creditor, granted extensions of time for repayment to the principal debtor without obtaining the surety's consent. The Court held that the guarantee was indeed discharged. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the Government had unilaterally extended the repayment deadlines without the Bank's agreement, despite the Bank's contention that such extensions were unauthorized. Applying the principle enshrined in Section 135 of the Contract Act 1872, the Court affirmed that a contract between a creditor and a principal debtor to give time for payment discharges the surety unless the surety assents to such an arrangement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision that the Bank’s liability under the guarantee had ceased.
Questions settled- Does a creditor's unilateral extension of time for repayment to a principal debtor discharge the surety's liability under a guarantee?
- Is a surety discharged from liability if the creditor grants time to the principal debtor without the surety's consent?
- Can a guarantee be enforced against a surety if the underlying contract terms regarding repayment time are varied without the surety's assent?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs Mst. FARISHTA1981 PLD Supreme Court 120 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1981 CLC 130 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arose from the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution by the District Judge, Lahore. The petitioners had filed an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, which was dismissed after their counsel failed to appear on the scheduled date due to an inadvertent diary entry error. The petitioners' subsequent application for restoration under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was rejected by the District Judge. The core legal question was whether an appeal should be dismissed for default when the court could otherwise decide the matter on merits. The High Court held that procedural rules exist to facilitate the administration of justice, not to stifle it on technicalities. Emphasizing that the rendition of justice is a solemn duty rather than an act of grace, the Court ruled that where an appeal is ready for decision based on existing evidence, it should be decided on merits rather than dismissed for default. The revision was accepted, the dismissal order set aside, and the case remanded to the District Judge for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Should an appellate court dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the record is sufficient to decide the matter on merits?
- Is an inadvertent failure to enter a hearing date in a diary a sufficient ground for the restoration of an appeal?
- Are procedural rules in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 intended to be subordinate to the administration of justice?
- FAZLUR REHMAN Alias WADIKA vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 725 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
- FAZALA vs WALL MUHAMMAD AND Other1981 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had affirmed a decree in a pre-emption suit. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for pre-emption against three defendants, two of whom conceded the claim, while the petitioner contested it. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the plaintiff possessed a superior right of pre-emption. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that because the other co-vendees were related to the vendor, the suit should have been dismissed, and further contended that the pre-emptor had waived his right. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of relationship with the vendor and failed to demonstrate any misreading of evidence regarding the alleged waiver. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, ruling that the petition lacked merit. The principle established is that a plea of relationship to defeat a pre-emption claim must be specifically pleaded and proven, and factual findings regarding waiver, if not based on misreading of evidence, are not subject to interference in leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a petition for special leave to appeal succeed on the basis of a general, unsubstantiated allegation of relationship between a vendee and a vendor?
- Does the appellate court's finding on the issue of waiver, when supported by evidence, warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a pre-emption suit liable to be dismissed if some co-vendees concede the pre-emptor's right while others contest it?
- FAZAL RAHMAN vs RAHIM GUL AND Oherss1981 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The underlying dispute involved a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of land, which had seen varying outcomes in the trial court and the first appellate court. The petitioner challenged the High Court's dismissal, arguing that the limitation period for filing the appeal should have been computed from the date the judgment and decree were actually delivered, rather than the date the copies were allegedly made ready. The petitioner contended that the copying agency failed to provide notice that the copies were ready for collection, and therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible for the delay. The Supreme Court found that this submission regarding the computation of limitation and the lack of notice from the copying agency raised a substantial question requiring consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued an interim order restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land.
Questions settled- Should the limitation period for filing an appeal be computed from the date of the judgment's delivery or the date copies are made ready by the copying agency?
- Does the failure of a copying agency to notify a party that copies are ready affect the calculation of the limitation period for an appeal?
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ETC.S1981 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an appellate order of the Lahore High Court which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case was founded on a dying declaration, motive, medical evidence, abscondence, and ocular testimony. The core legal question was whether a conviction for murder could be safely sustained based on an unreliable dying declaration and circumstantial evidence in the complete absence of credible ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly discarded the eyewitness testimony and that the dying declaration, being uncross-examined and emanating from an interested party with a history of enmity, could not be implicitly relied upon without corroboration as to the identity of the assailants. The court further held that medical evidence and abscondence could not independently establish identity. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal against acquittal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a dying declaration when the eyewitness testimony has been disbelieved?
