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.
- AHMAD DIN AND Another vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM HADI1981 SCMR 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Jhelum, ordering the eviction of the petitioners from a rented shop. The landlord sought possession of the premises, claiming a bona fide personal requirement to operate a Homoeopathic clinic with his unemployed son. The petitioners contended that the premises consisted of two independent shops rather than a single unit, thereby challenging the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement. The Supreme Court observed that this plea regarding the nature of the premises was not raised before the Rent Controller but introduced during the appellate stage. Upon reviewing the evidence, the lower courts concurrently found that the premises constituted a single unit divided into two portions, sharing a common roof and staircase. The Supreme Court held that as the lower courts reached concurrent findings of fact based on cogent evidence, there was no ground for interference. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed in limine, affirming the landlord's genuine requirement for the premises.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding the nature of rented premises?
- Is a plea regarding the physical nature of rented premises maintainable if raised for the first time in appellate proceedings?
- Does a landlord's requirement for premises to establish a business with an unemployed son constitute a bona fide need for eviction purposes?
- AHMAD AND 3 Other vs VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Supreme Court 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the disciplinary expulsion of students by the University of Engineering and Technology following their involvement in a violent clash. The core legal questions were whether disciplinary proceedings in educational institutions require the formal procedures of a criminal trial, such as the framing of charges, the presence of witnesses, and the right to cross-examination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that educational institutions are not criminal courts and are not bound by formal procedural formalities. The Court reaffirmed the principle that while institutions must observe the minimum requirements of natural justice—specifically, informing the student of the allegations and providing a reasonable opportunity to explain or controvert them—they are not required to serve formal charge sheets, examine witnesses in the student's presence, or allow cross-examination. The Court emphasized that institutional authorities possess parental jurisdiction to maintain discipline, provided they act in good faith and adhere to these minimum standards of fairness.
Questions settled- Are educational institutions required to follow formal criminal trial procedures, such as framing charges and allowing cross-examination, when taking disciplinary action against students?
- What are the minimum requirements of natural justice that must be observed by educational institutions during disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the failure to serve a formal charge sheet invalidate disciplinary action taken by an educational institution against a student?
- Can a court interfere with the disciplinary action of an educational institution solely on the ground of impropriety?
- AHMAD ALI vs The STATE1981 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail in a case under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code was rejected. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence and the applicability of vicarious liability. The Supreme Court held that the discretionary order passed by the High Court refusing bail did not violate any provision or principle of law governing such cases, as the circumstances of the FIR and the weight of the prosecution case showed the deceased and his unarmed sons were met with violence when lodging a protest. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a discretionary refusal of bail by the High Court where the order is supported by the weight of the prosecution case and violates no governing legal principle.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code when medical evidence allegedly contradicts the initial FIR?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court refusing bail if no governing principle of law has been violated?
- Agha SHAFQAT HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE AND OTHERS---1981 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ADLOO AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
- ADIL NAVEED vs NAZIR AHMAD KHAN Etc.S1981 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal that was barred by 67 days. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause had been shown to condone the delay in filing the petition, specifically regarding the explanation for the time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the High Court's order and the alleged detention of the petitioner's agent. The Supreme Court held that the application for condonation of delay failed to explain each day of the limitation period as required by law, and further noted that the petitioner's agent was actively pursuing his own legal proceedings during the relevant period, demonstrating no physical or other inability to collect the copy. The petition was accordingly dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that an applicant seeking condonation of delay must provide a sufficient cause explaining each day of the delay, and general assertions of inability are insufficient when record evidence demonstrates active engagement in other legal proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an application for condonation of delay require an explanation for each day of the limitation period?
- Can detention under Martial Law of an agent serve as sufficient cause for condonation of delay when records show active pursuit of separate litigation during the same period?
- ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs R. B. INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 923 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- ABUL KALAM vs BASHIR AHAMD RANA AND Another1981 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- ABOO AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 185 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-24Read full judgment →
- ABID RASHID vs ABDUL SHAMINI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 550 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from an ex parte decree passed against the applicant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The trial court had proceeded ex parte based on a bailiff's report alleging refusal of service under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The applicant challenged the decree, asserting he was not duly served and that the trial court failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The core legal question was whether the ex parte decree was sustainable given the failure to follow the mandatory procedure for substituted service and whether the application to set aside the decree was time-barred. The Court held that the ex parte decree must be set aside because the serving officer failed to file an affidavit and the court failed to examine him on oath, as mandated by Order V, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court clarified that limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree runs from the date of knowledge, not the date of execution.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a court to examine the serving officer on oath or require an affidavit regarding the refusal of service invalidate an ex parte decree?
- Does the limitation period for an application to set aside an ex parte decree commence from the date of the decree's execution or the date of the defendant's knowledge?
- Is strict compliance with Order V, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory for valid service of summons?
- ABID HUSSAIN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS ,1981 PLC 955 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SAMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 622 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1105(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of the appellant, a Patwari, under Section 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for making a false entry in the village Rozenamcha regarding a fraudulent land transaction involving an imposter. The core legal question was whether there was any evidence to support the finding that the appellant knew the person appearing before him was an imposter, rather than relying in good faith on the identification by the local Lambardar. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts substituted evidence with mere conjecture and that there was a total lack of evidence showing the appellant had knowledge of the impersonation. The Court established the principle that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained on assumptions and conjecture in the absence of tangible evidence establishing the requisite mens rea or knowledge on the part of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of conjecture regarding the accused's knowledge?
- Whether a public servant relying on the identification of a local Lambardar for a routine entry can be convicted without proof of guilty knowledge?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts when those findings are based on no evidence?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a writ petition filed by a husband challenging a decree of dissolution of marriage granted on the ground of khula by the Family Court. The husband contended that no proper ground for khula was established and that the Family Court failed to order the return of benefits received by the wife. The Lahore High Court held that a wife is entitled to khula as a right if she satisfies the conscience of the court that a hateful union would otherwise be forced upon her, and she is not required to prove objective or reasonable causes for her aversion. Regarding the return of benefits, the court ruled that it is the duty of the court to ascertain from the evidence what benefits were conferred by the husband in consideration of the marriage, but since the husband failed to plead or prove specific benefits conferred by him, and the wife relinquished her claim for maintenance and dower, the decree of the Family Court was legally sound. The petition was consequently dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula is required to establish objective reasons or reasonable cause for her aversion?
- Is it mandatory for the Family Court to ascertain and order the return of benefits received by the wife in consideration of marriage when granting khula?
- Can a husband demand more than the return of dower in a case of separation by khula?
- What constitutes sufficient compensation to the husband when a decree for khula is granted?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs Sh. ABDUR RASHID1981 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE, SARGODHA, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 854 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for causing grievous injuries resulting in death. The core legal question was whether the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses, riddled with material discrepancies and contradictions regarding the weapons used and the presence of witnesses, could sustain a conviction, and whether the recovery of non-blood-stained weapons, unsupported by independent witnesses, provided sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the unreliability of the eye-witnesses, whose accounts contradicted the FIR and each other, and the lack of credible corroborative evidence. The judgment reaffirms that where eye-witnesses are closely related and their testimony contains significant inconsistencies regarding material facts, such as the weapons carried by the accused, their evidence requires independent corroboration. Furthermore, the testimony of an investigating officer regarding recoveries cannot be implicitly relied upon when independent recovery witnesses have turned hostile and the recovered items lack incriminating features like blood stains.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses when their accounts contain material discrepancies regarding the weapons used?
- Does the recovery of weapons that are not blood-stained, when supported only by the investigating officer and not by independent witnesses, constitute sufficient corroborative evidence?
- Is the testimony of an investigating officer regarding the recovery of weapons sufficient to sustain a conviction when independent recovery witnesses have turned hostile?
- ABDUR RAZZAQ vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY, SAHIWAL AND 3Other1981 SCMR 1064 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the ejectment of the petitioner from agricultural land. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's possession as a tenant under a Co-operative Farming Society was lawful and protected, despite the petitioner not being a member of the Society and the allotment lacking mandatory approval and being tainted by fraud. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact regarding fraudulent entry and lack of eligibility as a non-member were unexceptionable and warranted no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that unauthorized occupants acquiring land through manipulation cannot claim protection under tenancy laws.
Questions settled- Whether an individual who is not a member of a Co-operative Farming Society is eligible to receive a valid land allotment for cultivation?
- Can an occupant who enters land through fraud and manipulation claim protection against ejectment under tenancy laws?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fraudulent land occupation?
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs ABDUR RASHID Alias ARSHAD AND ANOTHER1981 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID ETC vs GHULAM DASTGIR.1981 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an ejectment order against tenants of a residential building in Faisalabad. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of rent default, personal need, and reconstruction. The Rent Controller initially rejected the petition, but the First Appellate Authority reversed this, finding the grounds for reconstruction proved. The High Court maintained the eviction, holding that the landlord's need for reconstruction was established by the availability of sanctioned plans, despite the failure of the personal need claim. The core legal question was whether the grounds of personal need and reconstruction are mutually destructive, and whether the failure of one invalidates the other. The Supreme Court held that the grounds are not mutually destructive. It affirmed that reconstruction is an independent ground, evaluated based on the property's condition, economic utility, and the landlord's resources. The Court concluded that the landlord's bona fide intent for reconstruction was satisfied, and the failure of the personal need claim did not negate the validity of the reconstruction ground.
Questions settled- Are the grounds of personal need and reconstruction for eviction mutually destructive?
- What factors determine the bona fide nature of a landlord's request for reconstruction?
- Does the failure of a landlord to prove personal need invalidate a separate, proven ground for reconstruction?
- ABDUR RAHMAN vs GHULAM FARID1981 PLD Lahore 348 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM AND 14 Others vs THE STATE AND Another1981 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a High Court judgment that set aside the acquittal of fifteen accused persons and ordered their retrial for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted correctly in setting aside an acquittal where the Public Prosecutor had abandoned key eye-witnesses—including injured parties—on the pretext that they had been 'won over,' without verifying the truth of that assertion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision to order a retrial. The Court held that while a Public Prosecutor has the discretion to select witnesses, this power must be exercised with care and responsibility. The Court is not a 'silent spectator' to a potential miscarriage of justice. Where there is evidence of foul play or collusion in the abandonment of witnesses, the trial court possesses the inherent power and duty to intervene, verify the status of those witnesses, and ensure that the prosecution of a serious case is not stifled by reckless or collusive conduct.
Questions settled- Can a High Court set aside an acquittal and order a retrial when the Public Prosecutor has recklessly abandoned key witnesses?
- Does a trial court have the inherent power to intervene when it suspects that the Public Prosecutor is colluding to stifle a prosecution?
- Is a Public Prosecutor's claim that witnesses have been 'won over' sufficient to justify their abandonment without judicial verification?
- ABDULLAH vs KHATIJA USMAN1981 CLC 1732 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-10Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs FAQIRULLAH ETC.S1981 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH AND 8 Other vs BASHIRAN BIBI AND 4 Other1981 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of agricultural land filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The vendor defendant had sold the disputed land to the appellants, who claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the decision. Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because the plaintiff had previously instituted another suit on the same cause of action which was withdrawn without court permission. They also challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding their status as bona fide purchasers. The High Court held that Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies only to suits instituted after the withdrawal or abandonment of a previous suit, and does not bar a suit instituted prior to such withdrawal. Further, as the concurrent finding of fact regarding bona fide purchase was not shown to suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Questions settled- Does Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a second suit if it was instituted before the previously filed suit was withdrawn without court permission?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact on whether a party is a bona fide purchaser for value be disturbed in a second appeal without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- ABDUL WAJID vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WADOOD vs FAZAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI , .1981 PLC 785 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKUR AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs The STATE1981 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a store official convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding and accepting a bribe. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner refused to issue delivery vouchers for cement shipments until paid a bribe. During a raid supervised by a Magistrate, the petitioner accepted marked currency notes and delivery vouchers, then passed the money to a co-accused upon noticing the police. While co-accused were acquitted due to lack of independent evidence or direct involvement, the trial court and High Court convicted the petitioner based on the reliable testimony of the Magistrate and the recovery of delivery vouchers from his person. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the High Court correctly relied on independent magistrate testimony and that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of explaining his possession of the delivery vouchers and tainted money. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused can be convicted on evidence that was disbelieved regarding co-accused if independent corroborative evidence exists?
- Does the recovery of delivery vouchers and tainted money during a supervised trap operation shift the burden of explanation onto the accused under corruption law?
- Can a conviction under anti-corruption laws be sustained based primarily on the credible testimony of a supervising Magistrate?
- ABDUL SHAHID AND Another vs Sh. AZIM BAKHSHP LD 1981 Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, tenants facing eviction from a shop, challenged their eviction order unsuccessfully before the Rent Controller and the District Court. They then filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court, obtaining an interim stay order. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared, leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution. The appellants filed an application under section 151 read with Order XLI, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration, offering an excuse for the counsel's absence due to his clerk's failure to check the cause list, but providing no explanation for the appellants' own absence. The High Court dismissed the restoration application. Upon further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court held that the appellants failed to show that the High Court exercised its discretion illegally or unreasonably, especially given the history of default and lack of vigilance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution can succeed when neither the appellant nor the counsel provides a sufficient explanation for their absence?
- Does a litigant invariably escape the consequences of their counsel's negligence in attending court proceedings?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court declining to restore a dismissed appeal?
- ABDUL SATTAR vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER & II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1981 PLD Karachi 413 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs MSSERS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS1981 PLC 721 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for murder and theft, originally upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case, resting solely on the identification of the appellants by strangers, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, especially given that the recovery evidence was rejected by both lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were unsafe. The Court emphasized that evidence of identification of strangers must be scrutinized with extreme caution. It observed that significant discrepancies in the witnesses' descriptions—specifically regarding the assailants' height and age (describing them as "young boys" versus the appellants' actual ages and heights)—could not be dismissed as immaterial. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the real culprits likely escaped. The key principle laid down is that where identification evidence is riddled with material discrepancies and contradictions, particularly concerning physical characteristics, it cannot form the basis of a safe conviction, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Questions settled- Is the evidence of identification of strangers by prosecution witnesses sufficient for conviction when there are material discrepancies in the description of the assailants?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery evidence is rejected and the ocular evidence is found to be unreliable?
- Does the description of accused persons as 'young boys' in earlier statements create a reasonable doubt when the accused are adults?
- Should courts ignore discrepancies in the description of the assailants' height and age on the ground that witnesses are educated or disinterested?
- ABDUL SALAM vs THE STATE-Responder1981 P Cr. L J 243 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HYDERABAD AND 2 Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against the recovery of a co-operative bank loan. The appellant's brother had raised loans in the names of fifteen persons, including the appellant, by way of overdraft. The core legal question was whether the appellant had been lawfully exonerated of his liabilities under various orders passed by the authorities or Martial Law Orders, and whether the authorities, having proceeded against the appellant's brother as a beneficiary, were precluded from seeking recovery from the appellant. The Supreme Court held that both the nominal borrower and the real beneficiary fall within the definition of a 'borrower' under the relevant statutes and that accepting an offer of payment from the beneficiary did not operate to exonerate the nominal borrower. The court laid down the principle that recovery proceedings can be pursued against a nominal borrower notwithstanding prior attempts to recover the debt from the actual beneficiary of a benami loan.
Questions settled- Whether a nominal borrower in a benami loan transaction can be exonerated from liability solely because recovery proceedings were initiated against the actual beneficiary?
- Does the definition of borrower under the West Pakistan Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance 1966 include both the person in whose name the loan is advanced and the real beneficiary?
- Can authorities proceed to recover a loan from the nominal borrower after attempting recovery from the surety or beneficiary?
- ABDUL SAEED KHAN vs Mst. SAEEDA KHANUM1981 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAEED KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MESSRE MERCANTILE INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI, . (1981 PLC 649 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs KAREEM BAKHSH1981 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN BAJWA vs SULTAN AND 9 Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a criminal case where a Magistrate acquitted the accused, but an Additional Sessions Judge, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial, directing that the police case and a cross-complaint be tried together. The High Court subsequently set aside the remand order via a writ petition. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere with a revisional order, and whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in ordering a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited constitutional jurisdiction by reappraising evidence as if hearing an appeal. The Court affirmed that a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction cannot be corrected under Article 199 merely for an incorrect decision. Furthermore, the Court held that revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure are broader than writ jurisdiction, encompassing the review of correctness and propriety. The key principle laid down is that cross-cases concerning the same incident should ideally be tried by the same court to prevent conflicting judgments.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with a decision of a subordinate court merely because the decision is incorrect?
- Are the powers of a Sessions Judge in revision under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 wider than the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Should cross-cases arising from the same incident be tried by the same court?
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs NOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which upheld the eviction of the petitioner from a shop located in Faisalabad. The respondents, as landlords, had initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, citing default in rent payment and personal requirement of the premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on personal need, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge on appeal and the High Court in a second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlords' personal need for the property were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any omission, misreading of evidence, or violation of applicable legal principles by the lower courts. The Court affirmed that where concurrent findings of fact are established and no legal error is shown, the matter is not fit for the grant of special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in rent cases where no misreading of evidence is shown?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to point out any legal error or misreading of evidence by the lower courts?
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, COLONIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE1981 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal. The core legal question concerned whether an adjournment request, based solely on the inability of newly engaged counsel to appear, constitutes sufficient cause to prevent the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. The Court held that the reason provided was insufficient, noting that the Advocate-on-Record had a duty to ensure counsel was engaged and prepared in a timely manner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and recalled the interim order regarding the maintenance of status quo that had been issued previously. The principle laid down is that an adjournment request based on the unavailability of newly engaged counsel, without demonstrating sufficient cause or diligence by the Advocate-on-Record in preparing the case, does not justify delaying proceedings, and such failure to proceed warrants the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Does the inability of newly engaged counsel to appear constitute sufficient cause for an adjournment?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when an adjournment request is denied?
- What is the consequence of failing to provide sufficient cause for an adjournment request in the Supreme Court?
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs Mst. FATIMA BAI1981 CLC 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges an ejectment order passed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerns whether the service of the statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, was legally established when the tenant denied receiving the notice and disputed the signature on the acknowledgment receipt. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in law by relying on a subjective comparison of signatures and statutory presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, without proper evidentiary appraisal. The ratio decidendi is that where a tenant denies the service of notice and the authenticity of the signature, the presumption of service is rebutted, requiring the landlord to prove service through other means, such as examining the postman. The court laid down the principle that it is unsatisfactory and dangerous for a judge to decide the genuineness of a signature solely by personal comparison without expert advice or proper procedure, especially in cases of conflicting testimony.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's denial of the receipt of a statutory notice and the signature on the acknowledgment receipt rebut the presumption of service under the Evidence Act, 1872?
- Is it legally permissible for a court to determine the genuineness of a signature solely by personal comparison without expert advice or proper procedure?
- Can a court rely on the presumption of service under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, when the party has explicitly denied the service of notice?
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs MESSRS NATIONAL SHIPPING AGENCY LTD., KARACHI , . (1981 PLC 549 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 829 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAK Alias VIKIO AND 2 OTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1981 P Cr. L J 866 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1131 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID, ETC. vs Mst. MAJIDAN1981 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by tenants against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had restored the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenants' defence and directing their eviction for non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether tenants are justified in failing to comply with a tentative rent fixation order under rent restriction laws, and whether an interim order fixing tentative rent is appealable. The Supreme Court held that tentative rent orders are interim in nature, cannot be made the subject matter of independent first or second appeals, and do not justify non-compliance by tenants during the proceedings. The court laid down the principle that failure to comply with a lawful tentative rent order warrants the striking off of the tenant's defence and subsequent eviction, and that interim orders of tentative rent fixation are not independently appealable.
Questions settled- Whether an interim order fixing tentative rent is subject to independent first or second appeal?
- Does failure to comply with a tentative rent order justify striking off the defence of the tenants?
- Can tenants refuse to deposit tentative rent on the ground that the rate fixed is excessive?
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD, .(1981 PLC (C. S.) 828 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs KARACHI ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , . (1981 PLC 915 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID KHAN vs THE STATE----Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL/DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,1981 CLC 1047 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHEED vs MESSRS COFCOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. , .1981 PLC 547 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QUDUS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 946 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN ETC. vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 746 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADEER vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND Another1981 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for continuous service from 1951. The petitioner, originally employed in 1951, submitted a resignation in 1958 after his request for a transfer to facilitate his wife's medical treatment was denied. He stated that if the transfer was not granted, his resignation should be accepted. The resignation was accepted, and the petitioner was later re-employed in 1961. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's 1958 resignation was legally invalid due to being conditional, thereby entitling him to continuous service status. The Supreme Court held that the resignation was not conditional but rather an offer of an alternative, which the government accepted. Consequently, the court affirmed that the petitioner's employment in 1961 constituted a fresh appointment, breaking the continuity of his previous service. The court laid down the principle that a resignation offering an employer a choice between two actions, where one is accepted, constitutes a valid, unconditional resignation, precluding claims for continuous service based on prior employment.
Questions settled- Whether a resignation offering an employer a choice between transfer and resignation is legally conditional?
- Does a fresh recruitment after a resignation break the continuity of previous government service?
- Can an employee claim continuous service status after voluntarily resigning and subsequently being re-employed?
- ABDUL MANNA N vs THE TRIBUNAL A. C. & S. D. M., KARACHI AND ANOTHER---1981 P Cr. L J 1173 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANNA N vs MESSRS ADVANCE TEXTILE MILLS , . (1981 PLC 208 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANNA N vs Haji KARAM ILAHI1981 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction order granted against a tenant on the ground that the landlord required the premises for reconstruction. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Section 13(5)(6) of the Rent Ordinance, which introduced a requirement for the landlord to prove the reasonableness and bona fides of the reconstruction, applied retrospectively to pending eviction applications. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in Hasan and others v. Fancy Foundation (PLD 1975 SC 1), held that the amendment was prospective and did not govern proceedings pending at the time of the amendment. Consequently, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that the landlord was estopped from relying on the unamended law simply because evidence regarding reasonableness and bona fides had been led during the trial. The Court affirmed that there is no estoppel against the law, and since the unamended law did not require proof of reasonableness or bona fides, the evidence presented on those issues was immaterial. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the eviction order.
Questions settled- Is the amendment to Section 13(5)(6) of the Rent Ordinance regarding the landlord's requirement to prove reasonableness and bona fides retrospective in nature?
- Can a party be estopped from relying on the unamended law if evidence regarding the requirements of the amended law was led during trial?
- Does the absence of a legal requirement to prove bona fides render evidence led on that issue immaterial?
- ABDUL MAJID vs Mst. NAIMUN NISA BEGUM1981 PLD Supreme Court 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the High Court, which ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from non-residential premises upon the application of the respondent landlady under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether subsection (2) of Section 14 bars a landlord who owns any building in any locality—regardless of its nature or use—from availing the summary eviction procedure under subsection (1). The Supreme Court held that subsection (2) must be read in conjunction with subsection (1), requiring a nexus between the personal use for which eviction is sought and the premises owned by the landlord. The Court reasoned that interpreting subsection (2) in isolation would defeat the legislative intent of providing summary relief to vulnerable classes of landlords. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction orders while granting the tenant four months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Whether subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 disentitles a landlord from seeking summary eviction if they own premises in any locality regardless of its use?
- Does the ownership of a residential building by a landlord preclude them from seeking eviction of a tenant from a non-residential premises required for personal use?
- How is subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to be construed in relation to subsection (1)?
- ABDUL MAJID vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS , _1981 PLC (C. S.) 529 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs ALLAH DITTA1981 P Cr. L J 294 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND 7 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1981 CLC 20 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by landlords against a tenant for the reconstruction of shops. The core legal question is whether a building plan sanctioned by a municipal authority is admissible in evidence in proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the landlords established a bona fide requirement for reconstruction. The Rent Controller and the lower appellate court had dismissed the application, holding that the sanctioned plan was not proved in accordance with law. The High Court held that proceedings before a Rent Controller are in the nature of an inquiry where the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Evidence Act, 1872, do not apply in strict sense, and the Rent Controller does not act as a court. Consequently, the strict rules of evidence do not apply to the production of a sanctioned building plan, which is a public document. The court further held that the landlords demonstrated good faith by keeping other shops vacant to facilitate the reconstruction project. The court set aside the lower orders and directed the tenant to vacate.
Questions settled- Do the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Evidence Act, 1872, apply in strict sense to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Is a building plan sanctioned by a Municipal Committee or Corporation considered a public document?
- Does a Rent Controller act as a court while performing functions under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a landlord's requirement for reconstruction be considered bona fide if they have kept other portions of the same property vacant for that purpose?
- ABDUL MAJEED vs ATA ILLAHI ETC.S1981 SCMR 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by the Member Board of Revenue relating to the allotment of land during consolidation proceedings in village Kot Hassan, tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala. The core legal question considered by the court was whether a petitioner who has suffered no practical or comparative loss in land value or utility through consolidation proceedings is entitled to challenge the allotment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the petitioner fails to demonstrate any actual or practical loss resulting from the new allotment compared to their original land, the petition lacks merit and leave to appeal must be refused. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief and leave to appeal under constitutional or appellate jurisdiction will not be extended in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or actual loss suffered by the aggrieved party.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a petitioner fails to show any practical loss resulting from land consolidation?
- Does an allotment of land in consolidation proceedings give rise to a valid claim if the new land is comparable to the original holding?
- ABDUL LATIF vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs FAZAL ELLAHI1981 CLC 36 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-08-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF DAR vs MARYAM ZAMANI AND Others1981 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATE vs Thestate AND Another1981 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs Shaikh MAZHAR UL HAQUE AND Other1981 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the eviction of a tenant from a shop. The core legal question was whether a landlord's claim for personal need—specifically to accommodate his male children—is defeated if those children occupy rented premises during the pendency of protracted eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a landlord seeking eviction on grounds of personal need cannot be non-suited simply because the intended beneficiaries (the landlord's children) were compelled by the inordinate delay of the litigation to secure rented accommodation elsewhere. The Court held that the landlord's right to reclaim his own property for his children's business remains valid despite the children's temporary occupation of rented premises. The principle established is that a landlord is not precluded from seeking eviction for personal use merely because the proposed occupants are currently utilizing rented property, particularly when the necessity for the eviction arose from the landlord's legitimate requirement and the delay was not of the landlord's making.
Questions settled- Can a landlord be non-suited in an eviction case on grounds of personal need if his children, for whom the premises were required, have occupied rented premises during the pendency of the litigation?
- Does a landlord's reinstatement in service negate a previously established ground of personal need for eviction of a tenant?
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 728 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs MUHAMMAD AFSAR AND 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 480 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs GHULAM ABBAS BHATTI1981 CLC 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ AND 2 OTHERS vs GULAB DIN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1687 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHUR1981 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal proceedings registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code against the petitioner, Abdul Karim, following a dispute over the supply of a cotton ginning and baling press financed through the Agricultural Bank of Pakistan. The High Court accepted the petitioner's application and quashed the criminal proceedings. However, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by certain observations made in the High Court judgment regarding the fabrication of agreements and civil liabilities concerning payments and machinery. The core legal question considered was whether unnecessary adverse observations made during the quashment of criminal proceedings prejudice a party in potential civil litigation. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the contested observations were not necessary for the quashment of the case, possessed no binding effect, and would not prejudice independent civil proceedings. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that unnecessary observations made by a criminal court during quashment do not bind parties in subsequent civil litigation, which must be decided on its own merits and evidence.
Questions settled- Do unnecessary observations made by a High Court in a criminal quashment order have a binding effect on subsequent civil proceedings?
- Can a petitioner seek leave to appeal against purely descriptive or unnecessary observations in a judgment where the ultimate relief of quashment was granted?
- ABDUL KARIM vs Mst. KOHI NOOR BEGUM AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1055 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house. The plaintiff claimed the defendant agreed to sell the property for Rs 6,000, alleging part payment and adjustment of salary arrears. The defendant, a Pardanashin lady, denied the transaction, asserting the alleged agreement document was fabricated. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had sufficiently proven the validity of the agreement and the genuineness of the defendant's signature. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof, noting that the document was suspicious, the signatures did not match, and the plaintiff's testimony was contradictory. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not open to challenge in second appeal simply because the High Court might view the evidence differently. The principle established is that a party claiming a transaction with a Pardanashin lady must strictly prove its validity, and the Court retains the authority to adjudicate the authenticity of evidence regardless of its initial admission.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be challenged in a second appeal?
- Does the admission of a document into evidence preclude the court from later determining its validity or authenticity?
- What is the standard of proof required for a transaction involving a Pardanashin lady?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to specific performance when the underlying agreement is found to be dubious and the burden of proof is not discharged?
- ABDUL KARIM vs ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 735 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM SHAIKH vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER , . (1981 PLC (C. S.) 471 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KADIR AND 7 OTHERS vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER AND 4 OTHERs1981 CLC 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAYEE NIAZI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMN.), LAHORE RANGE1981 PLC (C. S.) 696 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE AND Another vs Khan MUQARRAB KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, concerning the transfer of a residential property and shop in Lyallpur by the Settlement Department. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact by the settlement authorities regarding the execution of an association deed. The Supreme Court held that since there was evidence to support the fourth respondent's claim and the findings were not based on a total misreading of evidence, the High Court was justified in declining interference. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that where a case essentially turns on allegations of fraud and disputed questions of fact, the proper remedy is a civil suit rather than a constitutional writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioners to institute a suit.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact by the Settlement Department based on evidence?
- Is a writ petition the proper remedy when a case turns on allegations of fraud and disputed questions of fact?
- Can a party aggrieved by an association deed relating to property transfer file a civil suit to enforce their alleged rights?
- ABDUL HAMID vs THE COLLECTOR, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs GULAB KHAN AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute regarding the proper demarcation of a room claimed by the petitioner as part of an evacuee house transferred to him under settlement laws, while the respondents maintained it formed part of their adjacently transferred house. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Settlement Authorities through a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question raised was whether the Settlement Authorities retained jurisdiction to demarcate the property and re-examine its transfer after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed. The Supreme Court held that interference was unwarranted where the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, upon a detailed spot inspection, found that the disputed room was unquestionably part of the respondent's house and had been recently blocked off to amalgamate it with the petitioner's property, a factual finding affirmed through appellate and revisional forums. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition, upholding the finality of the concurrent factual determinations.
Questions settled- Whether Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction to demarcate property after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding property demarcation be interfered with under writ jurisdiction?
- Whether a property transfer under settlement laws can be re-opened in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- ABDUL HAMID vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 493 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1981 CLC 719 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID ETC. vs GHULAM RASOOL1981 SCMR 1054 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners could raise a new plea of limitation regarding court fees at the appellate stage, and whether the lower appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the issue of waiver. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not raise a new plea of limitation for the first time in the Supreme Court, as it was not urged in the High Court. Regarding the waiver plea, the Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the evidence presented by the defendants was insufficient to establish waiver, noting that waiver in pre-emption suits requires strong, cogent evidence. The Court dismissed the petitions in limine, finding no merit in the arguments presented, thereby upholding the lower court's decision in favour of the respondent.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new plea of limitation regarding court fees for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- What standard of evidence is required to establish a plea of waiver in a pre-emption suit?
- Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's finding on waiver when the evidence provided by the defendant is based on hearsay or lack of personal knowledge?
- ABDUL HAMID AND 2 Arms vs Mst. KHURSHID BIBI1981 PLD Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs MANSUR MALIK AND 4 Other1981 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from an eviction petition filed by landlords against a tenant and the petitioner, Abdul Hameed, alleging rent default and unauthorized subletting. The petitioner contended that he possessed the premises in his own right and that, absent statutory notices under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act or the Rent Restriction Ordinance, no landlord-tenant relationship existed. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Additional District Judge remanded the case for fresh evidence. The High Court set aside this remand order, holding that the appellate authority lacked the power under section 15(3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to remand the case for fresh evidence. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no legitimate grievance as he had challenged the remand order himself. Furthermore, the High Court's order directed the appellate authority to conduct further inquiry, which sufficiently protected the petitioner's rights to lead evidence. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does an appellate authority under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 possess the power to remand a case to the Rent Controller for the production of fresh evidence?
- Can a party who successfully challenges an appellate order in the High Court subsequently complain about the High Court's decision to remand the matter for further inquiry by the appellate authority itself?
- ABDUL HAMEED vs ABDUL RASHEED1981 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the ejectment of the petitioner from disputed premises. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties and whether the petition for special leave was barred by limitation. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petition, finding the tenancy unproven. However, the District Judge reversed this decision, finding the respondent's evidence sufficient to establish the tenancy, a finding subsequently upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenancy. Furthermore, the Court held that the petition was time-barred by 15 days. The petitioner's application for condonation of delay, based on a medical certificate from a private practitioner, was rejected as unreliable, particularly as the certificate was not originally attached to the court file. Consequently, the petition was dismissed both on its merits and on the ground of limitation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a medical certificate from a private practitioner sufficient to justify the condonation of delay in filing a petition?
- Does a failure to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant warrant the dismissal of an ejectment petition?
- ABDUL HAMEED SIDDIQUI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 511 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED KHAN vs WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND Another1981 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the dismissal of his constitutional petition challenging his compulsory retirement from service. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 on the ground that an alternative and adequate remedy by way of an appeal before the Service Tribunal was available under the governing statute, particularly when the case involved disputed questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction as the Service Tribunal was the appropriate forum equipped to examine both factual and legal controversies. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, such as an appeal to a Service Tribunal, bars the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction, especially where the determination of the dispute necessitates the recording of evidence and evaluation of disputed questions of fact.
Questions settled- Whether the availability of an alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal bars the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Can the High Court refuse to exercise constitutional jurisdiction when a case involves disputed questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence?
- Does an order of compulsory retirement from service provide grounds for a writ petition when an appeal is statutorily provided before a Service Tribunal?
- ABDUL HAKIM KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 607 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs ELECTION AUTHORITY, SIND AND 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFIZ vs SECRETARY, COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPARTMENTPLD 19817 Supreme Court 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 212 of the Constitution seeks special leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal against the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The core legal questions involved whether a government servant clearing a financial advance against himself constitutes misconduct, and whether the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect is permissible under the applicable Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The Supreme Court held that clearing an advance against oneself in a previous capacity violates departmental instructions and amounts to misconduct, and that the amended rules providing for stoppage of increments inherently entail cumulative effect unless expressly stated otherwise. The court laid down the principle that an officer cannot pass orders in their own financial case, and that the stoppage of increments under the relevant efficiency rules operates with cumulative effect unless the competent authority explicitly directs otherwise.
Questions settled- Does a government servant passing orders to clear a financial advance against himself in a previous capacity amount to misconduct?
- Can the penalty of withholding increments be imposed with cumulative effect under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960?
- What is the legal effect of the amended rule regarding the stoppage of increments on a government servant's time-scale?
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court, which had not only dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 27 of the Drugs Act 1976, but had also enhanced his sentence from six months to three years' rigorous imprisonment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed revisional jurisdiction over orders of a Drug Court despite the absence of an express provision in the Drugs Act 1976, whether a Drug Court constitutes an 'inferior criminal Court' under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the finality clause in the Drugs Act ousted such revisional powers. The Supreme Court held that a Drug Court, being subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, is an 'inferior criminal Court' under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted by the finality provisions of the Drugs Act 1976. The key principle laid down is that the creation of an appellate relationship implicitly establishes the inferior status of a tribunal, attracting the revisional powers of the High Court under the general criminal procedure law unless expressly excluded.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Drug Court under the Drugs Act 1976?
- Does a Drug Court constitute an inferior criminal Court within the meaning of section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the finality attached to orders of a Drug Court under section 39 of the Drugs Act 1976 ousts the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Can the High Court enhance a sentence in an appeal brought before it from a Drug Court?
- ABDUL GHANI AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 805 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs SULTAN ALI AND 4 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 868 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →