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.
- IQBAL AHMAD vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence for an offence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was convicted for attempting to commit carnal intercourse with a minor, during which he inflicted injuries on the victim. The core legal question was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances, including the victim's conduct and the petitioner's pre-conviction incarceration. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction on merits, noting the sufficiency of the victim's testimony. However, the Court held that the sentence warranted modification. The ratio of the decision is that where the victim's own conduct—specifically being under the influence of alcohol and the lack of evidence regarding forced accompaniment—casts doubt on the circumstances, and considering the simple nature of the injuries and the period of pre-trial detention, the interest of justice is served by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence based on the period of pre-trial detention already undergone by the accused?
- Does the conduct of a victim, such as being under the influence of alcohol, constitute a relevant factor in determining the appropriate sentence for an accused?
- Is the testimony of a victim sufficient to uphold a conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when corroborated by injuries?
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS WILLIAM SON & CO.1980 PLD Karachi 576 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS NATIONAL WOOD1980 CLC 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
- INDOPAKISTAN CORPORATION LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against the Supreme Court's order dated 21st December 1979 in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1977. The petitioner challenged the decision on three grounds: first, that the Court erroneously based its decision on the premise that the original shareholders were enemy nationals; second, that the respondent failed to consider whether heirs of deceased members had succeeded to the shares; and third, that the Court failed to consider the precedent set in The Province of East Pakistan v. Daulatpur Jute Mills Ltd. regarding the drastic action of vesting assets in the Custodian of Enemy Properties. Upon review, the Court dismissed the petition. It held that the decision was sustainable on other grounds regardless of the specific premise challenged. Regarding the second ground, the Court noted that the issue of share ownership remained open for future determination. Finally, the Court found the cited precedent inapplicable because the Tribunal had provided substantial reasons for the takeover of the petitioner's assets as an enemy firm. The petition was dismissed as lacking substance.
Questions settled- Can a judgment be sustained on grounds other than those specifically challenged in a review petition?
- Does the failure to cite a specific precedent in a judgment constitute a ground for review if the precedent is inapplicable to the facts?
- Is a review petition maintainable if the issue raised was explicitly left open for future determination in the original judgment?
- INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE HI, KARACHI vs MOHAMMADI41 TAX 25 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- INAYAT MASIH vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction and death sentence for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction was sustainable despite alleged discrepancies in the eye-witness accounts and whether the petitioner’s plea of self-defence was sufficiently established. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing the petition. The Court ruled that minor discrepancies in the testimony of eye-witnesses, even if related to the deceased, do not undermine the prosecution's case when the overall evidence is consistent and corroborated by disinterested witnesses. Regarding the plea of self-defence, the Court established that such a plea cannot be sustained based solely on the accused's assertion; it requires supporting direct or circumstantial evidence. The absence of injuries on the accused, which would be expected in a struggle involving a weapon, rendered the self-defence claim untenable. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the death sentence was the appropriate legal penalty given the premeditated nature of the attack and the fatal injuries inflicted.
Questions settled- Does a trivial discrepancy in the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding the specific actions of the accused invalidate their entire evidence?
- Can a plea of self-defence be accepted based solely on the statement of the accused without supporting evidence?
- Is a retracted confession admissible if corroborated by other prosecution evidence?
- INAYAT HUSSAIN vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 90 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- INAYAT HUSSAIN NAQVI vs THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
- INAM HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 687 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- INAM ELAH1 vs Mir ABDUL HAMID, DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE1980 CLC 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-17Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs MASAL KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent by the High Court, which set aside his conviction for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court's rejection of the prosecution's ocular evidence and subsequent acquittal was justified, particularly given the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the unreliability of three out of four eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment was a reasonable and possible view, and thus declined to interfere. The Court emphasized that the testimony of the remaining eye-witness, Liaqat Ali, was significantly undermined by discrepancies between his account of the shooting and the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the fatal wound. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish motive, and that the respondent's abscondence and the recovery of the weapon were insufficient to corroborate the unreliable ocular testimony. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with a reasonable and possible view taken by the first appellate court regarding the appreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's acquittal if the High Court's view on the appreciation of evidence is reasonable and possible?
- Does a discrepancy between medical evidence and the description of the occurrence provided by an eye-witness justify the rejection of that witness's testimony?
- Is the fact of abscondence sufficient to corroborate the testimony of a witness whose credibility is otherwise in doubt?