- Does medical evidence showing knife injuries corroborate the identity of the assailants named in a dying declaration?
- Whether the absence of the accused from their homes without being declared proclaimed offenders constitutes legal abscondence?
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND ANOTHER , , (1981 PLC (C. S.) 674 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD ETC. vs ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC.1981 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the allotment of evacuee land. The petitioners challenged the cancellation of their land allotment, which had been transferred to the respondent, an informant (mukhbar) who had provided information leading to the cancellation of a previous fraudulent allotment. The core legal questions were whether the amendment to the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958, specifically Section 14(1)(a), applied retrospectively to the petitioners' allotment, and whether the respondent's right to the land, based on his status as an informant, took precedence over the petitioners' subsequent allotment. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court determined that Section 14(1)(a) of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958, as amended by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) (Amendment) Act, 1973, is retrospective in application. The Court further established that an informant's right to land matures upon the cancellation of a fraudulent allotment, rendering any subsequent allotment of that same land to others invalid.
Questions settled- Is Section 14(1)(a) of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act 1958 retrospective in its application?
- Does an informant's right to land allotment mature upon the cancellation of a fraudulent allotment?
- Can land allotted to an informant under the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act 1958 be claimed if it was previously allotted to another party?
- FAZAL KARIM vs SETTLEMENTCOMMISSIONER AND Other1981 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee building site. The petitioner purchased the property through an auction conducted by the Settlement Department and was issued a Permanent Transfer Order. Subsequently, the Settlement authorities cancelled the auction and transferred the property to respondent No. 4, finding that the respondent had previously filed a building site form for the same property within the prescribed period. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the Settlement authorities became functus officio upon the issuance of his transfer order. The Supreme Court addressed whether property for which a transfer form is pending can be auctioned. The Court held that if a settlement form seeking transfer of evacuee property is filed, the property cannot be disposed of through auction without first disposing of that form. Finding as a matter of fact that the respondent had submitted a valid form and was in possession, the Court ruled the auction void and upheld the transfer to the respondent, declining to interfere with the Settlement authorities' findings.
Questions settled- Can an evacuee property be auctioned if a settlement form for its transfer is pending?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Order render Settlement authorities functus officio in all circumstances?
- Is the disposal of evacuee property through auction void if a prior valid application for transfer exists?
- FAZAL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD USMAN1981 CLC 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 474 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HAQUE vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI IJAZ ETC. vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1981. SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals and petitions regarding the terms and conditions of service of Principals, Head Masters, and Head Mistresses of nationalized educational institutions under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The core legal question concerned whether challenges to service rules promulgated under the said Regulation were barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and amenable to the Punjab Services Tribunal. During the hearing, the appellants and petitioners sought to withdraw their matters to approach the appropriate Services Tribunal, requesting the preservation of their current status and emoluments in the interim. The Supreme Court of Pakistan permitted the withdrawal of the appeals and petitions. The Court held that the appellants and petitioners may approach the Punjab Services Tribunal and directed that their existing status and emoluments be maintained for a period of one month or until the Services Tribunal disposes of their interim relief applications, emphasizing that the Tribunal should decide the matter expeditiously without being influenced by the Court's order.
Questions settled- Whether service matters relating to nationalized educational institutions are barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 from being heard by the High Court?
- Can appellants withdraw their appeals from the Supreme Court to approach the appropriate Services Tribunal?
- Whether interim protection regarding status and emoluments can be granted upon the withdrawal of appeals to enable appellants to approach the Services Tribunal?
- FAZAL ELAHI EJAZ AND 22 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 271981 PLD Supreme Court 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Inter-Court Appeal regarding the nationalisation of privately managed schools. The core legal questions involve the extent of the bar on the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in relation to terms and conditions of civil servants, and the constitutional validity of the Punjab Nationalised Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974 framed under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 vis-a-vis Article 240 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners raised substantial and arguable questions of law concerning the interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding service tribunals and legislative competence. However, the Court declined to issue a temporary injunction to restrain the departmental authorities from altering the petitioners' service status pending the appeal, applying the principle that interim injunctions against government departments in service matters should not be issued lightly without compelling reasons.
Questions settled- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in respect of service matters before a final order by a departmental authority or administrative tribunal is passed?
- Whether rules framed under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 are ultra vires Article 240 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted against a government department to interfere with its administrative working and service arrangements pending an appeal?
- FAZAL BAKHSH AND 4 Other vs ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 443 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMED AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL SHAKOOR1981 CLC 793 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of the Additional District Judge upholding the dismissal of the appellant landlord's ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the respondent committed an actionable default in the payment of rent under the relevant rent restriction statute, given the absence of a written agreement and the landlord's established practice of accepting irregular lump-sum payments. The court held that where no definite agreement is proved and the landlord routinely accepts irregular rent payments without protest, the tenant cannot be penalized with ejectment, and the lower forums rightly exercised their discretion in favor of the tenant. The key principles laid down are that a landlord's acceptance of irregular or lump-sum rent without objection waives strict compliance regarding monthly payment timelines, and an ejectment application filed prematurely before the expiration of the statutory grace period for payment is unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can be held to be a defaulter in rent payments when the landlord habitually accepts irregular lump-sum payments without objection?
- Does the absence of a written rent agreement affect the landlord's claim that rent was payable in advance?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the mode of rent collection?
- FAZAL AHMAD (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE1981 CLC 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ ALI vs SIND LABOUR COURT No, V AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 888 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ ALI KHAN vs Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF1981 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant regarding a commercial shop in Lahore. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in payment of rent and causing damage to the property by removing an intervening wall. Although the Rent Controller initially rejected the eviction application, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, and the High Court affirmed the eviction order in second appeal.
The core legal questions concerned whether payment of rent below the rate stipulated in the lease deed constitutes actionable default when received by the landlord under protest, and whether concurrent findings regarding damage to property were backed by evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that accepting a lesser rent amount under protest does not signify an agreement to reduce rent, leaving the tenant in default of full rent liabilities under the lease agreement. Furthermore, unrebutted evidence establishing unauthorized alteration of the premises supported the concurrent finding of property damage.
Questions settled- Does a tenant commit default in payment of rent if they pay less than the agreed monthly rent stipulated in a lease deed while the landlord accepts the reduced amount under protest?
- Can concurrent factual findings of property damage and default be interfered with by the Supreme Court where they are supported by unrebutted evidence?
- FAUJDAR AND 16 OTHERS vs BATA SHOE Co. LTD., LAHORE1981 CLC 769 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs Ties STATE1981 PLD Lahore 403 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs RA1AN KHAN AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Supreme Court 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a pre-emption matter where the petitioner, a tenant, sought to pre-empt a land sale. The trial court decreed the suit only partially, dismissing it with respect to the rest of the land, and the petitioner's appeals before the District Judge and the High Court were dismissed. The core legal question is whether a plaintiff pre-emptor is permitted to improve his status after the date of the sale to acquire a superior right. The Supreme Court held that while a vendee-defendant is permitted to rely on an improvement in status to protect their rights, a plaintiff pre-emptor, being an aggressor, is not permitted to improve their position after the date of the sale to render the vendee's status ineffectual. The key principle laid down is that the pre-emptor must show that the superior right to pre-empt existing at the date of the sale continues to remain superior at all relevant times, and cannot improve their status subsequent to the sale.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff pre-emptor can improve his status after the date of the sale to acquire a superior right?
- Can a vendee-defendant rely on an improvement made in his status after the institution of a pre-emption suit?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND 9 Other1981 SCMR 1061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the cancellation of an ihata allotment. The dispute arose when the original allottee’s allotment was cancelled for non-payment of dues without the issuance of a mandatory statutory notice. The core legal question was whether the failure to comply with the notice requirement under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 rendered the cancellation order a nullity, and whether such a defect could be cured by subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation order was void ab initio due to the failure to follow the mandatory statutory procedure. The Court affirmed that an inherent defect arising from the failure to issue a statutory notice cannot be cured by subsequent hearings or appeals. Additionally, the Court ruled that any allotment made to a third party during the pendency of litigation remains subject to the final outcome, and construction undertaken by such a party is at their own risk. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to issue a mandatory statutory notice under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 render an order of cancellation of allotment a nullity?
- Can an inherent defect caused by the failure to issue a statutory notice be cured by subsequent hearings or appeals?
- Is an allotment made to a third party during the pendency of litigation regarding the property subject to the final outcome of that litigation?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD LIAQAT AND Other1981 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the cancellation and revival of competing claim forms and land allotments under refugee rehabilitation laws. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the allotment of disputed land validly transferred to respondents through an intermediate allottee, following the conditional revival of the petitioner's earlier claim form. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly maintained the respondents' allotment as they could not be prejudiced by the subsequent administrative proceedings, especially where the petitioner had alternative remedies such as seeking cash compensation or pursuing allotment where originally applied. The key principle laid down is that bona fide third-party allottees who acquire land through due process should not be displaced by subsequent administrative revisions of conflicting claim forms, leaving the aggrieved claimant to pursue alternative statutory remedies for land or compensation.
Questions settled- Whether bona fide allottees of land can be deprived of their property due to the subsequent revival of a conflicting claim form?
- Is an allottee entitled to retain land validly allotted through due process when previous administrative cancellations are later set aside?
- Can a claimant whose earlier land allotment is affected by administrative revisions seek alternative remedies such as cash compensation or allotment elsewhere?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs KHUSHHAL MUHAMMAD1981 CLC 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil revision against the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing his application to abate a separate suit filed by the respondent. The respondent had instituted the suit to challenge a previous consent decree on the ground of fraud, prior to the insertion of subsection (2) into section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that challenges to judgments on grounds of fraud must be made via an application to the same court rather than a separate suit. The core legal question was whether the procedural amendment regarding forum and remedy should be applied retroactively to pending suits. The Lahore High Court held that although procedural statutes generally operate retroactively, they will not be given retrospective effect if doing so causes inconvenience, injustice, or detriment to the parties, especially where significant headway has already been made in the pending suit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment introducing subsection (2) to section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies retroactively to pending suits?
- Will a procedural statute be given retrospective effect if it causes inconvenience or detriment to the parties involved?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 3 Other vs THE STATEPLD 1981 Lah.85 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal and the confirmation of his death sentence by the Lahore High Court for the murder of his father-in-law, arising out of a dispute over exchange marriages and the divorce of the petitioner's wife. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of guilt based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and established motive were sustainable despite contentions regarding chance witnesses, discrepancies in the first information report, and the implication of co-accused who were acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the eye-witnesses provided plausible explanations for their presence, that minor discrepancies did not falsify the core prosecution case, and that speculation regarding sudden provocation by the deceased was unsupported by the record. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies between the first information report and the deposition at trial are sufficient to discard the testimony of an eye-witness?
- Can the conviction of an accused be sustained on ocular evidence when co-accused tried in the same incident have been acquitted?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the presence of eye-witnesses?
- Does an incident occurring near the house of the accused automatically raise a presumption of sudden provocation so as to mitigate the sentence of death?
- FASAHAT REHMAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF1981 PLC (C. S.) 526 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FARZAND HAIDER SHAH vs D. C./COLLECTOR, LAHORE1981 PLC (C. S.) 638 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-04Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMAD KHAN LEGHARI AND 37 Other vs Sh. MUHAMMAD RASHID, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 159 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges an order passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, regarding land reforms. The petitioners contested the Chairman's jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional powers, alleged bias due to political speeches, argued that the Chairman could not sit singly under the notification authorizing "Chairman and Members," and contended that the order was not validated by subsequent legislation. The Court held that the Chairman validly exercised suo motu jurisdiction, as the information received justified the action. Regarding bias, the Court established that mere suspicion is insufficient; a "real likelihood" of bias must be proven, which was not established here. Furthermore, the Court interpreted the notification phrase "Chairman and Members" disjunctively as "Chairman or Members" to avoid absurdity, confirming the Chairman's authority to sit singly. Finally, the Court ruled that the impugned order was expressly validated by Ordinance XXIX of 1978. The key principle laid down is that statutory interpretation must avoid absurdity, and allegations of bias require proof of real likelihood rather than mere suspicion.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission exercise revisional powers suo motu?
- Does the phrase 'Chairman and Members' in a notification authorize the Chairman to sit singly?
- Is a mere suspicion of bias sufficient to disqualify a quasi-judicial authority from deciding a matter?
