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.
- ANJUM REHMAT AND ANOTHER vs Shaikh GULAM SADIQ1981 CLC 276 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning an immovable property in Karachi, alongside an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question centered on whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction despite contentions regarding the lack of signatures of one plaintiff on a subsequent formal agreement and allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and inadequacy of consideration. The court held that the receipt executed on 25th July 1979 sufficiently spelled out the terms of the agreement and that questions of validity and enforceability required recording evidence at trial, while noting that the breach of a contract for immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by monetary compensation. The key principle laid down is that temporary injunctions in specific performance suits regarding immovable property may be granted where a prima facie agreement is shown and the balance of convenience favors preserving the property, subject to appropriate conditions regarding the deposit of balance consideration.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale when one of the co-plaintiffs has not signed the subsequent formal agreement?
- Does the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property admit of adequate relief through monetary compensation under the Specific Relief Act?
- Can complex questions regarding fraud, misrepresentation, and adequacy of consideration be decided at the interlocutory stage of an application for temporary injunction?
- and S. Hafeez-ur-Rehman, MemberCh. ALT AHMAD vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI AND OCHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 719 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- AMIR REHMAN vs PERSONNEL MANAGER, DILLINGHAM N. C., JOINT VENTURE, TARBELA DAM , . (1981 PLC 420 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- AMIR ETC. vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05Read full judgment →
- AMIR DIN ETC. vs MUHAMMAD MALIK ETC1981 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding a dispute over land allotment during consolidation of holdings proceedings. The core legal question was whether the consolidation authorities acted within their jurisdiction and whether the petitioners suffered any prejudice due to the allotment of land. The Supreme Court observed that consolidation authorities possess the jurisdiction to create lots and blocks for land-owners based on their entitlement. Upon review, the Court found that the area allotted to the petitioners remained undiminished, and the number of blocks assigned to them had actually been reduced, indicating no prejudice or loss. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners had not suffered any injury from the consolidation proceedings. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others, the Court determined that this was not a fit case for interference with the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lacking merit.
Questions settled- Do consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to create lots and blocks for land-owners during consolidation proceedings?
- Is interference by the Supreme Court warranted when a petitioner has suffered no actual loss or prejudice in land consolidation proceedings?
- AMIR BEGUM vs RAB NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI vs Mrs. ALIMA AHMAD1981 PLD Karachi 150 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, alleging default in monthly rent from April 1970 to February 1971. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding no willful default as the landlord routinely accepted accumulated rent. The First Appellate Court reversed this and ordered eviction. The High Court considered whether the expired tenancy agreement governed rent timelines, whether eviction could be granted on unpleaded grounds, and whether the Rent Controller properly exercised discretion under Section 13(2)(i). The High Court held that upon expiration of a fixed-term lease, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant governed by statutory time limits under Section 13(2)(i) rather than expired lease clauses. The court further held that ejectment cannot be ordered on unpleaded grounds and that where a landlord historically accepts accumulated rent without protest, omission to explicitly plead 'practice' is not fatal if factual payment details are pleaded. Restoring the Rent Controller's order, the High Court held that default was not deliberate and the appellate court erred in overturning the Rent Controller's valid exercise of discretion.
Questions settled- Do the terms and conditions of an expired lease agreement continue to govern the time for payment of rent once the tenant becomes a statutory tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a Rent Controller exercise discretion to refuse an ejectment order under Section 13(2) where non-payment of rent does not constitute a deliberate or willful default?
- Is a tenant precluded from establishing a practice of paying accumulated rent if the legal term 'practice' was not explicitly pleaded in the written statement, provided full factual particulars of the payments were stated?
- Can an appellate court grant an ejectment application on grounds of default different from or not pleaded in the landlord's original application?
- Must a landlord who historically accepted accumulated rent give prior notice to the tenant before strictly enforcing statutory rent deadlines?
- AMIR AFZAL vs PERVEZ ARSHAD AND 9 Other1981 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant of a shop in Attock City, challenged his ejectment ordered by the Rent Controller on the grounds of bona fide reconstruction. The petitioner had previously filed a suit for specific performance based on an alleged agreement of sale with one of the co-sharer heirs of the deceased landlord. Both the Rent Controller and the District Judge affirmed the landlord-tenant relationship and the necessity for reconstruction, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. The Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, ruling that an agreement of sale with a single co-sharer does not entitle a tenant to protection under Section 53-A of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as one co-sharer cannot bind others. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner abandoned the plea regarding the lack of landlord-tenant relationship but argued that the High Court erred in stating that both lower courts had concurrently found the requirement for reconstruction. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court order contained a slight factual inaccuracy, it was not vitiated, and dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner four months to vacate.
Questions settled- Can a single co-sharer bind other co-sharers in an agreement of sale regarding property?
- Does an agreement of sale with one co-sharer entitle a tenant to protection under Section 53-A of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Does a minor factual inaccuracy in a High Court order regarding the findings of lower courts necessarily vitiate the judgment?
- AMINULLAH vs TBE STATE__1981 PLD Supreme Court 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenged a Supreme Court order that dismissed criminal appeals against convictions for murder where the Bench was equally divided, thereby allowing the High Court's judgment to remain operative. The core legal question was whether an equally divided Bench in a criminal appeal must refer the matter to a larger bench or if it may simply allow the lower court's judgment to stand. The Court held that while no explicit constitutional or statutory provision mandates a larger bench, the Court has historically adopted varying practices. Recognizing that consistency and fairness are paramount, particularly in capital cases, the Court determined that the previous practice of referring such split decisions to a larger bench should be followed to ensure a definitive adjudication. Consequently, the Court recalled its earlier order and referred the appeals to a larger bench. The principle laid down is that while the Court possesses the discretion to apply the maxim semper praesumitur pro negante, it should exercise this discretion in favor of referring cases to a larger bench to maintain judicial consistency.
Questions settled- Does an equally divided Bench in a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court have a mandatory duty to refer the case to a larger bench?
- Can the Supreme Court allow a lower court's judgment to remain operative when the Bench hearing the appeal is equally divided?
- Is the maxim semper praesumitur pro negante applicable to criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does the lack of a statutory provision regarding split decisions in the Supreme Court grant the Court discretion to determine its own procedure?
- AMIN ABDULLAR vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION ETC.1981 CLC 680 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-23Read full judgment →
- AMEERUDDIN vs AHMAD1981 CLC 610 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- AMARLAL AND ANOTHER vs Moulvi MUHAMMAD SAEED1981 CLC 705 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN ETC. vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (CONSOLIDATION), PUNJAB1981 SCMR 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, successors-in-interest of the deceased original petitioner Abdullah, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment holding that a constitutional petition filed in 1967 had abated upon Abdullah's death in 1971, and rejecting their application to set aside the abatement and be impleaded. The core legal question concerned whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to constitutional proceedings regarding the substitution of legal heirs, and whether the factual grounds for condoning the delay in filing substitution applications were sufficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Civil Procedure Code is fully applicable to proceedings of a civil nature in constitutional petitions, and applications for substitution must be made within the prescribed time. Furthermore, the High Court's factual finding that the educated and capable legal heirs reasonably ought to have known about the pending proceedings was unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that procedural provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to constitutional petitions of a civil nature, requiring timely substitution of legal heirs.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applicable to proceedings of a civil nature in a constitutional petition?
- Must an application for the substitution of legal heirs in a pending constitutional petition be made within the prescribed time?
- Can the refusal of a High Court to condone delay in filing an application to set aside abatement be interfered with when based on reasonable factual conclusions?
- AMANAT ALI vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 100 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-10Read full judgment →
- AMAN INDUSTRIES vs SARFRAZ KHAN AND 2 OTHERS , .1981 PLC 45 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
- ALVIA TABLIGH TRUST AND 8 OTHERS vs MUJEEBURRAHMAN ALVI AND 71981 CLC 151 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 525 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN AND Another vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1981 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
- ALTAF GAUHAR vs WAJID SHAMSUL HASAN AND Another1981 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated defamation suits filed by a former government servant against the editors and publishers of two newspapers regarding libellous news items alleging the plaintiff drafted the "Six Points" of the Awami League and abused his official position. The core legal questions involved the court's territorial jurisdiction, whether the publications constituted defamation, the validity of the defenses of "fair comment" and "privilege," and the assessment of damages. The court held that the publications were defamatory and that the defendants failed to establish the truth of their allegations (justification). The court rejected the defense of "fair comment," noting that the statements were factual allegations rather than comments, and dismissed the claim of special press privilege, affirming that journalists possess no greater privilege than ordinary citizens. The court established that editors and publishers are jointly and severally liable for defamatory content and that general damages are recoverable even without proof of special damages, particularly where the defendants' conduct during trial warrants an award of aggravated damages.
Questions settled- Does a journalist or newspaper publisher enjoy a special privilege in defamation cases beyond that of an ordinary citizen?
- Can a defense of 'fair comment' be sustained when the published material consists of factual allegations rather than criticism?
- Are editors and publishers jointly and severally liable for the publication of defamatory material in a newspaper?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to general damages in a defamation suit if they fail to prove special damages?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., SAHIWAL vs STAFF UNION (REGD.) /1981 PLC 125 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER1981 P Cr. L J 213 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND 3 Other1981 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified convictions for murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a sudden fight, and whether the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 was applicable to the co-accused. The Supreme Court observed that the incident arose from a spontaneous altercation between neighbors without premeditation, during which the principal accused sustained injuries, indicating a struggle. The Court held that the High Court was justified in invoking Exception 4 to Section 300, as the killing occurred during a sudden fight where no undue advantage was taken. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the co-accused did not share a common intention to commit murder, as his involvement was limited to a separate act of assault. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction modifications. The judgment reinforces the principle that in sudden, unplanned altercations, participants are liable only for their individual acts, and the benefit of Exception 4 applies where no unfair advantage is taken.
Questions settled- Does a sudden, unplanned fight between neighbors qualify for the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a co-accused be held liable for murder under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they did not share a common intention to commit the act?
- Is a participant in a sudden fight liable for the specific injuries they personally inflicted rather than the acts of others?
- ALLAHDAD vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH- YAR vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND Other..1981 PLD Supreme Court 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's regular second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involve the exercise of discretion by the court regarding the extension of time to make up a deficiency in court-fee under the relevant procedural and fiscal laws, and whether a plaintiff guilty of contumacy and gross undervaluation is entitled to such indulgence. The Supreme Court held that while time for making up a deficiency in court-fee may be extended by the court, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not in favour of a party guilty of contumacy, negligence, or mala fide omission. The Court affirmed that the obligation to ensure proper court-fee is upon the court regardless of whether the defendant presses the issue, and upheld the dismissal of the suit due to the petitioner's deliberate failure to pay the requisite court-fee within time.
Questions settled- Can a court extend time for making up a deficiency in court-fee in cases where the party is guilty of contumacy?
- Does the failure of a defendant to press an issue regarding court-fee relieve the court of its obligation to ensure proper court-fee is paid?
- Is a plaintiff who grossly undervalues a suit and fails to seek extension of time under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 entitled to appellate relief?
- ALLAH YAR vs THE STATE1981 PLD Lahore 651 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYO vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 453 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs KHUDA BAKSH, ETC.S1981 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding the cultivating possession of agricultural land. The petitioner, claiming to be a tenant, sought to establish superior rights of pre-emption under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and contested the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries in favor of the respondent. Following a series of administrative proceedings, including a remand by the Commissioner and subsequent findings by the Settlement Officer, it was determined that the petitioner was not in cultivating possession of the disputed land. The High Court upheld these findings, concluding that the revenue authorities had not misread the evidence. The Supreme Court examined the record and affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the arguments raised by the petitioner pertained to disputed questions of fact rather than matters of legal or public importance. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference in its appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that findings of fact by competent revenue authorities, when based on evidence, are generally not subject to review in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere in writ jurisdiction regarding findings of fact made by revenue authorities?
- Does a claim of misreading of evidence by lower revenue authorities constitute a question of legal or public importance justifying Supreme Court intervention?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding cultivating possession subject to review in a writ petition?
- ALLAH WASAYA AND 7 OTHERS vs TEHSILDAR/A. C. 1st GRADE. KHANPUR ETC.1981 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by a Tehsildar/Assistant Collector First Grade rejecting applications for sanction of revenue mutations based on pre-emption decrees. The Revenue Officer refused sanction on the ground that the petitioners had not filed execution applications within the period of limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 read with Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court addressed whether the expiry of limitation for executing a pre-emption decree extinguishes the decree-holder's title or prevents sanctioning of revenue mutation. Accepting the petition, the High Court held that under Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, title in the pre-empted property vests in the decree-holder upon timely deposit of the pre-emption money. The court declared that Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only to suits for possession, not execution applications. Consequently, non-execution within limitation does not deprive a validly deposited pre-emption decree of its utility or extinguish ownership rights, making the Revenue Officer's refusal illegal.
Questions settled- Does the title in pre-empted property vest in a decree-holder upon timely deposit of pre-emption money under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the expiry of the limitation period for executing a pre-emption decree extinguish the owner's title under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a Revenue Officer refuse to sanction a revenue mutation based on a pre-emption decree solely because the decree was not executed within the limitation period?
- Does the existence of an statutory appeal under the Land Revenue Act bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction if the remedy is not equally convenient or effective?
- ALLAH RAKHA AND 2 OTHERS vs ABDUL QADOOS AND Another1981 P Cr. L J 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIWAYA vs The STATE1981 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Allah Diwaya, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Khuda Bakhsh. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony on a dark night, the adequacy of identification through a lantern and a torch, and the sufficiency of corroboration from incriminating recoveries of blood-stained articles. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the presence of light sources (a lantern and a torch) and the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothing at the instance of the petitioner provided sufficient and reliable corroboration to sustain the conviction. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that ocular evidence corroborated by natural source identification and unblemished incriminating recoveries is sufficient to maintain a capital sentence.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony of related witnesses on a dark night can be relied upon when corroborated by light sources and incriminating recoveries?
- Can a previous statement of a court witness under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to corroborate the prosecution case?
- Whether recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothing at the instance of an accused constitutes sufficient corroboration in a murder case?
- ALLAH DITTA vs The STATE1981 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions were whether the trial court erred by failing to properly evaluate a plea of self-defence and whether the incident constituted a sudden fight rather than a premeditated offence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts had correctly appraised the evidence. The Court found no error of law or principle in the findings of the trial court, noting that the petitioner’s possession of a knife indicated prior preparation, which negated the claim of a sudden fight. The Court reaffirmed that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not strictly applicable in Pakistan, meaning that partial falsity in witness testimony does not automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that it will not re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal absent a clear error of law or principle.
Questions settled- Is the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus strictly applicable in criminal trials in Pakistan?
- Does the possession of a weapon by an accused prior to an occurrence negate a plea of sudden fight?
- Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal where no error of law is demonstrated?
- ALLAH DITTA vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM ETC.1981 P Cr. L J 803 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs AZIZ DIN1981 PLD Lahore 508 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose out of a pre-emption suit where the trial Court dismissed the suit for default of plaintiff's appearance under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Following an interlocutory appeal before the District Judge, the record had returned to the trial Court, which issued a 'notice pairvi' for the defendant and counsel to appear on 8th September 1973. On that date, plaintiff failed to appear and the suit was dismissed in default, with subsequent restoration applications and appeals being unsuccessful. The core question was whether a suit can be dismissed for default under Order IX on a date that was fixed merely for administrative purposes to determine future progress rather than for regular hearing. The Lahore High Court held that 'hearing' involves the investigation of a controversy. Since the date was fixed merely to pass administrative orders for scheduling future proceedings, the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the suit in default. The dismissal order was declared void ab initio and a nullity, and the suit was remanded for trial.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court has jurisdiction under Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to dismiss a suit in default on a date fixed solely for administrative steps or future progress rather than for hearing?
- What constitutes a 'hearing' of a suit for the purposes of invoking default dismissal provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is an order dismissing a suit for non-appearance on a date not fixed for hearing void ab initio and a nullity in law?
- ALLAH DAD vs The BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 5 Other1981 PLD Karachi 73 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the District Judge dismissing an application for the restoration of an appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance due to a mistaken date and the evidentiary value of an un-controverted affidavit. The Sindh High Court held that where an appellant supports an application for restoration with a statement on oath by way of affidavit, and the opposite party fails to file a counter-affidavit or demand cross-examination of the deponent, the statement stands unchallenged and must be accepted. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Order XVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, requiring ministerial officers to hand over signed slips specifying adjourned dates when the presiding officer is absent, finding that non-compliance constituted sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the matter remanded for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an affidavit sworn in support of an application for restoration loses its probative value if the opposite party fails to file a counter-affidavit or demand cross-examination?
- Does the failure of a ministerial officer to comply with the mandatory requirement of issuing a signed date slip under Order XVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute sufficient cause to set aside a dismissal for default?
- Can an un-controverted statement on oath regarding a bona fide mistake in noting a hearing date be rejected without being tested in cross-examination?
- ALLAH DAD vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH1981 CLC 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 46 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BANDA vs ALLAH BANDA AND 5 Other1981S C M R1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought to pre-empt a sale of land on the ground that it was comprised in his tenancy, claiming the first right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, as from Kharif 1972. The Collector decreed the suit, but the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) set it aside, and the Board of Revenue upheld the reversal in revision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, holding that the question of when the Kharif crop begins is a factual matter best determined by revenue authorities. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere in writ jurisdiction with a concurrent finding of fact regarding the commencement of the Kharif crop season. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that whether Kharif begins in February-March or in May is essentially a question of fact not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction, and the revenue authorities' view on the subject is to be accepted. The key principle laid down is that factual determinations by revenue authorities regarding agricultural crop seasons cannot be re-examined under constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the commencement of the Kharif crop season is a question of fact not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of revenue authorities regarding agricultural seasons under constitutional jurisdiction?
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE CHIEF1981 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion as Senior Clerk and Assistant. The core legal question involved whether a civil servant could challenge seniority and claim retrospective promotion dating back over two decades, bypassing distinct cadres and failing to challenge a junior's earlier promotion within the limitation period and statutory bar. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner could not be permitted to reagitate settled and stale controversies from decades prior, particularly where the junior colleague belonged to a different cadre and the promotion occurred before the crucial date barring the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that belated challenges to seniority and promotions of persons belonging to different cadres, long barred by limitation and statutory provisions, are unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can claim seniority and promotion over a colleague belonging to a different cadre?
- Can a belated challenge to a seniority list and promotion made years prior be entertained by a Service Tribunal?
- Does the Punjab Civil Service Tribunals Act 1974 bar jurisdiction over matters preceding the crucial date of 1-7-1969?
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1981 PLD Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1981 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning state land originally granted to respondent No. 2 under the Livestock Breeding Scheme (1960). The petitioner claimed to have been in cultivating possession of the land through a sub-lease from respondent No. 2. Upon the expiry of the grant's term, the petitioner sought a lease of the land from the Collector, which was initially granted but later set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, whose decision was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question is whether a sub-tenant put into possession by the original state grantee can claim an independent right to the land or challenge the grantee's position after the expiry of the grant, and whether discretionary relief can be extended to a party in pari delicto. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner entered possession as a tenant of respondent No. 2, had no independent right to the land, and being in pari delicto for violating the terms of the scheme, was not entitled to discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Whether a sub-tenant put into possession by a state land grantee can set up an adverse title or deny the landlord's title after the expiry of the grant?
- Can a party who knowingly participates in the breach of the terms of a government land grant invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the court?
- Does a sub-tenant possess an independent right to state land upon the expiry of the original grantee's term?
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs Mst. NOOR KHATOON AND Other1981 SCMR 1169- · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order allowing an application to bring legal representatives of the deceased appellant, Mst. Noor Khatoon, onto the record. The core legal dispute concerned the actual date of the deceased's death, which determined whether the appeal had abated under the law prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The petitioners contended the deceased died in 1971, while the respondents asserted 1973, relying on conflicting death certificates. The High Court, following an inquiry by the District Judge, Multan, concluded the death occurred on 14-2-1973, thereby avoiding abatement. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the lower courts had carefully weighed the evidence, including witness testimony and documentary proof. The Court affirmed that the finding of fact regarding the date of death was not vitiated by legal infirmity. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the law favors adjudication on merits rather than technicalities, dismissing the petition and allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the date of death of a party?
- Is a death certificate admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Does the law favor the adjudication of appeals on merits over technicalities regarding abatement?
- ALLAH BAK HSH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHANG AND 2 OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 868 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BACHAYO vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS, .1981 PLC 277 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BACHAYA AND Others vs Mst. HAFIZI BEGUM AND Other1981 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the revenue and judicial authorities, including the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' claim for a declaration of ownership over land based on an Adhalapi tenure agreement dated 6-3-1915. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established their entitlement to ownership of half the land through development under the said agreement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent factual findings regarding the lack of support from revenue records and the valid rejection of the agreement by the lower forums suffered from no legal or factual infirmity. The petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that factual determinations based on an appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent factual findings of lower forums regarding land ownership based on tenure agreements can be interfered with without showing misreading of evidence?
- Is an agreement unsupported by revenue records sufficient to claim ownership of land under Adhalapi tenure?
- All Ahmed for Appellant vs Mahmoad A. Ghani1981 PLC 1972 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
- ALIM UD DIN vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ ETC.S1981 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the High Court upholding the refusal to interfere with alleged disqualifications in the election of a respondent as a member of the Zila Council, Lahore, through constitutional proceedings, on the ground that a regular election petition covering the same points was already pending before another competent forum. The core legal question was whether the High Court is bound to entertain a petition for quo warranto filed by a taxpayer when an election petition involving the same subject matter is already pending. The Supreme Court held that it lies within the discretion of the High Court, depending on the facts and circumstances, whether to conduct an inquiry into a matter already sub judice before another competent forum, and the exercise of such discretion to avoid parallel proceedings and potential prejudice does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may decline to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in quo warranto proceedings if the same matter is already competently sub judice before an alternative forum.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is bound to entertain a petition for quo warranto when an election petition involving the same matter is already pending?
- Does the refusal of the High Court to interfere in election matters while a regular election petition is sub judice suffer from any legal infirmity?
- ALI SHAH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 296 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
- ALI SARDAR vs GUL MOEEN AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the first informant against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court directing the release of the respondent on bail pending his trial for offences under sections 302 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the respondent was entitled to bail despite previous rejections, particularly in light of a plea of alibi and supporting travel documents produced during investigation. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the view of the High Court that the accused was entitled to bail as there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt under the relevant criminal procedure. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person is entitled to bail when there are grounds for further inquiry into his guilt?
- Can a plea of alibi supported by travel documents warrant the grant of bail during pending trial for murder?
- Does the dismissal of a previous bail application bar the consideration of a subsequent bail plea when new circumstances or investigation findings emerge?
- ALI RAIDER vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted confession and the reliability of circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of a weapon and the subsequent forensic report. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the retracted confession uncorroborated and the recovery of the weapon suspicious, particularly noting the delay and procedural irregularities in sending the weapon and bullet to the Fire-arms Expert. The court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that while the law allows expert reports to be admitted as evidence without the expert's personal testimony, such reports, when unsupported by reasons, cannot satisfy the judicial conscience. The key principle laid down is that the court may refuse to rely on an expert's opinion if it is unsupported by reasoning, especially when the guilt of the accused turns entirely on that analysis.
Questions settled- Can a retracted confession be acted upon without corroboration from other circumstances of the case?
- Does the court have the discretion to disregard an expert report admitted under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it lacks supporting reasoning?
- Is the recovery of an incriminating weapon reliable when the investigating officer delays sending the weapon and the crime bullet to the expert?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs YAMIN AND Another1981 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case involving the alleged intentional crushing of the petitioner's son with a tractor. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted by the High Court in the absence of reasoning and proper justification under criminal law. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the High Court erred in granting pre-arrest bail as the allegations in the first information report and the medical evidence revealed no justification for such relief, nor was there any showing of arrest apprehended on account of ulterior motives. The appeal was accepted, the pre-arrest bail was cancelled, and it was clarified that the competent court may consider post-arrest bail after the respondent is arrested in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is not the rule in criminal cases and requires a clear demonstration of apprehension of arrest due to ulterior motives.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without showing an apprehension of arrest on account of ulterior motives?
- Is the High Court required to provide reasons when confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Does the use of a tractor to hit a person from behind justify the grant of pre-arrest bail in a murder case?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT1981 PLC 113 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs MESSRS KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., KARACHI1981 PLC 319 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD SHEIKH AND 2 OTHERS vs CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER1981 PLC 910 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD KHAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) vs RIAZUDDIN KHERA/1981 PLD Karachi 170 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property. The appellant, a P.T.O. holder, contested the agreement, alleging it was a loan transaction and that the contract lacked mutuality as it was not signed by both parties. The core legal questions concerned the validity of unsigned agreements, whether such agreements violate public policy regarding property alienation, and the court's discretion in granting specific performance amidst claims of inadequate consideration. The High Court held that the agreement was valid, noting that oral agreements are enforceable and that signing by both parties is not a strict requirement. The court further held that an agreement to sell property contingent on future rights does not violate public policy or create an immediate interest in the property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Finally, the court affirmed that specific performance is discretionary, but inadequacy of consideration must be assessed at the time of the contract, not based on subsequent market appreciation. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a written contract for the sale of immovable property invalid if it is not signed by both parties?
- Does an agreement to sell property by a P.T.O. holder violate public policy or statutory restrictions on alienation?
- Should the adequacy of consideration for specific performance be determined at the time of the contract or based on subsequent market appreciation?
- Does an agreement to sell immovable property create an interest in the property itself under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 470 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-31Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
- ALI HAIDER vs The STATE1981 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had previously rejected the appellant's application for bail pending appeal under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant had been convicted for offences under Section 307, Section 148, and Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether, given the state of the evidence presented at trial, the appellant was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Supreme Court observed that one prosecution witness testified to the appellant's absence from the crime scene, while the other two witnesses, though placing him at the scene, attributed no specific role to him. Finding merit in the contention that the appeal was likely to succeed, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and granted bail to the appellant, establishing the principle that where evidence against a convict is prima facie weak or contradictory, suspension of sentence pending appeal is appropriate.
Questions settled- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence appears weak?
- Is the absence of a specific role attributed to an accused by prosecution witnesses a valid ground for granting bail pending appeal?
- ALI HAIDER SHAH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1981 CLC 359 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-10Read full judgment →
- ALI HADI ADNEY AND Another vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE `D' AND Other1981 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, government employees, challenged their dismissal from service and subsequent trial by a Summary Military Court following allegations of financial misappropriation. The Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'D', had constituted a Board of Enquiry under Martial Law Order No. 17 to investigate these allegations. The High Court found that the Board of Enquiry was constituted without lawful authority, as it lacked the requisite qualifications and was foreign to the provisions of Martial Law Order No. 17. Despite this finding of jurisdictional defect and oppressive conduct, the High Court upheld the dismissals and the subsequent order for trial by a Summary Military Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in upholding the dismissals after concluding that the Board of Enquiry's proceedings were illegal and void. The Court ruled that the dismissals could not be sustained based on such flawed proceedings. However, the Court affirmed that the petitioners remained liable for trial for criminal offences under the general laws of Pakistan, rendering the specific challenge to the Military Court trial moot.
Questions settled- Can a dismissal from service be upheld if the underlying Board of Enquiry was constituted without lawful authority?
- Does a finding of jurisdictional defect in an administrative enquiry invalidate the subsequent dismissal order based on that enquiry?
- Does the dismissal or removal of a public servant under Martial Law Order No. 17 absolve them from liability for criminal offences committed while in service?
- ALI GOHAR vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR1981 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the grounds of default in rent payment. The respondent had applied for ejectment, alleging default in rent and a bona fide personal requirement for her husband. The petitioner contested the application by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming instead to hold the property on behalf of the respondent's husband, and asserted that rent had been deposited in court. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, but the Additional District Judge and subsequently the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the petitioner admitted to never paying rent to the respondent and was a defaulter. The Supreme Court considered whether the denial of the relationship was qualified and whether a remand was necessary to determine the default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's unconditional denial of the landlord-tenant relationship and admission of non-payment justified the ejectment, rendering a remand futile. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an unconditional denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the occupant precludes the defense of non-default in rent?
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to remand the case when the tenant admitted to never paying rent to the landlady?
- Does depositing rent for a subsequent period cure the default established for the earlier period?
- ALI GOHAR vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, LAHORE AND OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 649 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- ALI ASGHAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS vs PEHLWAN SHAH AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR vs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, KARACHI1981 P LC 346 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1981 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption decree could be granted for only a portion of the disputed land when the remainder was exempt from pre-emption due to the presence of shops. The petitioner argued that the land constituted an indivisible unit and that allowing partial pre-emption violated established legal principles. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the land was effectively bifurcated into distinct parcels. The Court clarified that the doctrine of partial pre-emption is inapplicable where a pre-emptor seeks the entire property, but the court finds only a portion is legally pre-emptible. The key principle laid down is that the exemption under Section 5 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 applies strictly to the specific area where qualifying structures exist, not the entire tract. Furthermore, the mere presence of a boundary wall does not render land exempt from pre-emption, and a decree for the non-exempt portion remains legally permissible.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a boundary wall on land automatically qualify it for exemption from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Can a court grant a pre-emption decree for only a portion of the land when the remainder is exempt from pre-emption due to the presence of shops?
- Does the doctrine of partial pre-emption bar a claim when the pre-emptor seeks the whole property but only a part is legally pre-emptible?
- ALHASSAN SILK MILLS LTD. vs THS PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT1981 PLD Supreme Court 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the termination of services of workmen by the appellant, a private limited company employing fewer than 50 workers, for alleged "go slow tactics." The central legal question was whether the procedural protections of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, apply to establishments with fewer than 50 workers, despite the exclusion provided in the second proviso to section 1(4) of the same Ordinance. The High Court had previously held that Standing Order 12(5) necessitated reconciling the termination process with Standing Order 15. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that the second proviso to section 1(4) clearly excludes the applicability of Standing Order 15 to such establishments. The Court ruled that Standing Order 12(5) cannot be interpreted to override the specific legislative intent expressed in the second proviso to section 1(4). Consequently, the termination of the respondents' services under Standing Order 12(1) was upheld as valid, affirming that termination for misconduct in small establishments is not a justiciable issue under the Standing Orders.
Questions settled- Does Standing Order 12(5) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 apply to establishments employing fewer than 50 workers?
- Can the procedure prescribed in Standing Order 15 be enforced in establishments with fewer than 50 workers despite the second proviso to section 1(4) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance 1968?
- Is the termination of a workman for misconduct in an establishment employing fewer than 50 workers a justiciable issue under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance 1968?
- ALAMGIR AND 8 OTHERS vs NASIR ALI AND 8 OTHERS1981 CLC 375 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
- Al3DUL SATTAR vs MUHAMMAD KHAN ETC.1981 CLC 791 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-04Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR IQBAL vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1981 CLC 916 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA AND 3 OTHERS , .1981 PLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs AHANGOO KHAN ETC.1981 CLC 971 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI SHEIKH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 937 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-05Read full judgment →
- AKHLAQ HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHIAND 2 OTHERS, .1981 PLC 351 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
- AKHLAQ AHMAD vs MESSRS INVESTMENT AND MARKETING PERIODICAL, KARACHI ,1981 PLC 339 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-05Read full judgment →
- AKBAR vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
- AKBAR vs ANWER ALI1981 CLC 754 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
- AKBAR AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 850 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs ZOAIB ALI AND 5 OTHERS1981 CLC 592 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI KHAN vs SAHIB NOOR AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 710 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- AJMER TRADING Co., KARACHI vs FILM EXHIBITORS LTD1981 CLC 583 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- AJAB KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1981 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the conviction of the appellants for smuggling foreign cloth under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions were whether the police possessed the authority to investigate offences under the Customs Act and whether a challan submitted by a Superintendent of Police constituted a valid complaint under section 185-A(6) of the Customs Act, 1969, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Special Judge. The Supreme Court held that the police are empowered to investigate such offences, noting that statutory amendments and relevant notifications authorized officers in charge of police stations to initiate proceedings. The Court further determined that the challan submitted by the police was legally sufficient to initiate cognizance. However, considering that the Customs Collector had previously ordered the return of the seized goods upon payment of a fine, effectively vitiating the underlying proceedings, the Court accepted the appeal in part. It upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and remitted the fines imposed on the appellants, who were identified as mere carriers.
Questions settled- Do the police have the power to investigate offences under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can a challan submitted by a Superintendent of Police be construed as a valid complaint under section 185-A(6) of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the improper conduct of an investigation oust the jurisdiction of a Special Judge to try an accused under the Customs Act, 1969?
- AJAB KHAN AND ANOTHER vs INAYATULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 54 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ ALI vs THE STATEP.L.D. 1981 Karachi 484 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ ALI MANGI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 4 OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 630 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-06-26Read full judgment →
- AI-Haj H. I. SHEIKH vs MAHMOOD A. HAROON, FEDERAL MINISTER, RELIGIOUS1981 PLD Supreme Court 334 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-01-16Read full judgment →
- AHSAN ILAHI vs MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD.1981SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the High Court of Sind, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order XVIII, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to recall a witness for cross-examination. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to recall the witness for further cross-examination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner had no right to recall the witness for cross-examination. However, in the interest of justice and with the consent of both parties, the Court facilitated an arrangement allowing the petitioner to examine the witness as his own defense witness via commission on interrogatories, provided the petitioner bore the costs. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural efficiency, noting that the trial court should record evidence on a day-to-day basis as mandated by the proviso to Order XVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Adjournments during the recording of evidence should be treated as an exception rather than a rule, requiring recorded reasons to prevent the piecemeal recording of evidence.
Questions settled- Does a party have an absolute right to recall a witness for cross-examination under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a trial court required to record evidence on a day-to-day basis under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances should adjournments be granted during the recording of evidence in a civil suit?
- AHMED ZAMAN KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN ETC.1981 CLC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs Haji ZAFAR AHMAD1981 CLC 1685 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- AHMED SAEED vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1981 CLC 254 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
- AHMADULLAH vs Mst. HAFEEZ AKHTAR1981 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-21Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1981 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought revision of an appellate court judgment that had decreed pre-emption suits against them. The petitioners had purchased land and, prior to the institution of the pre-emption suit, acquired one kanal of land via a registered gift deed from their brother-in-law to improve their status and defeat the pre-emptor. The appellate court had set aside the trial court's dismissal of the suits, holding the gift was actually a sale due to non-delivery of possession. The High Court first converted the regular second appeal into a revision petition under Section 102(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the suit value was below the statutory threshold. On the merits, the High Court held that a stranger to a gift transaction lacks locus standi to challenge its validity on the ground of non-delivery of possession when the donor supports the gift. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between a disguise and a device, ruling that adopting a legitimate legal device to defeat a pre-emptor's right is permissible. The revision petitions were accepted, and the trial court's dismissal was restored.
Questions settled- Can a stranger to a gift transaction challenge its validity on the ground of non-delivery of possession when the donor supports the gift?
- What is the legal distinction between a disguise and a device used to defeat a pre-emptor's right?
- Is a second appeal competent under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the jurisdictional value of the suit property is below the statutory threshold?
- Can a vendee legitimately improve their status to defeat a pre-emptor's right prior to the institution of a pre-emption suit?
- AHMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs Mst. FATEH ETC.1981 CLC 43 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for possession of ancestral land, originally filed by the appellants challenging a gift made by a widow, Mst. Bakhan, to her daughters. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court dismissed it, ruling the claim time-barred under the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920. The core legal question is whether the suit, filed for possession without seeking a prior declaration, was governed by the general law of limitation following the repeal of the Punjab Act I of 1920, and whether the alienation by the widow was void or voidable. The Court held that while the general law of limitation applies after the repeal of the Punjab Act I of 1920, the alienation by the widow was voidable, not void. Consequently, the appellant was required to seek a declaration of rights within the statutory period. Having failed to do so, the suit for possession was time-barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The principle established is that a suit for possession involving a voidable alienation requires a prior declaratory suit to remove the cloud on the title.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act 1920 render the general law of limitation applicable to pending suits?
- Is an alienation of ancestral property by a widow under custom void or voidable?
- Can a plaintiff sue for possession of property without first seeking a declaration to set aside a voidable alienation?
- Does the law of limitation in force at the time of the institution of a suit govern the proceedings?
- AHMAD SALEEM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 597 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTION AUTHORITY AND Other1981 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the election for a special peasant seat in the District Council, Mianwali. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority, which, after finding the successful candidate ineligible due to defective nomination papers, ordered fresh elections instead of declaring the petitioner (the runner-up with a minority of votes) elected. The petitioner's challenge was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, held that the election was held subject to the final orders of the Election Authority and fell within its regulatory powers. The Court ruled that the Authority's power to order fresh elections was not whittled down by its interim regulatory order allowing the election to proceed. Furthermore, the Court established that, in the absence of an express statutory provision to the contrary, the Election Authority possesses the inherent power to order fresh elections to ensure fairness and sustain the representative character of local government institutions.
Questions settled- Does the Election Authority have the power to order fresh elections after declaring a successful candidate ineligible, rather than declaring the runner-up elected?
- Does an interim regulatory order allowing an election to proceed subject to a final decision whittle down the final powers of the Election Authority?
- Can the Election Authority order fresh elections to ensure fairness and sustain the representative character of an institution in the absence of an express statutory provision?
- AHMAD KHAN AND Others vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1981 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' revision petition. The petition was filed with a delay of 361 days. The petitioners contended that they were unaware of the High Court's hearing date because no formal notice was issued by the office, and they only became aware of the dismissal when trial court proceedings resumed. The Supreme Court examined the explanation for the delay and found it unsatisfactory. The Court held that litigants are under a duty to vigilantly monitor the cause list, and the failure to do so does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Furthermore, even after obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment, the petitioners delayed filing the appeal for an additional two months without justification. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, affirming the principle that a party's failure to exercise due diligence in tracking court proceedings does not excuse significant delays in filing appeals.
Questions settled- Is the failure of a party to monitor the cause list a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Does the absence of a formal notice from the court office regarding a hearing date excuse a significant delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained when there is an unexplained delay of several months following the receipt of the impugned judgment?
- AHMAD KHAN AND Others vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND Other1981 SCMR 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by a Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, regarding a land consolidation scheme. The core legal questions were whether the Collector acted without competence in approving consolidation proposals that had been previously rejected, and whether the High Court properly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in refusing to interfere with the Board of Revenue's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Collector's earlier order of rejection was merely an interim order, not a final adjudication, and thus the subsequent approval was valid. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that grievances regarding the specific location of allotted land, where entitlement is otherwise met, do not justify the cancellation of an entire village consolidation scheme. The key principle laid down is that an interim order rejecting a proposal does not preclude a competent authority from subsequently approving that proposal upon reconsideration, provided the process remains within the scope of the remand and statutory requirements.
Questions settled- Can a Collector approve a consolidation proposal that was previously rejected in an interim order?
- Does a grievance regarding the specific location of allotted land justify the cancellation of an entire village consolidation scheme?
- Is an order rejecting a consolidation proposal an interim order or a final order?
- AHMAD HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND Other1981 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a Letters Patent Appeal and upheld an order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The core dispute involved the joint transfer of two shops to the appellant and his deceased brother, both claimant displaced persons, and whether the Settlement Commissioner could reopen the transfer after it had allegedly assumed finality, as well as the validity of resolving the dispute by drawing lots upon the parties' agreement. The Supreme Court held that the initial joint transfer by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was made beyond the letter of the law and was a nullity, and therefore the Settlement Commissioner was legally entitled to reopen the matter. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant was bound by the compromise and agreement to draw lots, raising an estoppel inter partes. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a joint transfer of properties made in violation of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act can be regarded as a final order immune from being reopened?
- Does a judgment or order rendered by consent or agreement between parties raise an estoppel inter partes?
- Can a party who invokes the jurisdiction of an authority for a favorable outcome subsequently challenge that same jurisdiction when the result is unfavorable?
- AHMAD DIN vs GHULAM SIDDIQUE1981 SCMR 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of property, which was decreed in favor of the respondent by the Civil Judge, with subsequent appeals dismissed by the District Judge and the High Court. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that the property in dispute was a 'shop' rather than 'land,' thereby precluding a suit for pre-emption. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the respondent's suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the classification of the property as 'land' or 'shop' was a question of fact upon which three lower courts had reached concurrent findings, and no misreading of evidence was demonstrated to warrant interference. Regarding the plea of limitation, the Court held that since this issue was not raised in any of the lower courts and would require the introduction of new evidence to resolve factual aspects, it could not be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it requires the examination of new factual evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a demonstrated misreading of evidence?