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.
- SAHIB DAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1149 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
- SAHIB alias SABEL vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder and murderous assault under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a limited question regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification of the assailants, specifically whether the moonlight on the 8th night of the lunar month was sufficient for the witnesses to identify the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions. The Court reasoned that because the witnesses had prior knowledge of the appellants—a fact supported by the appellants' own admission of enmity—they could identify them despite the lighting conditions. Furthermore, the Court observed that the witnesses' credibility was bolstered by their honest admission that they could not identify a third assailant, which indicated they were not fabricating evidence to falsely implicate the appellants. The judgment establishes that eyewitness testimony identifying previously known assailants remains reliable in partial moonlight, and the failure to name unknown accomplices serves as a significant indicator of witness veracity in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Can eyewitnesses reliably identify known assailants on the 8th night of a lunar month?
- Does an honest admission by a witness regarding the inability to identify an unknown accomplice enhance their overall credibility?
- Is prior acquaintance between the accused and eyewitnesses a relevant factor in assessing the reliability of identification?
- SAFIA BEGUM vs ABDUL RAZZAK1980 CLC 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- SAEEDUR RAHMAN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed by the petitioner, Saeedur Rahman, seeking to challenge the Supreme Court's earlier dismissal of his jail petition regarding his conviction for murder. The petitioner had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to death, a decision upheld by the High Court and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. In the review petition, the petitioner argued that the complainant had duped him into transferring land based on a promise of compromise, which failed to materialize, and contended that the eye-witnesses were inimical and the forensic evidence was potentially fabricated. The Supreme Court held that the petition was time-barred and that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence, such as affidavits or the presence of the complainant, to substantiate the alleged compromise. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the arguments regarding witness enmity and forensic tampering were conjectural and constituted an attempt to re-appreciate evidence, which is impermissible in review proceedings. The Court affirmed that such grounds do not satisfy the criteria for review under the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained when it seeks to re-appreciate evidence already considered by the Court?
- Does an unsubstantiated claim of a compromise between parties constitute a valid ground for review of a criminal conviction?
- Are conjectural arguments regarding the potential manipulation of forensic evidence sufficient to warrant a review of a final judgment?
- SAEEDUD DIN vs MOHAMMAD SALEEM1980 PLD Karachi 92 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether a notice under Section 13-A of the Ordinance was mandatory despite a fresh tenancy agreement between the new landlord and the tenant; whether a security deposit could be adjusted against rent arrears; and whether the proven default in rent payment was wilful. The Court held that where a new tenancy agreement is executed between a new landlord and an existing tenant, the statutory requirement for notice under Section 13-A is dispensed with, as the agreement establishes a fresh relationship. Regarding the security deposit, the Court held that such funds are intended to ensure the performance of contractual obligations and are not automatically adjustable against rent unless expressly agreed. Finally, the Court affirmed the ejectment order, finding the tenant's default wilful due to the failure to tender rent in accordance with the law. The key principle established is that a fresh tenancy agreement supersedes the necessity for statutory notice upon property transfer, and security deposits cannot be unilaterally adjusted against rent.
Questions settled- Is a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 necessary when a fresh tenancy agreement is executed between a new landlord and the tenant?
- Can a security deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against rent arrears in the absence of an express agreement to that effect?
- Does a change in the nature of tenancy from a fixed term to a month-to-month basis alter the character of a security deposit?
- What constitutes a wilful default in the payment of rent sufficient to justify an order of ejectment?
- SAEEDA JAHAN ARA vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1980 PLC (C. S.) 194 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
- SADRUDDIN vs COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION, HYDERABAD AND 21980 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SADIQ AND ANOTHER vs INAYATULLAH KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1980 CLC 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- SADIQ ALI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1980 PLC (C. S.) 372 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
- SABZ ALI vs YUSUF SHAH AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges after setting aside their conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses was reliable enough to sustain a conviction, particularly when contradicted by medical and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, noting significant discrepancies: the absence of charring marks on the deceased (contradicting the claim of point-blank firing), the failure to account for numerous spent cartridges, the lack of bloodstains on the witness's clothes, and the failure to examine key witnesses named in the F.I.R. The Court affirmed that where ocular testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence and physical circumstances, it cannot be relied upon. The principle laid down is that appellate courts are justified in overturning convictions where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is mechanical, ignores glaring contradictions, and fails to reconcile ocular testimony with established medical and forensic facts.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when ocular evidence is fundamentally contradicted by medical evidence?
- Is the appellate court justified in interfering with a trial court's finding if the trial court ignored material discrepancies in the evidence?
- Does the failure to examine key witnesses named in the F.I.R. undermine the prosecution's case?
- Can the abscondence of an accused provide corroboration when the primary ocular evidence is found to be untruthful?
- SABZ ALI vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Sabz Ali, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of Noor Rehman and the confirmation of his death sentence by the Peshawar High Court. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner killed the deceased due to a family grievance stemming from the deceased having divorced the petitioner's sister four years prior. The petitioner was seen fleeing the scene with a firearm immediately after the shooting occurred inside a village mosque. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the requirement for corroboration, and alleged contradictions between the First Information Report and trial testimony. The Supreme Court held that the eye-witnesses were not 'interested witnesses' requiring corroboration merely due to their relation to the deceased, as they had no prior grievance against the petitioner. The Court further held that minor discrepancies regarding the exact posture of the deceased at the time of the shooting did not undermine the consistent testimony identifying the petitioner as the assailant, and affirmed that the death sentence was amply justified for deliberate murder.
Questions settled- Whether close relatives of a deceased person can be classified as interested witnesses requiring independent corroboration?
- Does a minor discrepancy in eye-witness accounts regarding the posture of the deceased at the time of an attack vitiate a murder conviction?
- Is the absence of a prior grievance by prosecution witnesses against an accused relevant to assessing their credibility?
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI ZAHOOR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY1980 P Cr. L J 400 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- S. ZAHOOR HAIDER ZAIDI vs MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, PLANT PROTECTION1980 PLC (C. S.) 460 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
- S. SHARIF AHMED HASHMI vs THE CHAIRMAN, SCREENING COMMITTEE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing a writ petition against an order of compulsory retirement due to gross laches of twelve years. The petitioner challenged the previous Supreme Court decision, arguing primarily that the petition for leave to appeal was time-barred and that the retirement order was void ab initio, thereby rendering the principle of laches inapplicable. The core legal questions involved the computation of limitation for leave to appeal, the distinction between void and voidable administrative orders, and whether gross laches can bar a challenge against a void order. The court held that the petition for leave was within time upon examining the High Court copying branch registers, that an order passed by an otherwise competent authority is voidable rather than void, and that even void orders may not be struck down if barred by gross laches or where equities have accrued. The key principle laid down is that a review does not lie merely because an alternative view of the law is possible, and gross laches can bar relief against an illegal or void administrative order.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable on the ground that the civil petition for leave to appeal was time-barred?
- Is an administrative order passed by an authority otherwise competent to act, but based on a repealed statutory provision, void or voidable?
- Whether a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of gross laches when challenging an order alleged to be void?
- Does a void administrative order invariably fall to the ground regardless of subsequent consequences, equities, and delay?
- S. QASIM ALI RIZVI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF WORKS1980 PLC (C. S.) 400eee · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
- S. NAZIM HUSSAIN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE HYDERABAD, AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 624 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
- S. NAJMUL HUDA vs Shaikh MUHAMMAD SCHEELE1980 CLC 869 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 234 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
- S. M. ZAFAR vs STANDARD BANK (AT PRESENT HABIB BANK)1980 PLD Peshawar 278 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-24Read full judgment →
- S. M. YOUNUS AND 2 OTHERS vs MESSRS CRESCENT PUBLICITY SERVICE1980 CLC 441 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
- S. M. WAQI vs FINANCIAL ADVISER, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 266 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-08-28Read full judgment →
- S. M. TEHSEEN TAQVI vs CENSUS COMMISSIONER CENSUS ORGANISATION, KARACHI1980 PLC (C.S.) 499 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-02-14Read full judgment →
- S. M. MATLUB HUSSAIN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1980 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a writ petition regarding the ejectment of a tenant. The petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree for ejectment and recovery of rent against the respondent, which was subsequently set aside by the Collector on grounds of improper service of notice, as the petitioner had provided an incorrect address for the respondent. The Collector remanded the case for a fresh decision, a decision affirmed by the Additional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal questions involved the authority of the Collector to remand the case, the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector post-remand, and the validity of the ex parte proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the revenue authorities acted within their competence in remanding the case for a fresh hearing to ensure both parties were heard. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the revenue authorities' findings, as the respondent had not been properly served, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a Collector have the authority to remand a case for a fresh decision after setting aside an ex parte decree?
- Is the High Court's writ jurisdiction discretionary when reviewing orders passed by revenue authorities?
- Can an Assistant Collector exercise jurisdiction over a matter after an order of remand has been passed by an appellate revenue authority?
- S. M, YOUSUF AND ANOTHER vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS1980 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1960-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals arising from a dispute over the transfer of two evacuee building sites under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions were whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner, with Central Government approval, could authorize the transfer of building sites by negotiation at the average auction price, notwithstanding the auction requirements in the Schedule to the Act, and whether the sub-division of a plot was legally permissible. The Supreme Court held that the 1960 policy instructions were valid, ruling that Section 10 of the Act empowers the Central Government to approve modes of transfer outside the strict provisions of the Schedule. The Court affirmed the sub-division of the plot, noting that the appellants' permanent construction did not meet the required threshold for the entire site. The key principle laid down is that Section 10 grants the Central Government broad authority to approve transfer modes, and policy instructions issued thereunder are valid, while settlement authorities may sub-divide plots where construction does not cover the requisite area of the original site.
Questions settled- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner transfer evacuee property in a manner inconsistent with the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the Central Government have the power to approve modes of transfer of evacuee property other than those specified in the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Are settlement authorities empowered to sub-divide an evacuee building site if the permanent construction thereon does not meet the statutory threshold for the entire plot?
- S. I. H. ZAIDI vs M. SHUJAHAT USMANI1980 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-12Read full judgment →
- S. BASHIR AHMAD KAZM1 vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 356 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-11-29Read full judgment →
- S. AOLAD ALI GILLANI vs GOVERNMENT OE AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC (C. S.) 659 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-08-08Read full judgment →
- S. A. RAZVI vs PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION1980 PLC (C. S.) 667(2) · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-11-13Read full judgment →
- RUKHSANA BIBI vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
- RICHARD BENJAMIN WHEELER HAINES vs ISMAIL AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind which dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition seeking admission to the first-year M.B., B.S. course at Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro. The appellant failed to produce his National Cadet Corps certificate by the extended deadline of March 20, 1977, to claim twenty additional marks under section 29(c) of the National Guards Act, 1973, subsequently submitting it on June 11, 1977. The core legal question was whether the authorities could withhold admission and refuse to consider the late certificate in disregard of the statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that the authorities were within their rights to ignore a certificate submitted after the terminal date and were under no legal obligation to consider it, as admissions are governed by the prospectus rules and candidates must fulfill essential requirements within stipulated deadlines. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether college admission can be denied for failing to submit a National Cadet Corps certificate by the extended terminal date?
- Are educational authorities legally obligated to consider eligibility certificates submitted after the deadline fixed in the prospectus?
- Does a candidate acquire a legal right to claim admission when they default on an essential requirement of the admission rules?
- RIAZ SUBHANI vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 523 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
- RIAZ MAHMOOD KHAN MAZARI vs SALAHUDDIN ZAFAR AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
- RIAZ MAHMOOD KHAN MAZARI vs MUREED HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses the rejection of the appellant's nomination papers for election to a District Council on the ground that he was under the age of 25 years on the last date for filing nomination papers, based on entries in two electoral rolls. The core legal question was whether the entry of age in an electoral roll is final and conclusive for determining the eligibility of a candidate contesting a local council election. The Supreme Court held that entries regarding age in electoral rolls are not final or conclusive for determining a candidate's exact age or eligibility for candidacy, as finality only attaches to the right to vote. The Court set aside both the appellate authority's order and the High Court's writ order, remanding the case back to the appellate authority to determine the appellant's correct age on the basis of all relevant evidence and direct fresh polling if found eligible.
Questions settled- Is the entry of age in an electoral roll final and conclusive for determining the eligibility of a candidate for contesting a local council election?
- Does the subsequent correction of an age entry by a Registration Officer operate retrospectively to validate a rejected nomination paper?
- What is the scope of finality attached to entries in electoral rolls under the electoral laws?
- RIAZ KHALIL AND OTHERS vs Sh. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ1980 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of ejectment proceedings under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Rent Controller directed the tenant petitioners to deposit arrears of rent under section 17(8) of the Act. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the ejectment application. The High Court, relying on precedent, allowed the landlord's writ petition, setting aside the appellate order as without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory order for the deposit of rent under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is appealable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that interlocutory, provisional orders that do not decide the main dispute are not appealable unless expressly provided, to prevent fragmentary adjudication and delays in the administration of justice. The key principle laid down is that the right of appeal against interlocutory orders must be clearly granted by statute, and provisional orders regarding rent deposit do not invite a direct appeal merely because failure to comply may lead to striking off a defense.
Questions settled- Whether an interlocutory order for the deposit of rent under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is appealable?
- Does the absence of the word 'finally' in section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 change the provisional and incidental nature of an order directing the deposit of rent?
- Are all orders passed by a Rent Controller appealable under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD ETC.1980 CLC 839 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs JAVID AKHTAR AND 6 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
- RELUMAL AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERs1980 CLC 1771 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH HABIBULLAH JAVED TRANSPORT, SERVICE, LAHORE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE42 TAX 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a tax dispute where the petitioners, brothers previously operating a registered partnership firm, contested their assessment as an 'Association of Persons' for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The petitioners claimed the firm had been voluntarily dissolved, a contention rejected by the Income Tax Officer, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and subsequently the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in assigning the status of an 'Association of Persons' to the petitioners given the evidence of business continuity. The Supreme Court held that the lower authorities' concurrent findings were supported by evidence, specifically that the business continued to operate under the same name, utilizing the same assets, and that the petitioners failed to produce books of account to substantiate the alleged dissolution. Furthermore, the filing of a suit for accounts by a partner contradicted the claim of dissolution. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that where evidence supports the findings of fact, the status assigned by tax authorities remains legally sound.
Questions settled- Can the status of an Association of Persons be assigned to partners if the firm fails to prove its dissolution?
- Does the failure to produce books of account support an inference against a claim of business dissolution?
- Can an inference drawn from facts raise a question of law in tax proceedings?
- Is the filing of a suit for accounts by a partner evidence against the dissolution of a firm?
- REHMATULLAH A. SHAIKH vs PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING1980 PLD Karachi 287 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-12Read full judgment →
- REHMAT vs Pirzada SULTAN AHMAD1980 PLD Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
- REHMAT DIN alias REHMAN DIN vs Mst. WILAYAT JAN1980 CLC 1967 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI AND 6 OTHERS vs ZAFAR ALI AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 718 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALE AND ANOTHER vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 972 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
- REHMANUDDIN vs Ust. MERUNUN NISSA AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 1846 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
- REHM ATULLAH vs FATEH MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- REHAM ALI AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 1110 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
- RAZA MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1980 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition against the cancellation of a land allotment. The petitioner had been allotted agricultural land based on a Q.P.R. document, which the Settlement Authorities later found to be forged, inflating the entitlement from 58 to 1198 P.I. Units. The Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment, finding it was obtained through fraud and forgery. The High Court upheld this cancellation, ruling that the allotment was a nullity ab initio and that the petitioner, having acted fraudulently, was not entitled to discretionary relief. The Supreme Court examined the findings of fact regarding the forgery and found no infirmity in the Settlement Commissioner's conclusion. The Court held that fraud vitiates everything, and an allotment obtained through such means is not a valid settlement in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the High Court correctly refused to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who did not approach the court with clean hands. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does fraud vitiate an allotment obtained under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Can a court exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who has obtained an allotment through fraud?
- Is an allotment based on fraud and forgery considered a nullity ab initio?
- RASOOL BUX AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction where the appellants were sentenced to death by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the corroborative value of weapon recoveries, and the proper legal characterization of the offense given the origin of the fight. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a total misreading of the evidence, as the eye-witnesses had falsely implicated multiple persons and suppressed their own armed participation, and the weapon recoveries failed to comply with statutory mandates or provide independent corroboration. Consequently, the conviction of the second appellant was set aside for lack of corroboration, while the first appellant's conviction was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to a sudden and unpremeditated fight. The key principles laid down include that the testimony of interested eye-witnesses lacking independent corroboration cannot sustain a murder conviction, recoveries from open public access areas disregarding procedural safeguards have no corroborative value, and a conviction may be altered from murder to culpable homicide when the origin of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery and indicates a sudden altercation.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be accepted without independent corroboration when they have falsely implicated other accused persons?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon from a place accessible to the general public in disregard of statutory procedural safeguards possess corroborative value?
- Whether a murder conviction should be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the origin of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery and arises from a sudden altercation?
- Is a conviction sustainable where the prosecution suppresses the fact that the complainant party was also armed and engaged in a scuffle?
- RASHEED AHMAD vs DIRECTOR, CIVIL SERVICE ACADEMY AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 331 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-02-26Read full judgment →
- Rao MUHAMMAD AKHTAR ALI vs FAIZ AHMAD (REPESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1980 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition concerning land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioner, whose land claim was declared bogus by Settlement Authorities and subsequently confiscated by a Summary Military Court in 1961, argued that the confiscation order was invalid because the underlying Settlement Authority finding was later set aside and that a Martial Law directive precluded the confiscation. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence the Military Court relied solely on the Settlement Authority's finding, and that the confiscation was validly implemented before the relevant cutoff date specified in the policy directive. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge subsequent allotments to third parties because his own claim was fraudulent. Additionally, the Court noted that the petition was barred by laches and the principle of estoppel, as the petitioner had long accepted the confiscation and the land had been settled on third parties. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge the allotment of land to third parties if their own claim to the land has been declared bogus?
- Does a subsequent reversal of a finding by Settlement Authorities automatically invalidate a prior confiscation order passed by a Military Court?
- Does a writ petition suffer from laches and estoppel when the petitioner has accepted a confiscation order for a significant period and the land has been settled on third parties?
- Rana ZIAUL HAQUE vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- Rana TUFAIL MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE AND 21980 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
- Rana ALLAH DITTA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CITY), LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 291 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-06Read full judgment →
- Raja SAHIB KHAN vs Ch NIAZ AHMED AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 762 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- Raja QURBAN KHAN vs BEGUM M. M. SHARIF AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an ejectment petition filed against the petitioner tenant by the respondent landlords for a residential building known as 'Ram Cottage' in Murree, on the grounds of personal good faith requirement and unauthorized commercial use (running a hotel). The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge on personal need, though the appellate court initially reversed the finding on commercial use. The High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal, holding that the character of the building could not be raised as a new question of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a residential building cannot be converted into a non-residential building without the written consent of the landlord and the written permission of the Rent Controller pursuant to statutory provisions. The Court laid down that putting a residential building to commercial use without statutory permission does not alter its legal character as a residential building, and public policy strictly prohibits unauthorized conversions to mitigate housing shortages and preserve residential peace.
Questions settled- Can a question of fact regarding the character of a building be raised for the first time in second appeal?
- Does the unauthorized use of a residential building as a hotel change its legal character to a non-residential building without statutory permission?
- Is the written consent of the landlord and the written permission of the Controller required to convert a residential building into a non-residential building?
- Raja NAEEM vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE &1980 CLC 2061 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-02-16Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, J) SAKHI MUHAMMAD vs SAWAR AND OTHER1980 CLC 1625 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
- Raja MANZOOR AHMED KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ETC.NonPetitioners1980 PLD Azad J & K 20 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- Raja INAYATULLAH vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 593 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- Raja GEORGE SIKANDAR ZAMAN KHAN vs Raja GHULAM SARWAR KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a criminal appeal against the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, Raja Ghulam Sarwar Khan, in a case involving an attack on the complainant's vehicle. The respondent had secured bail from the High Court primarily on the grounds of advanced age (70 years) and associated infirmity. The appellant challenged this order, contending that the respondent had deliberately misled the High Court regarding his age and health, as official service records from WAPDA indicated he was only 54 years old and actively employed as a security sergeant. The core legal question was whether bail obtained through misrepresentation and fraudulent claims regarding age and health could be sustained. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had indeed misled the High Court by falsely claiming to be 70 years old to secure bail. The Court emphasized that such sharp tactics to manipulate the administration of justice must be firmly censured. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, directed the respondent to surrender, and remanded him to judicial custody, while noting that he could apply for bail again after the investigation concluded.
Questions settled- Can bail granted by a High Court be cancelled if it was obtained through the misrepresentation of the accused's age and health?
- Does the use of sharp tactics to mislead a court regarding physical infirmity justify the cancellation of bail?
- Is a government service record admissible to rebut a claim of advanced age made by an accused seeking bail?
- Raja ABDUL HAMID KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD NASEEM AND 31980 CLC 1105 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- RAJ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs DIE STATE1980 PLD Azad J & K 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
- RAJ MOHAMMAD AND 11 OTHERS vs Haji MOHAMMAD ZAREEN AND 3 OTHERS1980 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing an appeal in a rent matter. The core legal question was whether an ejectment petition filed before the expiry of the three-month statutory notice period required under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was incompetent and liable to be dismissed for lack of a matured cause of action. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that forums acting under rent restriction laws are not precluded from taking cognizance of events occurring during the pendency of proceedings. Relying on the principle established in Mst. Amina Begum v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir, the Court ruled that courts may mould relief based on altered circumstances to avoid multiplicity of litigation and shorten proceedings. Requiring a landlord to withdraw and refile a petition on purely technical grounds, where the outcome on merits would remain unchanged, does not serve the interests of justice.
Questions settled- Can a rent controller proceed with an ejectment petition filed before the expiry of the statutory notice period under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Are forums acting under rent restriction laws permitted to take note of events occurring during the course of proceedings to mould relief?
- Should an ejectment petition be dismissed on the technical ground of a premature cause of action if the result on merits would not change?
- RAHIM KHAN AND 3 OTHERSs vs SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI1980 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- RAHIM DAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 500 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision and quashment petition arose from a private complaint under Sections 323, 325, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, filed by the respondent as a counter-case to an earlier police challan and private complaint pending before the Sessions Court regarding the same incident. The Ilaqa Magistrate transferred the counter-complaint to the Sessions Court without examining the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge subsequently issued process to the accused without conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. The High Court considered whether a Sessions Court can try non-exclusive counter-cases, whether issuing process without examining the complainant under Section 202 is legal, and whether such omission invalidates the proceedings. The High Court held that while issuing process without examining the complainant on oath under Section 202, Cr.P.C. constitutes a procedural irregularity under Section 204, Cr.P.C., it does not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of prejudice to the accused, being curable under Section 537, Cr.P.C. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate transfer a private complaint regarding a counter-case to the Sessions Court without examining the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it mandatory for a Sessions Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before issuing process under Section 204?
- Does the failure of a Sessions Court to examine the complainant on oath before issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the proceedings if no prejudice is caused to the accused?
- RAHIM BUX AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. NAZIR KHANUM AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from an order of the Civil Judge, Khanewal, which closed the petitioners' evidence and decided two connected suits against them under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had failed to produce evidence on an adjourned date, despite being represented by counsel who requested further time. The core legal question was whether a trial court has the jurisdiction to decide a suit on the merits under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when there is no material or evidence on the record. The Lahore High Court held that Order XVII Rule 3 is a penal provision that permits a court to decide a suit forthwith on the merits, but such a decision requires some existing material on record to form the basis of the judgment. Where no material exists, the court cannot proceed to decide the suit under Rule 3. Instead, the court should proceed with the suit under Order XVII Rule 1(3). The High Court concluded that the trial court acted with material irregularity, allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case.
Questions settled- Can a trial court proceed to decide a suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if there is no material or evidence on the record?
- Does Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when a party's counsel is present in court but fails to produce evidence?
- What is the proper procedure for a trial court to follow when a party defaults on producing evidence but there is no material on record to decide the suit on its merits?
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs GHULAM NABI AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-03Read full judgment →
- RAHEB AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 336 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
- RAFIULLAH AND 5 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND 8 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE AKHTAR CHAUDHRY vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1980 PLC (C. S.) 134 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE AH M ED vs MUHAMMAD AHMED1980 CLC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ AHMED SALEH vs SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 270 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-09-14Read full judgment →
- RAFAQUAT ALI KHAN vs NAZIR A HMAD1980 CLC 637 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
- Qazi MASUDUL HAQ vs Sh. FATEH MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
- Qazi ABDUL KARIM vs AUDITOR-GENERAL & FEDERATION1980 PLC (C. S.) 662 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-12-26Read full judgment →
- QASIM DADA vs COLLECTOR OF KARACHI1980 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from a dispute regarding the determination of compensation for land acquired by the Provincial Government for the establishment of the Korangi Township in Karachi. The core legal question concerns the correct assessment of market value for compulsory land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, specifically whether transactions involving co-operative societies, sales between relations, or speculative sales were properly excluded by the High Court in determining compensation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided cogent and valid reasons for excluding transactions by co-operative societies that paid inflated rates or failed to act as prudent purchasers, as well as speculative sales and transactions between relations. The Court affirmed the enhanced compensation awarded by the Letters Patent Bench and clarified that statutory allowances and interest granted under the Collector's award remain intact. The key principle laid down is that transactions not reflecting a true open-market value by prudent purchasers may be excluded when assessing compensation for compulsory land acquisition.
Questions settled- Whether transactions by co-operative societies paying higher than prevailing market rates can be excluded from determining land acquisition compensation?
- Can sales of a speculative nature or between relations be relied upon to assess the market value of acquired land?
- Whether an enhancement of compensation rate per acre by the High Court affects the statutory allowance and interest previously awarded by the Collector?
- QAMARUZ ZAMAN NIAZI vs GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC (C. S.) 400l · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-06-06Read full judgment →
- QAMARUDDIN vs PROVINCE OF SIND1980 PLC (C S) 400pp · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1976-12-10Read full judgment →
- QAMAR DIN vs Mst. TALEH BEGUM1980 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent orders of the lower authorities and the High Court accepting an ejectment petition against the tenant on the ground of reconstruction of the rented premises. The core legal question was whether the lack of prior sanction for reconstruction from municipal authorities at the exact time of filing the ejectment application rendered the application premature and unmaintainable. The Supreme Court held that while obtaining valid sanction is a condition precedent for the success of the ejectment application, it is not a condition precedent for the mere institution or maintainability of the application under Section 13(2)(vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, provided the good faith requirement is pleaded and the sanction is subsequently obtained and proved during proceedings before the Rent Controller. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that a landlord's ejectment application for reconstruction is maintainable without prior municipal sanction, provided the sanction is obtained and placed on record prior to the final decision.
Questions settled- Whether obtaining sanction for reconstruction from municipal authorities is a condition precedent for the institution of an ejectment application under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does obtaining municipal sanction for reconstruction during the pendency of an ejectment proceedings cure the initial lack of sanction at the time of filing?
- Is an ejectment application based on reconstruction maintainable if the landlord pleads good faith requirement without having secured municipal sanction at the very inception?
- QAMAR DIN vs Mst. K. TALEH BEGUM1980 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent judgments of the lower fora accepting an ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground that the rented premises were required for reconstruction. The core legal question was whether obtaining the necessary sanction for reconstruction from municipal authorities prior to the filing of the ejectment application is a condition precedent to the maintainability of the application under Section 13(2)(vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, or merely a condition precedent for its success. The Supreme Court held that while the bona fide requirement for reconstruction must exist at the time of filing, obtaining municipal sanction is a condition precedent for the final success and outcome of the application rather than its initial maintainability, provided the plea is raised and the sanction is subsequently obtained and proved during the proceedings. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that obtaining sanction pendente lite cures any initial defect where no prejudice is caused to the tenant.
Questions settled- Is obtaining the necessary sanction for reconstruction a condition precedent to the maintainability of an ejectment application under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Whether obtaining municipal sanction for reconstruction during the pendency of an ejectment proceedings cures the defect of not having it at the time of filing?
- Does Section 13(2)(vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance require municipal sanction to be present at the time of making the ejectment application or at the stage of its success?
- QAMAR DIN (THROUGH HIS LEGAL. HEIRS) vs MESSRS SUNGREEN & CO. LTD., KARACHI1980 PLD Karachi 317 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit, initiated by the original plaintiff and continued by his legal heirs, sought the eviction of the defendant from leased premises, along with arrears of rent and mesne profits. The core legal questions revolved around the Civil Court's jurisdiction to order eviction under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and the plaintiffs' entitlement to rent and mesne profits after the property was declared evacuee property. The Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to pass an ejectment decree for premises covered by the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It further ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to arrears of rent or mesne profits, as the property had been declared evacuee property, vesting in the Custodian from 1st March 1947, and payments were due to the Custodian. The principle was affirmed that a tenant's estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act ceases when the landlord's title is extinguished by a paramount title, such as a declaration by the Custodian.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to order the ejectment of a tenant from premises covered by the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Are plaintiffs entitled to arrears of rent and mesne profits if the property is declared evacuee property and vests in the Custodian?
- Does the estoppel against a tenant denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act cease upon the landlord's title being extinguished by a paramount title?
- Are accretions to evacuee property also deemed evacuee property?
- Can a plea regarding property being evacuee be raised through an application or considered if new facts emerge during proceedings, even if not initially in the written statement?
- QALANDAR vs MUHAMMAD ZARIN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1417 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
- QADAR DAD vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a police official, sought special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him and other police officers. The complainant alleged that the police party had unlawfully raided his shop in Baluchistan, assaulted him and his brother, and abducted them to Sindh under the guise of executing an arrest, motivated by a personal vendetta. The petitioner contended that the police were acting within their lawful authority to pursue an absconder across provincial boundaries under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Police Act 1861, and that the complaint was false. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's refusal to interfere under Section 561-A was correct. The Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure where a competent court has found a prima facie case. Disputed questions of fact and conflicting versions of the incident must be resolved by the trial court after recording evidence.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings?
- Can a criminal complaint be quashed at the preliminary stage on the ground that the accused police officers claim to have acted in the lawful discharge of their duties?
- Is it necessary for a complainant to produce the entire medical and ocular evidence during a preliminary inquiry before process can be issued against the accused?
- Q AMARUZZA M AN vs KHAIR DIN AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 2011 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
- PUTWARI vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated August 11, 1978, whereby the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail was dismissed. The petitioner is facing prosecution along with others under sections 148, 302, and 324 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for rioting, causing injuries to witnesses, and the murder of a young boy by inflicting fatal blows to the head. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the contention that the fatal injuries were sustained by accident during a fight and lacked murderous intent. The Supreme Court held that upon examining the medical evidence showing multiple blunt weapon injuries to the head, it is not possible at the bail stage to accept the argument of accidental causation. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that multiple targeted blows to a vital part preclude a finding of accidental injury for the purpose of granting bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when multiple blunt weapon injuries are inflicted on the head of a deceased child?
- Can the plea of accidental injury be accepted at the bail stage in a murder prosecution?
- Does the absence of motive alone warrant the enlargement of an accused on bail in a capital case?
- PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs SHAMIM AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 381 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs ABDUL WAH1D USMANI AND 41980 CLC 1993 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
- RIAZUDDIN CHAUDHARI vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 614 · Federal Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL WAHID USMANI AND OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal arose from a suit for damages filed by the legal heirs of a deceased professor killed in a road accident involving a bus owned by the Punjab Road Transport Board. The core legal questions concerned the employer’s vicarious liability for a driver operating on an unauthorized route, the existence of contributory negligence by the deceased, and the proper methodology for calculating compensation, including age expectancy, future earning prospects, and lump-sum deductions. The Court held that the employer remains vicariously liable for the servant’s actions committed in the course of employment, regardless of unauthorized route deviations. It rejected the plea of contributory negligence, finding no evidence of initial negligence by the deceased. The judgment established that damages should be assessed based on the deceased's future earning prospects and specific family circumstances rather than rigid mathematical formulas. It affirmed that there is no universal rule requiring deductions for lump-sum payments or limiting dependency claims to the period of minority, emphasizing that family support in Pakistan often continues beyond the age of majority.
Questions settled- Is an employer vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver operating a vehicle on an unauthorized route?
- Can a defendant rely on the plea of contributory negligence if the driver was initially negligent?
- Should damages for the death of a family member be limited to the period of the dependents' minority?
- Is there a rigid rule requiring the deduction of a percentage from compensation awards due to lump-sum payment?
- PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, JHELUM vs Malik SHAHBAZ KHAN1980 CLC 857 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB LIVESTOCK DAIRY AND POULTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARDs vs Sheikh1980 CLC 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed against a statutory corporation. The core legal questions were whether the application was filed by a duly authorized person and whether the corporation was validly served with summons. The Court held that the application was incompetent because it was initiated by a Project Manager who lacked specific authorization from the Board of Directors, as required by the Punjab Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Development Board Act 1974. The Court emphasized that Order XXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 only authorizes specified persons to sign and verify pleadings, not to institute legal proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that service of summons on a corporation is valid when sent to its registered office under Order XXIX, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The principle established is that an unauthorized institution of legal proceedings by an employee of a statutory body is a nullity, and subsequent ratification cannot cure an act that was ab initio illegal.
Questions settled- Does Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 authorize a person to institute a suit on behalf of a corporation?
- Can an unauthorized legal proceeding initiated by an employee of a statutory body be validated through subsequent ratification?
- What is the correct mode of service of summons on a statutory corporation under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a Project Manager have the inherent authority to file legal proceedings on behalf of a statutory board without a specific delegation of power?
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs PIR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs PIR MOHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 339 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND 31 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH VICECHAIRMAN, P. W. R., LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS vs AMIR AHMED1980 CLC 421 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-09Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs ABDUL QADEER QURESHI1980 PLC (C. S.) 178 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs NARZIR AHMAD1980 PLC (C. S.) 520 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Molvi MUHAMMAD FAIZAN, ADVOCATE AND 101980 PLD Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-21Read full judgment →