- Can a validating ordinance cure orders that were allegedly passed without jurisdiction?
- FARMAN AND Mst. NAIMA JAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the convictions of the appellants for the murder of the husband of the second appellant, wherein they were sentenced to death by the trial court, and their appeals subsequently dismissed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the circumstantial evidence, including an unwitnessed crime, alleged extra-judicial confessions, motive, and incriminating recoveries, was sufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that material contradictions, irreconcilable timelines between the investigating officer and recovery witnesses, and unreliable extra-judicial confessions rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence regarding motive, time of arrest, recoveries, and extra-judicial confessions is found to be fake and riddled with unsatisfactory features, the prosecution fails to establish its charge, and the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether extra-judicial confessions made to a private person and produced before the police can be relied upon when the time of arrest and custody is disputed?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on fake or irreconcilable recovery evidence?
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive weakens the overall circumstantial evidence in a capital case?
- Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the foundational evidence of a crime presents major unsatisfactory features and contradictions?
- FARID vs SULTAN AND Other1981 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted two respondents of murder and reduced the conviction of a third respondent, Dilmir, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the plea of private defense. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting consistent eye-witness testimony and in accepting the plea of private defense without evidentiary support. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent Sultan was based on mere surmises, disregarding consistent and independent eye-witness accounts. Furthermore, regarding Dilmir, the Court found that the medical evidence indicated his injuries were sustained days prior to the incident, and the defense failed to establish that the deceased attacked him during the occurrence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's findings, convicted both Sultan and Dilmir under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced them to transportation for life. The judgment reaffirms that a plea of private defense must be substantiated by evidence and cannot be accepted based on unverified assertions.
Questions settled- Can a plea of private defense be accepted when the injuries supporting the claim are proven to be pre-existing?
- Is a court justified in acquitting accused persons based on surmises when there is consistent eye-witness testimony?
- Does the failure to put a defense version to independent eye-witnesses during cross-examination undermine the credibility of that defense?
- FARID vs NIZAM DIN AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 810 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- FARID ETC. vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 589 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-08Read full judgment →
- FARHAT ABBAS vs MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 188 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- FARAH DEEBA vs THE KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1552 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD., HYDERABAD, .1981 PLC 546 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-10Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER Alias FALKU vs The STATE1981 SCMR 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant Falak Sher under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The trial court had originally convicted ten accused persons, eight of whom were acquitted by the High Court by giving them the benefit of the doubt, while the convictions of the appellant and a co-accused were upheld based on independent corroboration through the recovery of blood-stained clothing. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the testimony of partisan and interested eye-witnesses received sufficient independent corroboration from the recovery of blood-stained shirts. The Supreme Court held that the recovery of the shirt from the appellant's person, which was duly stained with human blood according to the serologist's report, provided sufficient corroboration to sustain the conviction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the appreciation of evidence by the High Court and upholding the conviction.
Questions settled- Whether partisan and interested eye-witness testimony can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder case?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained shirt from an accused provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
- Can an appellate court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence when corroborated by forensic analysis of blood stains?
- FALAK SHAH vs PERSONNEL MANAGER, D. N. C. JOINT VENTURE, TERBELA DAM , .1981 PLC 261 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- FAKIR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, HYDERABAD1981 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, auction-purchasers of State land, challenged the cancellation of their land grants, which occurred due to non-payment of installments. Following the cancellation in 1969, the land was allotted to respondents in 1974. The petitioners sought to regularize their cancelled grants based on a 1974 directive from the Government of Sind, issued under instructions from the Federal Government, which permitted the regularization of cancelled grants upon payment of arrears in six equal installments. Both the Revenue authorities and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' claims, citing the lapse of time, the lack of restoration of the land, and the fact that third-party rights had already vested in the respondents. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, holding that the government directive did not confer an automatic legal right to regularization. Instead, it was merely a concession that allowed grantees to apply to the Provincial Government for consideration. Consequently, in the absence of a vested legal right to regularization, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does a government directive allowing for the regularization of cancelled land grants confer an automatic legal right upon the grantee to have their grant restored?
- Can a court interfere with the cancellation of a land grant when the grantee has failed to pay installments and third-party rights have subsequently intervened?
- FAIZULLAH vs GHULAM SARWAR AND 4 Other1981 SCMR 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the possession of 1 kanal and 8 marlas of land in Jhelum, where the respondent filed a suit for possession against the petitioner, claiming dispossession as a co-sharer. The trial court, affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court, decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that the suit was governed by Article 120 rather than Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, that a joint decree should have been passed, and that the respondent held excess land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent’s specific plea of dispossession within twelve years of the suit brought the matter squarely under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, rendering the residuary Article 120 inapplicable. The Court further held that the decree for possession was the appropriate relief given the established findings of fact regarding prior possession and dispossession. Finally, the Court clarified that claims regarding excess land possession in shamilat property are matters for partition proceedings, not for the current suit.
Questions settled- Does a suit for possession based on dispossession fall under Article 142 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is a claim regarding excess possession of shamilat land a valid ground to challenge a decree for possession in a suit between co-sharers?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1981 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by special leave, challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution's ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence were sufficient to sustain a conviction, given the significant discrepancies in the witnesses' accounts and the lack of reliable corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court found that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was contradictory, unreliable, and belied by the physical evidence and the site sketch prepared by the Tapedar. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial court had correctly rejected the evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon and the alleged motive, as the weapon was not blood-stained and the motive was vague and unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution's evidence was unsafe to support a conviction. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony that is contradicted by the site sketch and other witness accounts can form the basis of a conviction?
- Does the failure to prove bloodstains on a recovered weapon undermine the prosecution's case regarding the recovery?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding motive and eyewitness accounts is found to be unreliable and discrepant?
- FAIZ BAKHSH Alias FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH. (REPRESENTED1981 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the striking off of a tenant's defence in an ejectment proceeding. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, acting under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, could lawfully fix tentative rent at an enhanced rate based on a revised property assessment, despite the landlord's initial application citing a lower rate, and whether the failure to comply with such an order justified striking off the defence. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted within their discretion in allowing the landlord to modify the claim based on the latest assessment and in fixing the tentative rent accordingly. As the tenant failed to deposit the arrears or the future rent, the striking off of the defence was upheld. The judgment affirms that a Rent Controller may, in the exercise of judicial discretion, permit a landlord to amend a claim for rent to reflect the latest property assessment and subsequently fix tentative rent under Section 13(6) based on that revised figure.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller fix tentative rent at a rate higher than that originally claimed in the ejectment application if based on a new property assessment?
- Is a Rent Controller empowered to allow a landlord to modify their claim regarding the rate of rent during the pendency of proceedings?
- Does the failure to deposit tentative rent as ordered by the Rent Controller justify the striking off of a tenant's defence?
- FAIZ AHMAD vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 718 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-05-08Read full judgment →
- FAHIM ANSARI vs KALIM QAMAR SHAIKH1981 PLD Karachi 231 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TAUNSA BARRAGE DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs ALLAH1981 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs Sh. HAMEED ELAHI AND ANOTHER1981 PLD SC 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of an appeal decided ex parte against the respondent, who alleged he received late notice of the hearing. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court possesses the inherent power to recall or rehear an appeal decided ex parte due to a procedural error, and whether such power is barred by the principle of finality of judgments. The Court held that it possesses inherent power under Rule 6, Order XVI of the Supreme Court Rules to recall an order to prevent abuse of process or ensure justice, particularly where there has been no valid adjudication due to a lack of proper notice. However, the Court clarified that this power is not absolute and does not override a party's own negligence. In the instant case, the respondent failed to inform the Court of his change of address, causing the delay in notice. Consequently, the Court held that the respondent failed to establish sufficient cause for restoration, and the application was dismissed. The principle established is that while the Court retains inherent power to correct its own procedural errors to prevent injustice, it will not exercise such power to remedy a party's own negligence.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan possess the inherent power to recall or rehear an appeal decided ex parte due to a procedural error?
- Is a judgment pronounced ex parte without proper notice considered a valid adjudication that bars the rehearing of an appeal?
- Can a party seek the restoration of an appeal on the grounds of late notice if the delay resulted from their own failure to notify the Court of a change of address?
- Does Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 restrict the inherent powers of the Supreme Court to correct its own procedural errors?
- ESSO PAKISTAN FERTILIZER Co. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs ESSO PAKISTAN1981 PLC 116 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →