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.
- LAL KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1980 CLC 288 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN AND 3 OTHERSs vs MURID KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN vs CHOOHAR1980 CLC 309 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- LAKHMIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 384 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
- KUTYANA MEMON ASSOCIATION vs MUHAMMAD ZAFAR NABI KHAN1980 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld the eviction of a tenant by a landlord. The core legal question was whether the landlord had sufficiently established the bona fide personal requirement of the disputed premises for his own business after his compulsory retirement. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the eviction application, but the appellate court and subsequently the High Court reversed this, finding the landlord's need genuine based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the landlord had successfully discharged the burden of proving his bona fide need. The Court affirmed that there is no universal rule regarding the quantum of evidence required to prove a fact in issue, such as personal need; rather, each case must be decided on its own circumstances. The Court rejected the contention that a landlord's bare statement of unemployment is insufficient as a matter of law, establishing that concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a landlord's requirement, based on an appraisal of evidence and attending circumstances, should not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's bare statement of unemployment and desire to start a business automatically fail to prove bona fide need?
- Is there a hard and fast rule regarding the quantum of evidence required to prove a landlord's personal requirement for premises?
- Can a court disturb concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide need for premises?
- KRISHAN vs TRIBUNAL & S. D. M. CITY, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court to challenge the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, upon a police report. The core legal question was whether taking cognizance on a vague report lacking details of time and place, and issuing non-bailable warrants without assigning reasons, violates the mandatory provisions of the Act. The Court held that the proceedings and cognizance taken were unsustainable in law because the report failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 6 of the Act by not furnishing particulars of time and place in relation to the alleged prejudicial acts, and non-bailable warrants were issued without assigning reasons in violation of Section 5. The key principle laid down is that a report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 must contain specific details of time and place of the acts charged, and failure to do so vitiates the cognizance taken by the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does taking cognizance on a report lacking details of time and place vitiate proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Is it mandatory for the Tribunal to assign reasons when issuing non-bailable warrants under Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Can proceedings initiated under Section 4/14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 be quashed through a constitutional petition?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. AZIZ BIBI1980 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions seeking the recall of Supreme Court judgments due to the death of a party during appeal proceedings without the substitution of legal representatives. The core legal question is whether such judgments constitute nullities or require automatic recall. The Court held that the Supreme Court Rules do not provide for automatic abatement upon a party's death; rather, abatement requires a specific judicial order. Consequently, judgments delivered without substituting legal representatives are not nullities per se. The Court retains inherent discretion to determine whether to recall a judgment based on the circumstances, including whether the affected party was a necessary party and whether the failure to substitute was excusable. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court exercises judicial discretion regarding abatement, and the absence of a party due to death does not automatically invalidate a judgment. In the present cases, the Court allowed the review for heirs of a necessary party whose absence was excusable but rejected the petition of a party who was already ex parte and contributed to the procedural defect.
Questions settled- Does the death of a party in an appeal before the Supreme Court result in automatic abatement of the proceedings?
- Is a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court without substituting the legal representatives of a deceased party a nullity?
- Does the Supreme Court have the inherent power to recall a judgment where a party died during the pendency of the appeal?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding abatement automatically applicable to proceedings before the Supreme Court?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD ETC. vs BOOTA ETC.1980 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- KHUSHHAL KHAN KIANI vs COMMANDANT & MAGISTRATE, CHENAB RANGERS1980 CLC 368 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-19Read full judgment →
- KHUSH! MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND 3 OTHERS1980 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court regarding bail in cross-cases arising from the same criminal occurrence. In the first petition, the complainant challenged the grant of bail to accused persons whose trial had concluded but who remained incarcerated due to delays in the cross-case. The Supreme Court addressed whether prolonged incarceration resulting from the obstruction of proceedings by the opposing party constitutes a valid ground for bail. The Court held that while the specific statutory provisions of Section 497(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 might not apply, the abuse of the court's process caused by such delays is a sufficient ground for granting bail. In the second petition, the Court upheld the refusal of pre-arrest bail to accused persons who were absconders and declared proclaimed offenders. The Court affirmed that being a fugitive from justice precludes the grant of pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts possess the discretion to grant bail to prevent the abuse of judicial processes, while simultaneously denying relief to those evading the law.
Questions settled- Can prolonged incarceration resulting from the obstruction of proceedings by the opposing party in a cross-case constitute a valid ground for bail?
- Does the status of being a fugitive from justice or a proclaimed offender preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a court grant bail to prevent the abuse of its own processes even if the specific criteria of Section 497(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not met?
- KHURSHID HASSAN SIDDIQUI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1980 PLC (C. S.) 92 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALI vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM1980 CLC 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the husband challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the trial court's decision and dissolved the marriage on the principle of khula. The petitioner contended that the wife had not specifically prayed for khula in her plaint and that since she failed to prove her allegations of cruelty, bad character, and misappropriation, she was not entitled to a dissolution. The High Court examined whether a court can grant a dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula even if it is not specifically pleaded and the other allegations remain unproven. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that a wife is entitled to khula as of right if she satisfies the court of her fixed aversion and that forcing her to remain in the marriage would mean forcing her into a hateful union where the limits of God cannot be observed. Finding that the serious rift, including the husband lodging a theft case against his wife, demonstrated strong hatred, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the dissolution.
Questions settled- Can a court dissolve a marriage on the ground of khula even if the wife has not specifically prayed for it in her plaint?
- Is a wife entitled to the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula if she fails to prove other allegations of cruelty and maltreatment?
- What is the essential limitation on a wife's right to obtain a dissolution of marriage through khula?
- KHURSHID ALAM vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI AND 21980 PLC (C.S.) 452 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-01-13Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPARTMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 383 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-20Read full judgment →
- KHUDA DAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL HANAN AND 6 OTHERS1980 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF1980 CLC 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs NASIRUDDIN AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a landowner, filed two separate suits against his tenant (respondent No. 3) for recovery of a share of the produce and for ejectment before the Assistant Collector, both of which were decreed. On appeal, the Collector maintained the decree for recovery of produce but set aside the ejectment decree, relying on a precedent of the Board of Revenue. The petitioner challenged this through a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether a landlord who holds both a decree for arrears of rent and a decree for ejectment can pursue independent remedies or execute them separately under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Lahore High Court held that the right of a person holding a decree for ejectment is independent of the right under a decree for arrears of rent, and both remedies can operate separately. The impugned order of the Collector was declared without lawful authority, establishing the principle that a landlord may pursue ejectment and rent recovery remedies independently under the applicable revenue laws.
Questions settled- Can a landlord independently execute a decree for ejectment alongside a decree for arrears of rent under the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887?
- What are the statutory requirements for the ejectment of a tenant under paragraph 25-A of the Land Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- Do the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 override contrary provisions in other laws and court decrees?
- What procedure must a Revenue Officer follow upon receiving an application for ejectment due to an unsatisfied decree for arrears of rent?
- KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs AMIR AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which accepted a second appeal and held the respondent entitled to a one-third share in the disputed property as a reversioner. The core legal question concerned the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal, specifically regarding the interpretation and application of the presumption of execution and contents of ancient documents under the Evidence Act, alongside the principles governing the misreading or ignoring of material evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact because the lower courts had omitted to consider material evidence, including ancient lease deeds and official death certificate entries. The Court ruled that once an ancient document's execution is presumed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, external evidence and presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act may support the correctness of its contents when executed ante litem motam.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is competent to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal in the absence of misreading or ignoring material evidence?
- Does the presumption arising under Section 90 of the Evidence Act regarding ancient documents extend to the correctness of their contents?
- Can a presumption as to the correctness of the contents of an ancient document be raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act when executed ante litem motam?
- KHOEDAD KHAN AND ANOTHERAccuseds vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 139 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the victim's minority and whether the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. The trial court had relied on a medical report to determine the victim's age without further verification. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was under seventeen years of age, as the medical evidence was unsubstantiated and the victim was not referred for radiological examination. Furthermore, the court found the victim was likely a consenting party, noting the absence of physical violence, the delayed reporting of the incident, and the victim's initial failure to disclose the full details to her father. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment establishes that the burden of proof regarding minority rests solely on the prosecution and that medical opinions on age, when not supported by clinical or radiological evidence, are insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving the victim's minority in a rape case lie with the prosecution?
- Is a medical report stating an age without supporting clinical or radiological examination sufficient to prove minority in a criminal trial?
- Can a conviction for rape be sustained when there is an absence of physical violence and evidence suggesting the victim was a consenting party?
- Khawaja WALIUL HASSAN AND 2 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1980 CLC 1631 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD NAEEM AND OTHERS vs TASLEEM JAN AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1483 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of a civil suit instituted by the respondents for a declaration and perpetual injunction regarding shop No. 1067 in Peshawar Cantt., challenging a compromise decree obtained by the petitioners against the legal representatives of Mahmood Jan. The trial court and the District Judge decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding them to be joint owners. The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings in revision. The core legal questions involved whether a respondent can file cross-objections without filing a substantive appeal, whether the plaintiffs proved joint ownership of the business 'Tasleem Jan & Sons', and whether a suit for mere declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession is barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Peshawar High Court held that a respondent has a statutory right under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file cross-objections, that the lower courts misread the transfer documents and ignored material evidence proving Mahmood Jan was the sole proprietor, and that a suit for mere declaration when the plaintiffs are out of possession is barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The revision petition was accepted and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a respondent who has not appealed from any part of a decree can file cross-objections in an appeal filed by another party?
- Does a suit for a mere declaration of title without seeking possession as a consequential relief lie when the plaintiffs are admittedly not in possession of the property?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in revision when material evidence has been misread or ignored?
- KHAWAJ DIN vs RATIONING CONTROLLER FOOD, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order passed by a Deputy Secretary (General) in a revision petition filed under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967. The core legal question was whether the Secretary of the Food Department could delegate the statutory power of hearing revision petitions to a subordinate officer through a 'Standing Order' issued under the Rules of Business. The Court held that the power of revision under Section 6(3) of the Order constitutes a judicial function, as it requires the adjudication of rights, the weighing of evidence, and the provision of an opportunity for a hearing. Consequently, such powers cannot be delegated under the Rules of Business, which are designed for administrative and ministerial functions. Furthermore, the Court noted that delegating revisionary authority to an officer of lower rank than the original appellate authority would violate the hierarchy of the administrative scheme. The delegation was declared without lawful authority, and the revision petition was remanded to the Secretary for disposal in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can a statutory power of revision that requires a judicial hearing be delegated to a subordinate officer under the Rules of Business?
- Does the definition of 'case' in the Rules of Business encompass judicial or quasi-judicial functions?
- Is the exercise of revisionary power under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967, an administrative or a judicial act?
- KHATOON BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS vs MESSRS HYESONS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 1666 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- KHANU ETC. vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 316 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-30Read full judgment →
- KHAN BAHADUR vs ARSALA KHAN1980 SCMR 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption regarding the sale of agricultural land. The petitioner, the original vendee, claimed a right of pre-emption equal to that of the respondent-pre-emptor by asserting he was also a landowner in the village. To prove this, the petitioner relied on an unexhibited document of sale and the oral testimony of a Lambardar. The trial court initially accepted the testimony, but the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court subsequently rejected both the unexhibited document and the oral testimony, finding the petitioner failed to prove his status as a landowner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that an unexhibited document produced by a party cannot be relied upon by that same party for their own benefit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that oral testimony from a witness summoned for a different purpose, which lacks corroboration by best evidence like mutations or revenue records, is insufficient to establish land ownership. Consequently, the respondent’s superior right of pre-emption was upheld.
Questions settled- Can a party rely on an unexhibited document produced by themselves to prove their own case?
- Is the oral testimony of a witness sufficient to prove land ownership when the witness was not summoned for that purpose and no documentary evidence supports the claim?
- What is the effect of failing to produce the best evidence available to prove a claim of land ownership in a pre-emption suit?
- KHALILUR REHMAN vs SHAKOOR AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's second appeal in limine. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for possession of agricultural land, claiming a superior right of pre-emption on the basis that a transaction between the respondents, ostensibly labeled as an exchange, was in reality a sale. While the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, the District Judge reversed this decision, concluding the transaction was indeed an exchange. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the District Judge's finding of fact regarding the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange is a question of fact. Finding that the evidence was not misread and that no substantial question of law was raised, the Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, affirming that findings of fact by the first appellate court are generally immune from interference in second appeal absent misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Is the determination of whether a transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange a question of fact?
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact in a second appeal if there is no misreading of evidence?
- KHALILUR REHMAN (REPRESENTED By HE1RS) vs MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN KHAN1980 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, wherein the High Court granted an extension of time to the respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to deposit a pre-emption amount. The respondent had instituted a pre-emption suit which was decreed in his favour upon payment of Rs. 12,000, and subsequent appeals by the respondent to the District Judge were dismissed. During the second appeal before the High Court, the respondent sought to withdraw the appeal subject to an extension of time being granted for depositing the sum. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that no concession regarding the extension of time was made by his counsel in the High Court, supported by an affidavit. Upon the Court pointing out that the appropriate remedy was to seek a review in the High Court, the petitioner's counsel opted to withdraw the petition to pursue review proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Questions settled- Can the High Court extend the time to deposit a pre-emption amount under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the proper course of remedy when a party disputes a factual observation recorded in a High Court order regarding a concession made by counsel?
- Khalifa HUSSAIN AHMAD vs Mst.SAT BHARAI1980 CLC 648 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
- KHALIDA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER vs Malik MUHAMMAD IJAZ HUSSAIN1980 CLC 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- KHALID SAEED vs ALLAUDDIN PEHLWAN AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 133 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- KHALID RASHID AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS AMEEN CORPORATION AND 21980 CLC 1071 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- KHALID AND COMPANY, LAHORE COMBINED INDUSTRIES, LTD., LAHORE vs THE _fa1ad54042 TAX 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the imposition of additional tax under Sections 18-A and 45-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The petitioners challenged the vires of these sections, arguing that the definition of 'tax' under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (prior to the Finance Act, 1974 amendment) did not encompass the additional tax levied. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the additional tax was not a levy on income but on an entity other than income, and thus ultra vires the powers of the Federal Government under the Federal Legislative List of the 1962 Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that the case raised significant questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the Constitution. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the issues involved matters of public importance and were of first impression, requiring a definitive interpretation of the constitutional and statutory provisions involved.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'tax' under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act 1922, prior to the 1974 amendment, include the additional tax levied under Sections 18-A and 45-A?
- Is the additional tax imposed under the Income Tax Act 1922 a levy on income or an entity other than income?
- Was the imposition of additional tax under the Income Tax Act 1922 ultra vires the powers of the Federal Government under the Federal Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN, ETC vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB SGA&I DEPARTMENT ETC1980 PLC (C. S.) 604 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's criminal revision against his conviction and sentence under section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for kidnapping a minor female from the custody of her guardian. The core legal question revolved around the determination of the abductee's age on the date of the occurrence based on conflicting birth entries and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the age of the abductee were unexceptionable, noting that the birth entry relied upon by the defence pertained to another individual and that affidavits and admissions obtained from the minor while under the petitioner's influence held no evidentiary value. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with the sentence on the ground of delay, as the petitioner himself was responsible for the procrastination in the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on the question of an abductee's age warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can affidavits and admissions regarding age executed by a minor while under the influence of the accused be relied upon?
- Does delay in the hearing of a revision petition in the High Court justify reduction of sentence by the Supreme Court when the accused is responsible for the delay?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 654 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN AGHA vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1980 CLC 621 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
- Kh. SAUD AHMAD vs Sh. ABDUR RASHID1980 PLD Lahore 557 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
- Kh. SADDAR-UD-DIN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF A J & K1980 PLC 220 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Kh. FAKHARUDDIN vs HASINUDDIN QURESHI AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 778 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal arose from a writ petition concerning the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, where a Single Judge directed a fresh decision on an appeal. A preliminary question arose regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, read with subsequent amendments including the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether an intra-court appeal survived or was barred where the law applicable to the original proceedings provided for an appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the repeal of clause 10 of the Letters Patent and the enactment of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, extinguished the general right of intra-court appeal, and the statutory bar explicitly applies to bar intra-court appeals from orders passed in writ jurisdiction arising out of proceedings where the underlying law provided for an appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as incompetent and not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge in writ jurisdiction when the law applicable to the original proceedings provided for an appeal?
- Did the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 effectively repeal clause 10 of the Letters Patent to take away the right of intra-court appeal?
- Can a right of appeal under the Letters Patent survive the retrospective ouster and substitution of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Kh. ABDUL QAYYUM vs BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a dispute over the transfer of servant quarters appurtenant to a bungalow in Lahore. The petitioner sought to include these quarters in a property transfer previously granted by a consent order of the Supreme Court. However, the Court had subsequently excluded these quarters, noting they were not part of the northern portion of the bungalow originally allocated to the petitioner and that the respondents held a final, unchallenged order from the Settlement Commissioner dated 29th April 1974 transferring the quarters to them. The core legal question was whether the Court erred in excluding these quarters from the petitioner's transfer. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner’s claim was factually incorrect regarding the location of the quarters. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner could not challenge the respondents' title to the quarters in these proceedings, as the Settlement Commissioner's order had attained finality. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot collaterally challenge the transfer of property in review proceedings when the underlying administrative order transferring that property to another party has remained unchallenged in the appropriate forums.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the transfer of property in review proceedings when the underlying administrative order transferring that property to another party has attained finality?
- Does a consent order for property transfer automatically include all appurtenant structures regardless of pending litigation regarding specific portions?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the petitioner fails to challenge the administrative orders that finalized the transfer of the disputed property to the respondents?
- KEWALRAM vs MESSRS ISMAIL BROTHERS1980 CLC 915 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
- KAURO AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 519 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- KASSIM ALI vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.1980 CLC 2089 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-01Read full judgment →
- KASIM SHAH AND OTHERS vs MAJOR KHALID MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 498 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
- KARIM DAD vs MUHAMMAD AND 4 Time1980 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-06Read full judgment →
- KARIM BUX vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 603 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-06Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH AND Otherss vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1980 PLD Rev. 55 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
- KARAMATULLAH KHAN vs SECRETARY EDUCATION, NORTHWEST FRONTIER1980 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal concerning seniority and consequential financial claims. The core legal questions involve whether a retired civil servant's appeal was maintainable before the Service Tribunal and whether section 4(c) of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act, 1974 bars appeals against departmental orders made before 1st July 1969. The Supreme Court held that while the appellant qualified as a civil servant under the amended law, his appeal was nonetheless barred by clause (c) of section 4 of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act, 1974, as all impugned departmental orders were passed prior to 1st July 1969. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals against departmental orders or decisions made prior to 1st July 1969, pursuant to the statutory bar under section 4(c) of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
Questions settled- Whether a retired government servant falls within the definition of a civil servant for the purpose of maintaining an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does section 4(c) of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act, 1974 bar appeals against departmental orders or decisions made prior to the 1st of July, 1969?
- Whether pending appeals under the repealed North-West Frontier Province Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1971 stand transferred to the appropriate Service Tribunal under section 10 of the repealing legislation?
- KARAM KHAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 578 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
- KARAM ELAHI AND ANOTHER vs MUHA MMAD AL A M1980 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the District Judge's order remanding a pre-emption suit for further trial and restored the trial court's order dismissing the suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the pre-emption suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code due to the plaintiffs' failure to produce evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly upheld the dismissal because the petitioners' counsel had explicitly stated before the trial court that no steps had been taken to summon evidence due to misunderstanding, and a new document (a process fee deposit chit) not produced in the lower courts could not be entertained for the first time. The key principle laid down is that orders of lower courts must be tested on the basis of the material placed before them at the relevant time, and a party cannot introduce new factual material at the leave-to-appeal stage to contradict statements previously made by their counsel.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is justified in deciding a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party fails to produce evidence?
- Can an appellate or apex court consider a new document or receipt produced for the first time at the leave-to-appeal stage to contradict a statement made by counsel before the trial court?
- KARAM DAD AND ANOTHER vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1980 CLC 1119 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1976-08-02Read full judgment →
- KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs MESSRS MUHAMMAD ALI SHEIKH1980 PLD Karachi 9 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25Read full judgment →
- LATIF vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI vs NATIONAL1980 PLC (C. S.) 305 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-18Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER vs Mst. HASEENA BEGUM1980 CLC 522 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
- KAMIR vs NAZIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had acquitted the respondents of a murder charge. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents and sentenced them to transportation for life. The High Court acquitted them on the grounds that the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased, there was an alleged land dispute between the parties, and there was a lack of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, found that the parties were closely related to each other and the witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the respondent. The Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular account and the corroborative evidence of the recovery of a crime empty matching the respondent's licensed gun. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no absolute rule of law that the evidence of a police officer regarding the recovery of incriminating articles cannot be accepted. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence of the respondent.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses who are related to both the deceased and the accused be discarded solely on the ground of relationship?
- Is there any legal bar to accepting the sole testimony of a police officer regarding the recovery of incriminating articles?
- Whether a High Court is justified in reversing a conviction where the ocular account is natural, the parties are closely related, and the recovery of the weapon is corroborative?
- KAKA vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN1980 CLC 1937 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
- KAISAR vs THE STATE1980 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-16Read full judgment →
- KADOO AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- K. S. TALATI, ADVOCATE vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
- JUMA KHAN AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL KARIM AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a second appeal in a suit for possession of urban property. The petitioners, who had initially succeeded in the trial and first appellate courts on the plea of adverse possession, challenged the High Court's reversal of those findings. The core legal questions were whether the second appeal was competent given the valuation of the subject matter, whether the High Court could disturb concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession, and the interpretation of Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly intervened because the lower courts had misread material evidence, specifically the petitioners' prior admission of the respondents' ownership. The Court affirmed that a party pleading adverse possession bears a strict burden of proof to demonstrate possession that is open, hostile, and a visible denial of the true owner's title. Mere long possession does not satisfy the legal requirements for adverse possession, and the High Court was justified in correcting the lower courts' erroneous application of law.
Questions settled- Does mere long possession of property qualify as adverse possession?
- Is a party pleading adverse possession required to prove that their possession is open and hostile to the real owner?
- Can a High Court in second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact if the lower courts misread material evidence?
- JIWANMAL AND ANOTHER vs JAROMAL AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which upheld an order for the ejectment of tenants (petitioners) from two shops due to default in rent payment. The respondents had filed a second ejectment application after the petitioners failed to pay rent for a significant period following an earlier, unsuccessful ejectment attempt. The petitioners argued that the second application was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the rent claim overlapped with the period covered in the previous proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the rule of res judicata cannot be invoked to protect tenants from subsequent defaults. The Court found that the petitioners were guilty of contumacious default in rent payment for a period of three years preceding the second application. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the ejectment order while granting the petitioners four months to vacate the premises, subject to the payment of outstanding rent. The judgment clarifies that fresh defaults in rent payment provide independent grounds for eviction, regardless of prior litigation history.
Questions settled- Can the principle of res judicata be invoked to prevent an ejectment application based on subsequent defaults in rent payment?
- Does a failed prior ejectment application bar a subsequent application for ejectment based on new defaults in rent payment?
- JINDA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 327 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-14Read full judgment →
- JEWAN AND 9 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 570 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the legality of a trial court order summoning certain given-up prosecution witnesses as court witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether a criminal court has the power to review its earlier orders, whether a prosecution witness given up by the prosecution can be summoned as a court witness under section 540, and whether such a witness can be confronted with their previous police statement under section 162. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order did not constitute a review of the previous order, that a given-up prosecution witness summoned under section 540 retains their character as a prosecution witness and can be confronted with their police statement under section 162, and that the trial court is under an obligation to summon any witness whose evidence appears essential for a just decision of the case. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal court has the power to review its own orders under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a prosecution witness who has been given up by the prosecution be summoned by the trial court under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether a given-up prosecution witness examined as a court witness can be confronted with their previous police statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a trial court obliged to summon a witness if their evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case?
- JEAN CHARLES GROOSEN vs STATE OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1980 PLD Peshawar 275 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Swiss national, challenged an order passed by the Federal Government under the Foreigners Act, 1946, which prohibited his entry into Pakistan on the grounds that his activities were prejudicial to the state's interest. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the government is required to provide a hearing to a foreigner before exercising its power to restrict entry into the country. The Court held that the petition was meritless, ruling that a sovereign state possesses inherent, absolute power to restrict the entry of foreigners into its territory. The Court determined that the Federal Government's authority under the Foreigners Act, 1946, is plenary and does not require prior notice or a hearing. The principle laid down is that the sovereign right of a state to regulate the entry of foreigners is not fettered by principles of natural justice or equity.
Questions settled- Does the principle of natural justice require the government to provide a show-cause notice or hearing to a foreigner before banning their entry into Pakistan?
- Does the Federal Government have the authority under the Foreigners Act, 1946, to restrict the entry of a foreigner without prior notice?
- Is the sovereign right of a state to restrict the entry of foreigners subject to the requirements of natural justice?
- JAVED MANZOOR ETC.s vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1980 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a pre-emption suit where the vendees challenged orders allowing the pre-emptor time to make up a deficiency in court-fee. The core legal question was whether the court's discretionary power to extend time for making good a deficient court-fee under the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised mechanically, and whether an order on the matter must be a speaking order. The Lahore High Court held that while the discretionary power to extend time remains unaffected, it must not be exercised routinely or mechanically, particularly in pre-emption cases where limitation rights accrue to the vendee. Such discretion must be exercised after proper appreciation of facts, and the court must be satisfied that the plaintiff was not contumacious, negligent, or mala fide. Furthermore, orders allowing or disallowing extensions must be speaking orders. However, since the trial court had previously made an express order accepting the court-fee, a party cannot be penalized for a court's mistake, invoking the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the discretionary power to extend time for making good a deficient court-fee under the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised mechanically in pre-emption cases?
- Is it mandatory for a court to pass a speaking order when granting or refusing an extension of time to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
- Can a party be penalized or prejudiced due to a mistaken order or act of the court?
- To what extent can the High Court interfere with subordinate forum orders regarding court-fee extensions in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- JAVED IQBAL KHAN vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 21980 CLC 558 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- JAVAID AKHTAR AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SANGHER AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-19Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs M. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 698 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-13Read full judgment →
- JAN AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 420 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
- JAMSHED SULTAN TAIMOORI vs Mst. ANISA BEGUM1980 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-01Read full judgment →
- JAMSHED PLAZA vs I.-G. POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 83 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
- JAMIL CHAUDRI AND ANOTHER vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1980 CLC 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHSAN GILL, ADVOCATE vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMAD vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1255 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMAD QURESHI vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, SADDAR, SIALKOT AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-03Read full judgment →
- JAMES HAMILTON MACFOY vs S. S. "PHOENIX"1980 PLD Karachi 467 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-05Read full judgment →
- JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1980 PLC (C. S.) 10 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
- Jamadar AMIR HUSSAIN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AZEEM KHAN AND OTHERS1980 CLC 2009 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-02-03Read full judgment →
- JALAL vs HIDAYAT Ali AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
- JALAL AND 13 OTHERS vs NAZIR AHMAD AND 8 OTHERS1980 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks the review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court dated 7th November, 1977, on the ground that it proceeded on a misconceived assumption regarding the doctrine of 'Sinker' and misconstrued a precedent. The core legal question is whether a review petition can be entertained to re-argue a case on merits and whether a misconstrued precedent that did not form the sole basis of the original decision warrants review or reconsideration of the settled law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the original judgment was independently supported by factual findings regarding the lump-sum payment of consideration without specified individual contributions, and that attempting to re-argue the case on merits and additional grounds falls beyond the limited scope of review proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used as an appellate forum to re-argue a matter on merits, especially when the impugned judgment rests on sound independent factual and legal foundations.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be maintained to re-argue a case on merits and raise additional grounds?
- Does the misinterpretation of a supporting precedent warrant the review and reconsideration of a judgment that is otherwise founded on independent factual conclusions?
- JAIRAM AND 8 OTHERS vs JAGDISH AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
- JAI COPAL alias BUDHAN SAIN vs Mst. SARDAR 13EGUM AND 4 OTHERs1980 CLC 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
- JAHANA vs GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the High Court. The primary matter for consideration before the Supreme Court was an application for condonation of a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause to satisfactorily explain the delay to warrant its condonation. The court held that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the long delay or make out any sufficient cause for condoning the same. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation and sufficient cause, a time-barred petition cannot be entertained and must be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a delay of 105 days in filing a petition for special leave to appeal can be condoned without a satisfactory explanation?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in judicial proceedings?
- JAFFAR KHAN vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petitioner, employed as a sepoy, refused to obey an order to drive a car assigned to the Assistant Collector, leading to disciplinary proceedings, dismissal from service, and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner could lawfully refuse to drive when he had previously worked in that capacity, and whether his refusal constituted insubordination. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was rightly found guilty of insubordination and that he had indeed worked as a driver in his capacity as a sepoy, finding no legal infirmity in the Service Tribunal's decision. The Court laid down the principle that refusal to obey lawful departmental orders regarding assigned duties constitutes punishable insubordination, and finding no question of public importance involved, dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a sepoy refusing to drive a vehicle when directed can be held guilty of insubordination?
- Does an employee's refusal to obey a departmental order justify dismissal from service?
- When will the Supreme Court grant special leave to appeal in service matters involving factual determinations?
- JAFFAR HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, IRRIGATION &1980 PLC (C. S.) 660 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-06-28Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of murdering the deceased over a watercourse dispute, while the first petitioner lodged a counter-report alleging he was attacked by the deceased's party while attempting to impound trespassing cattle. The core legal question was whether the existence of a counter-version and the nature of the injuries sustained by both parties warranted the grant of bail pending trial. The Supreme Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the presence of injuries on the first petitioner, coupled with the ambiguity regarding which specific blow caused the fatal injury, necessitated a deeper examination of the common intention and the right of self-defense, which could not be summarily dismissed at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a counter-version in a murder case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be granted when there is ambiguity regarding which accused caused the fatal injury in a case involving multiple participants?
- Is the presence of injuries on an accused in a cross-case relevant to the determination of bail?
- JAFAR KHAN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 410 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- JAFAR HUSSAIN vs TRIBUNAL & S. D. M. CITY, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 195 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-10Read full judgment →
- J MUJEEBUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER vs SERVICE BOARD, K. M. C., KARACHI1980 PLC (C. S.) 158 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-07Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 143 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL AND 7 OTHERS vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SIND AND 31980 PLD Karachi 251 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1980 PLD Lahore 104 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from competing suits for pre-emption. The trial court decreed the appellants' suit, while an appellate court subsequently accepted respondent No. 1's appeal and decreed his suit instead. During the pendency of the appellants' second appeal, they withdrew the pre-emption money they had deposited without obtaining prior permission from the court, though they later redeposited it pursuant to a subsequent court order. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor-appellant without the court's leave renders the appeal liable to dismissal under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Holding that the statutory provisions are mandatory, the Lahore High Court followed established local jurisprudence over foreign precedents and ruled that withdrawing pre-emption funds without leave entails the dismissal of the appeal. The court declined to exercise discretion to condone the unauthorized withdrawal, concluding that the appeal could not proceed, and accordingly dismissed it with costs.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor-appellant without the permission of the court render the appeal liable to dismissal?
- Are the provisions of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, regarding the deposit and withdrawal of pre-emption money mandatory?
- Can a pre-emptor who withdraws pre-emption money without leave cure the default by subsequently redepositing the amount?
- Will a court exercise its discretion to condone the unauthorized withdrawal of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor?
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN vs M. K. JASKANI1980 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Service Tribunal judgment regarding the pay scale entitlement of a civil servant. The respondent had been drawing a specific pay scale for eight years following his appointment to an upgraded post, but the government subsequently attempted to retroactively reduce this scale. The government contended that the respondent's appeal was time-barred and that the challenged orders were beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, noting that the respondent had filed a valid application for condonation of delay and that the final order affecting his rights was the one communicated in 1974, not the earlier departmental orders. On the merits, the Court held that while the government possesses the power of locus poenitentiae to rescind its orders under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, this power is subject to the exception that once an order has taken legal effect and created vested rights in an individual, it cannot be withdrawn to their detriment. Consequently, the government could not retroactively deprive the respondent of the pay scale he had enjoyed for years.
Questions settled- Can the government retroactively rescind an order that has already taken legal effect and created vested rights for an individual?
- Does the power of locus poenitentiae under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 allow the government to withdraw orders to the detriment of a civil servant after rights have accrued?
- Is the Service Tribunal empowered to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- ISHRAT YAR KHAN vs SIND PROVINCE AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 625 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- IS C SHER MUHAMMAD vs Mst. FAZAL BIBI AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1540 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
- IRTIQA RASOOL HASHMI vs WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's services were terminated under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958. The Service Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, finding that the petitioner refused postal service and possessed prior knowledge of the termination order when pursuing remedies before another forum. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised a factual plea regarding non-service and sought exclusion of time spent before the wrong forum. The Supreme Court held that factual pleas cannot be re-agitated when appeals under Article 212 require a substantial question of law of public importance. Furthermore, new pleas not raised before the Tribunal cannot be permitted for the first time, and discretionary orders on condonation of delay cannot be interfered with unless exercised illegally or arbitrarily. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a factual plea regarding non-service of an order be re-agitated in an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a party raise a plea for exclusion of time spent before a wrong forum for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the Service Tribunal?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary power of a tribunal regarding condonation of delay?
- IRSHAD ALI vs SECRETARY FOOD1980 PLC (C.S) 619 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1978-06-04Read full judgment →