- Can the prosecution rely on evidence of motive if the accused was not questioned about the alleged motive during the trial?
- In re : TRADE MARKS ACT (V OF 1940) vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE1980 CLC 660 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- In re : CONTEMPT APPLICATION FILED BY MR. FATEH YAB ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE, KARACHI Misc. PETITION No, 1R/79 vs NOT1980 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a contempt application filed by Mr. Fatehyab Ali Khan, Advocate, objecting to the appearance of the Attorney-General for Pakistan to assist the Court, and further alleging that the Attorney-General committed contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by making an incorrect statement regarding the holding of future elections in a previous case. The core legal question is whether the Attorney-General's expression of opinion or statement regarding election timelines in a prior proceeding renders him liable for contempt of court or disentitles him from assisting the Court as a law officer. The Supreme Court held that the petition is entirely misconceived and devoid of merit, noting that the Attorney-General had appeared merely as an officer of the Court to state his opinion on the time required for accountability and elections. The key principle laid down is that statements of opinion given by the Attorney-General in his official capacity as an officer of the Court do not constitute contempt of court.
Questions settled- Whether the Attorney-General can be held liable for contempt of court for statements made in a prior judicial proceeding?
- Does an expression of opinion by the Attorney-General regarding election timelines constitute contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a petitioner object to the appearance of the Attorney-General assisting the Court as a law officer?
- IMPERIAL PAINT AND VARNISH WORKS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX41 TAX 51 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- IMDAD ALI vs GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 561(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the transfer of a property in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, an occupant since 1948, sought transfer of the house but failed to apply under Scheme No. I. He later applied for condonation of delay under Scheme No. VIII, but the property was auctioned to the first respondent in 1968, and the auction was confirmed. The petitioner's subsequent appeals and revisions were dismissed due to the delay in filing and the finality of the auction. The core legal question was whether the property could be auctioned while the petitioner's application for condonation of delay was pending. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked substance, affirming that without the condonation of delay, the transfer form was not legally entertainable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner was guilty of laches by failing to challenge the auction promptly. The principle laid down is that where an auction transaction has attained finality and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) has been issued, the legality of the auction cannot be reopened, especially where the claimant failed to pursue their remedy diligently.
Questions settled- Can a property be transferred to an occupant if the application for condonation of delay in filing the transfer form has not been granted?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to an auction purchaser preclude the reopening of the auction's legality?
- Is a claimant who fails to challenge an auction for several years guilty of laches?
- IMAM GUL vs Mst. BEGUM JI1980 CLC 530 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
- IMAM BUX AND ANOTHERS vs QAIM AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 763 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKHSH vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKHSH vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MULTAN AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 193 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-28Read full judgment →
- ILAM DIN ETC. vs ABDUL HAMID ETC.1980 CLC 807 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from execution proceedings where the decree-holder failed to make up the deficit court-fee within the conditional time limit specified in the decree, which stated the claim would be automatically rejected upon default. The core legal question is whether a conditional decree becomes unexecutable upon non-compliance with its terms, and whether a trial court can implicitly condone delay or extend time under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after becoming functus officio. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court became functus officio upon passing the final conditional decree, and since the court-fee was not paid within the stipulated time, a valuable right accrued to the judgment-debtor, rendering the decree incapable of execution. The Court established that extension of time or implied condonation of delay cannot be applied mechanically to destroy a vested right of limitation once a conditional decree has matured.
Questions settled- Whether a court is legally competent to pass a conditional decree subject to the automatic rejection of the plaint for non-payment of a deficit court-fee?
- Does a decree become incapable of execution if its terms regarding the deposit of court-fee within a specified time are not complied with?
- Can a court implicitly extend time or condone delay under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after it has become functus officio upon passing a final conditional decree?
- ILAM DIN (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR) ETC. vs SHADI (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR)1980 CLC 801 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- IKRAMULLAH AND OTHERS vs SAID JAMAL1980 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where the plaintiff incorrectly named the village in the plaint, though the attached sale mutation provided the correct details. The defendants did not object in their written statement, and the suit was decreed. During appeal, the trial Court granted the plaintiff's application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct the clerical misdescription in the judgment, decree, and plaint, which was affirmed on revision and appeal. The petitioners contended that pleadings could only be amended under Order VI Rule 17, that a subsequent sale to a co-owner during extended limitation under Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 protected them under Section 16 of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1987, and that the suit suffered from partial pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 merely permits filing when Courts are closed without extending the limitation period, rendering the subsequent sale ineffective to defeat pre-emption rights.
Questions settled- Can accidental misdescriptions of property in pleadings and decree sheets be corrected under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when full particulars are attached to the plaint?
- Does Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 extend the prescribed period of limitation or merely permit institution of proceedings upon the reopening of a closed court?
- Can a re-sale of pre-empted property executed after the prescribed statutory limitation period protect vendees under Section 16 of the Pre-emption Act based on court closure under Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- IKRAM ALI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 597 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
- IJAZ MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-31Read full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMED vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 892 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of a pious man in Sialkot, for which he was sentenced to death. The core legal questions examined were whether the appellant had murdered the deceased during a relapse of his schizophrenia, and whether the imposition of the death penalty was justified given evidence of his mental abnormality at the time of the offence. The Court held that while the appellant failed to prove total legal insanity under the standard required to completely exonerate him, the evidence nevertheless established that he suffered from a history of schizophrenia and was not entirely mentally normal at the time of the commission of the offence. The ratio decidendi is that lesser forms of mental abnormality and diminished responsibility do not constitute a complete legal defence to murder under Pakistani law, but such abnormality can be considered a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court consequently dismissed the appeal against conviction while reducing the sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of diminished responsibility is available as a defence in a criminal prosecution under Pakistani law?
- Does a history of schizophrenia automatically establish legal insanity at the time of committing an offence?
- Can mental abnormality on the part of an accused be treated as a mitigating circumstance under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to reduce the sentence from death to life imprisonment?
- IJAZ AHMAD vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUZAFFARGARH1980 PLC (C. S.) 126 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-12Read full judgment →
- IHSAN AHMAD alias NANNA vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMED vs AZAD GOVERNMENT' OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC (C. S.) 385 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs ABDUL MAJID ETC.1980 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition in revision challenged the order of acquittal resulting from the grant of consent by the Additional Sessions Judge to the withdrawal of the Additional Public Prosecutor from the prosecution of the respondents for offences under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an order of acquittal consequent upon withdrawal from prosecution under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is amenable to revision by the High Court, and whether such petition should be dismissed on grounds of laches or delay. The Lahore High Court held that the grant of consent by a trial court to a public prosecutor's withdrawal is a judicial act subject to revisional correction if discretion has been improperly or arbitrarily exercised, and that delay in criminal revisions is not an absolute bar where a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred. The court set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial, establishing that a trial court must independently satisfy itself from the record that valid grounds exist before permitting withdrawal from prosecution.
Questions settled- Whether an order of acquittal passed consequent upon the withdrawal of a Public Prosecutor from prosecution with the consent of the court is open to revision by the High Court?
- Does a criminal revision petition filed after considerable delay deserve to be dismissed offhand on the ground of laches alone?
- Is a trial court obliged to independently examine the record to satisfy itself that grounds exist before granting permission to a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution?
- Can the High Court order a retrial after setting aside an improper order of acquittal passed under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- IDREES SHAH Etc.s vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR ETC.1980 CLC 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-01Read full judgment →
- IDREES AHMED KHAN vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUKKUR REGION1980 PLC (C. S.) 680(2) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-04Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM KHAN, ADMINISTRATOR, UNION COUNCIL, BALOCHABAD, THARPARKAR1980 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that invalidated the levy of an Octroi tax by a Union Council. The core legal question was whether the Union Council could lawfully impose an Octroi tax based solely on the Deputy Commissioner's approval of its budget, or if such a levy required the specific previous sanction of the Government as mandated by statute. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the levy was illegal because the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to sanction the tax. The Court held that while prior rules might have allowed such delegation, they were rendered inapplicable by the current statutory framework. The key principle laid down is that where a statute explicitly requires the 'previous sanction of Government' for the imposition of taxes by a local council, any prior rules or delegated authorities that conflict with this express requirement are inconsistent and therefore void, rendering any tax imposed without direct Government sanction invalid.
Questions settled- Can a Deputy Commissioner validate the levy of a tax if the governing statute requires the 'previous sanction of Government'?
- Does a judgment based on a point not argued by the parties constitute an error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are rules framed under repealed statutes saved if they are inconsistent with the provisions of a new, repealing Ordinance?
- IBRAHIM GHANI SHOO/Accused vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 112 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-21Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs JAHANGIR ALAM1980 CLC 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 198 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN AFTAB vs THE STATE Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
- HUMAIRA ANSAR KIZILBASH DecreeHolder vs SHUJAAT1980 PLD Karachi 436 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- HOMOEOPATHIC DR. A. M. HAMEED AND ANOTHER s vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1780 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-05Read full judgment →
- HMI DAWOOD vs Mst. RAHIMA BAI AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the appellant landlord's ejectment application filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondent tenant. The appellant sought eviction on the ground that a portion of the premises had been sublet without his written consent. The core legal question was whether a landlord can waive the statutory requirement of obtaining prior consent in writing for subletting through conduct or implied consent. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a lessor can waive by conduct the condition requiring prior permission in writing for subletting. The court established the key principle that where a landlord has by long-standing practice and conduct acquiesced in the sub-tenancy with knowledge and tacit consent, the requirement of written consent is deemed waived.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can waive by conduct the statutory requirement of obtaining prior consent in writing for subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does section 13(2)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 preclude a finding of implied consent or acquiescence by the landlord?
- Can a tenant be held liable to ejectment for subletting when the landlord has tacitly permitted the sub-tenancy through long-standing practice?
- HIRAM QADIR vs SHAH MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-06Read full judgment →
- HIKMAT KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MAJOR MUHAMMAD SALEEM, PRESIDING1980 CLC 586 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-18Read full judgment →
- HAZRAT SHAH vs REHAN SHAH AND 38 OTHERS1980 CLC 1093 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- HAZRAT GHANI AND 5 OTHERS vs MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, TIMARGARAH, AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 183 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
- HAYAT ALI vs MRS. AZIZA MAHMUD1980 CLC 676 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-12Read full judgment →
- HAYAT ALI vs Miss AZ1ZA MAHMOOD1980 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his ejectment from the rented premises. The respondent had sued for ejectment on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had initially condoned the delay in depositing arrears of rent due to the petitioner's illness, but the District Judge on appeal set aside that order, held the petitioner in default, and ordered his ejectment, which view was affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of an appeal against an order passed under the second part of subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and the nature of 'default'. The Supreme Court held that an order determining whether a default is avoidable or excusable and either striking off the defence or condoning the non-compliance concludes the controversy and is appealable by either party. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed under the second part of subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is appealable?
- When can a tenant's non-compliance with a rent deposit order be excused as an unavoidable default?
- Does an order condoning non-compliance or striking off a defence conclude the controversy regarding default?
- HASSANALLY vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1358 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- HASSAN ALI vs MUHAMMAD AHSAN BALOCH AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 412 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-13Read full judgment →
- HASSAN ABBAS vs SHAHID BASHIR AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a tenant eviction matter where the Rent Controller dismissed the landlords' ejectment application, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and ordered eviction. The core legal question is whether a tenant, holding an agreement to purchase the rented property from the original owner, can successfully resist ejectment proceedings by invoking the doctrine of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, despite the Act's formal non-application to the Punjab province. The court held that the principles of section 53-A are applicable in the Punjab and that a tenant whose possession is protected by an agreement to sell ceases to hold the character of a mere tenant qua ejectment, thereby invalidating the subsequent purchasers' claim for default. The court laid down the principle that the equitable principles of part performance under section 53-A afford a valid defense against ejectment when all conditions of part performance are fulfilled by the tenant-transferee.
Questions settled- Can a tenant in possession under an agreement to sell resist ejectment proceedings by the landlord?
- Whether the principles of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable in the Province of the Punjab?
- What are the essential conditions for invoking the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?
- Does the execution of an agreement of sale between a landlord and tenant extinguish the tenancy for the purpose of ejectment?
- HASMAT ALI ZAHEER vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB ETC.1980 PLC (C. S.) 518 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-29Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 636 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs Kh. SHAIQ HASSAN AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's order dated 17th December 1976, in a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The petitioner sought review on the ground that they had newly discovered that the respondent was a transferee of an additional shop, supporting this claim with a P.T.O. document. The respondent, appearing in person, contended that the acquisition of the additional shop was obtained through an auction and was legally permissible. The Court held that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the earlier transfer of property in favour of the respondent. Furthermore, the Court determined that it was inappropriate for the petitioner to introduce a fresh ground for review that had not been urged at any previous stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review. The petition was dismissed accordingly, affirming the finality of the earlier order.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce a new ground for review that was not raised at any previous stage of the proceedings?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge a property transfer in favour of another party in a review petition?
- What constitutes an error on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review of a Supreme Court order?
- HANGLE alias ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of his employee. The core legal question was whether the act constituted premeditated murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, given the circumstances of the incident. The prosecution case relied on eye-witness testimony and dying declarations, while the appellant retracted a judicial confession. The court found that the incident arose from a sudden, unpremeditated altercation regarding the lighting of a tobacco pipe, with no prior enmity between the parties. The court held that while the appellant lacked the specific intent to cause death, he possessed the requisite knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death. Consequently, the court converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, alongside a fine and compensation order. The judgment establishes that in cases of sudden provocation where a single fatal blow is struck without prior malice, the offence may be mitigated to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Does a sudden, unpremeditated altercation resulting in a fatal blow constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 304 when the accused lacked the specific intent to kill?
- Is a retracted judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction when contradicted by other evidence?
- Should an appellate court grant a rebate in sentence under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for time spent in confinement?
- HAMIDULLAH vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Petitioner Hamidullah sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming his conviction and death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Musharaf Khan. The prosecution case was that the petitioner, enraged by the dismissal of his pre-emption suit against the deceased's brother on the day of the occurrence, shot the deceased in the Main Bazar of Chitral. The prosecution relied on eye-witness testimony, motive, and a judicial confession recorded by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner denied the charge under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and alleged his confession was fabricated. The Supreme Court held that the eye-witnesses were natural and credible, the motive was satisfactorily established, and the confessional statement was voluntary and true. The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were unexceptionable in a cold-blooded murder and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of natural eye-witnesses present at the scene of the crime is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon when the court is satisfied as to its voluntariness and truth?
- Whether omission of names of certain witnesses in the First Information Report is a ground to discard otherwise reliable eye-witness accounts?
- HAMID HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), KARACHI AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 461 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- HAMAYUN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
- Hakim MUHAMMAD ISMAIL HABIBI vs MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Syed ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 213 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →
- Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD vs Syed SAJJAD HASNAIN NAQVI AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge regarding the restoration of land previously cancelled from his entitlement. The petitioner, a displaced person, had land cancelled due to an incorrectly verified claim form. After multiple unsuccessful rounds of litigation, including a dismissed writ petition and a refused petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought restoration of the cancelled land from settlement authorities. The High Court dismissed his petition and allowed the respondents' petition to have the land allotted to them as informants. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's attempt to re-open the controversy was impermissible as the matter had attained finality through previous judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could not use remarks from a prior High Court order to revive a closed transaction or challenge the subsequent allotment of the land to others, as he lacked a legal right to the restoration of land cancelled due to a bogus claim.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner seek to re-open a past and closed transaction regarding land allotment after the matter has been upheld by the Supreme Court?
- Does a remark by the High Court allowing a party to approach settlement authorities create a new legal right to restoration of land previously cancelled due to a bogus claim?
- Is a party who has no legal right to the restoration of cancelled land entitled to challenge the legality of the allotment of that same land to other claimants?
- Haji PUNHOON vs Haji ABDUL WAHID1980 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
- Haji NOWROZ KHAN vs HUSSAIN GUL AND 13 arms1980 CLC 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
- Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 61 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Haji MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND 34 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 23 OTHERS vs ELECTION AUTHORITY1980 CLC 353 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY II, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1980 CLC 2186 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-26Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD TAQI vs SHER MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 231 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs ADMINISTRATOR, LAHORE MUNICIPAL1980 CLC 1289 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1200 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD KHAN vs SHOBRA HOTEL LTD., LAHORE1980 CLC 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 21 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-01Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from an eviction application filed by landlords against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, citing default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, finding both subletting and the bona fide requirement established. A subsequent Second Appeal before the Lahore High Court was dismissed. The petitioners sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the concurrent findings of fact regarding subletting and the landlords' personal need for the premises. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact regarding subletting, where concurrent, are not subject to interference unless there is a clear misreading of evidence. The Court found the tenant's reliance on an employee register insufficient, particularly as the alleged sub-tenant was not produced as a witness. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the landlords' bona fide requirement, noting that other occupied shops did not negate the need for the premises in dispute. The petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction order.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding subletting in a rent dispute?
- Does the existence of other shops owned by a landlord automatically negate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
- Is a register of employees sufficient proof to rebut a charge of subletting when the alleged sub-tenant is not produced as a witness?
- Haji MALAL KHAN vs MIR HASSAN1980 CLC 1422 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- Haji LAL BUX vs Mistry ALLAHDAD1980 CLC 984 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, concerning a residential and shop property. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of personal bona fide use and damage to the property, asserting that his current joint family accommodation in Qambar was extremely congested and insufficient for his large family. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the landlord had not explained how he would manage living in Larkana while doing business in Qambar, and that his adult son was not dependent on him. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the evidence and held that the appellate court misread the evidence and relied on extraneous considerations. The court ruled that the statutory provisions permit a landlord to seek eviction for his own occupation or that of his children without requiring proof of child dependency or showing that the premises are in the same urban area as the landlord's current residence. The High Court restored the Rent Controller's ejectment order.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 require that a child for whom a premises is sought must be financially dependent on the landlord?
- Can a landlord seek eviction for personal use when the disputed premises are situated in a different urban area from where the landlord currently resides?
- How should composite premises consisting of residential and commercial parts be treated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Whether strict standards of pleadings applicable to normal civil courts apply to rent proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Haji INAYATULLAH vs RATIONING CONTROLLER, PESHAWAR AND 5 OTHERS1980 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the reduction of an Atta quota and cancellation of a licence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as president of an association holding a quota for its members, possessed a personal right requiring a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing prior to the cancellation of the licence by the Deputy Commissioner. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the petitioner had no personal right in the matter, rendering any claim of being condemned unheard untenable. Consequently, upon being questioned by the court, the petitioner's counsel conceded the point and sought to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the legal principle that an association representative managing a collective quota holds no independent personal right therein that would mandate individual procedural safeguards upon administrative alteration or cancellation.
Questions settled- Does the president of an association distributing a government quota possess a personal right in the quota requiring a pre-decisional hearing upon its reduction or cancellation?
- Whether an administrative authority is obliged to issue a show-cause notice to a representative holding a collective quota on behalf of an association before cancelling the licence.
- Haji IMAM ALI SHAH vs WADERO KABOOL AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 759 · Sindh High Court · 1968-08-15Read full judgment →
- Haji HASHIM & Co., KARACHI vs INDUS INSURANCE Co. LTD.1980 CLC 773 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- Haji HASHAM & Co., KARACHI vs THE INDUS ASSURANCE Co. LTD.1980 CLC 1775(2) · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
- Haji HAKIM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
- Haji DUR MUHAMMAD CHISHTI vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR1980 PLC (C. S.) 188 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- Haji BOSTAN vs SAHIB SHAH ALI AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 262 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-23Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH DITTA vs UMAR DIN ETC.1980 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Haji Allah Ditta, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents, Umar Din, Bashir, and Mansha, by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The respondents were accused in a double-murder case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail when the respondents were named in the First Information Report with specific allegations. The Supreme Court reviewed the investigation reports, noting that the investigating officers, including the Inspector and D.S.P. of the Crimes Branch, had found the respondents innocent and placed them in column (2) of the challan. Furthermore, medical evidence contradicted the specific allegations of dragging and brickbatting. The Court held that the High Court correctly determined the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the petition for bail cancellation was dismissed, affirming that the grant of bail was justified given the circumstances and lack of legal error.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted when the investigating officer finds the accused innocent and places them in column (2) of the challan?
- Does the existence of contradictions between the First Information Report allegations and medical evidence justify a finding of 'further inquiry' for bail purposes?
- Is the grant of bail by a High Court sustainable when it is based on a finding that the case requires further inquiry?
- Haji ALLAH DITTA vs Mst. SHAHZADI BILQIS AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent dispute where the respondents sought the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from a shop and Chabutara on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for reconstruction. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, which was upheld by both the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether depositing rent in the treasury without specifying the names of the landladies on the challan form constituted a lawful tender of rent, and whether a building must be dilapidated to justify a landlord's claim for reconstruction. The Court held that omitting the landladies' names on the deposit form was a deliberate failure, meaning the deposit was not a lawful tender. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a building need not be dilapidated to justify reconstruction; a landlord has a right to improve their property and utilize it profitably. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of rent in a public treasury without specifying the names of the landlords constitute a lawful tender of rent?
- Must a building be in a dilapidated or falling condition for a landlord to establish a bona fide requirement for reconstruction?
- Does a landlord's willingness to invest in a new construction and face statutory penalties for non-completion sufficiently establish the bona fides of a reconstruction claim?
- Haji ALI MUHAMMAD SOLANGI vs TRIBUNAL/S. D. M., NAZ1MABAD, KARACHI1980 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the cognizance taken by a Tribunal constituted under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, upon a complaint under section 14 of the said Act, on the ground that the police report disregarded the mandatory requirements of sections 4, 5, and 6 by lacking specific particulars regarding the time and place of the alleged acts. The core legal question was whether a mere list of pending cases and vague allegations in a police report satisfies the statutory requirement for particulars under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The High Court held that a mere list of cases cannot substitute for the mandatory statement of particulars required by section 6 of the Act, and cognizance taken without complying with these requirements cannot be sustained. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with the statutory particulars is mandatory for initiating proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, and a vague police report containing only a list of past cases is legally insufficient.
Questions settled- Does a mere list of pending cases in a police report satisfy the requirements of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Can cognizance taken by a Tribunal under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 be sustained in the absence of compliance with section 6?
- Are vague allegations and a list of past cases sufficient particulars under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Haji ABDULLAH vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY MILITARY COURTNo, 9, KARACHI1980 PLD Karachi 498 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL QADIR ETC. vs Mst. SHARIFUN NISA BEGUM1980 CLC 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
- HAIDERI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD. vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE1980 PLD Lahore 658 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
- HAIDER ALI RAJAB ALI & COMPANY vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX41 TAX 158 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-18Read full judgment →
- Haft SOHBAT KHAN vs KHANIMULLAH1980 PLD Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
- Haft MULTAN ZAREEN AND 56 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the vires of Section 7 of the North-West Frontier Province Finance Act (Act X of 1977), which imposed a 'development cess' on the production of marble chips by manufacturing factories. The petitioners argued that the Provincial Legislature lacked the competence to impose this levy, as it encroached upon the legislative domain of the Federal Parliament. The core legal question was whether the 'development cess' on the manufacture of goods fell within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature or the Federal Parliament under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the impugned section was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. It reasoned that there is no legal distinction between a 'tax' and a 'cess,' and that the levy on the manufacture of goods falls squarely under Item 49 of the Federal Legislative List. Consequently, the Court declared Section 7 of the Act unconstitutional and directed the respondents to cease recovery of the cess, establishing that the substance of a levy, rather than its nomenclature, determines legislative competence.
Questions settled- Does the Provincial Legislature have the authority to impose a 'development cess' on the manufacture of goods?
- Is there a legal distinction between a 'cess' and a 'tax' for the purpose of determining legislative competence?
- Does the substance of a levy determine its validity regardless of the name given to it by the legislature?
- Does the levy of a tax on the manufacture of goods fall under the Federal Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- HAFIZULLAH KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI1980 PLC (C. S.) 161 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- HAFIZULLAH AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR HUSSAIN BUTT AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD HANIF vs AHMAD DIN1980 CLC 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
- Hafi MUJTABA KHAN vs MUHAMMAD UMER1980 CLC 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
- HADI BUX AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 787 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-14Read full judgment →
- HABIBURREHMAN vs THE STATE1980 PLD Rev. 40 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN alias BAIBUR Accused vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 214 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 5 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the termination of services of two employees by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation. The core legal questions were whether the Corporation’s termination orders, issued under government direction without independent application of mind or adherence to statutory quorum requirements, were lawful, and whether the petitioners were bound by contractual terms that conflicted with their statutory service protections. The Court held that the termination orders were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It established that statutory corporations performing public functions must act in accordance with law and cannot terminate services perfunctorily or mechanically. Decisions by such boards must be made in valid meetings with the required quorum, not by circulation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual terms waiving statutory protections or reducing service security for existing employees are void as against public policy and lack consideration. Finally, the Court affirmed that void orders cannot be validated through post-facto ratification, and that the Corporation, as a body performing public functions, is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a statutory corporation terminate an employee's service without independent application of mind?
- Are contractual terms that waive statutory service protections for existing employees valid?
- Can a board of a statutory corporation validly decide matters by circulation instead of a meeting with the required quorum?
- Can a void order be validated through post-facto ratification by a board?
- HABIBULLAH AND 7 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERS Opponents1980 P Cr. L J 1264 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
- HABIB vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 791 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →