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.
- HABIB ULLAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SANGHAR1980 PLD Karachi 400 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-24Read full judgment →
- HABIB RASOOL AND OTHERS vs Nawabzada IHSANULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court decision that allowed a landowner to retain additional land under paragraph 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972, based on the ownership of a tractor. The petitioners argued that the respondent did not qualify as an "owner" because the full payment for the tractor was completed after the critical date of December 20, 1971, and because the tractor was not registered in the respondent's name under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments. It held that the transaction was effectively completed upon the initial agreement and delivery of the tractor in February 1971, with the remaining balance treated as a debt. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the lack of formal registration in the respondent's name did not preclude a finding of ownership for the purposes of the regulation, consistent with established precedent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the respondent was entitled to the land retention concession.
Questions settled- Does the completion of full payment after the target date invalidate a claim of ownership for a tractor under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Is formal registration of a tractor under the Motor Vehicles Act a mandatory prerequisite to establish ownership for the purpose of land retention concessions under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Can a sale transaction be considered complete for the purpose of ownership under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 if delivery occurred before the target date but full payment was made later?
- HABIB KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a challenge to an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner sought land allotment, alleging that a deceased allottee had obtained excess land through fraud and misrepresentation, and filed an informer application under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1959. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the filing date of the informer application and whether the finding of fact by the Settlement authority regarding fraud could be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact regarding fraud was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement authority and could not be challenged without demonstrating a total lack of evidence or misreading of evidence, which the petitioner failed to do. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the burden of proving the filing date of the application rested on the petitioner, and the High Court correctly evaluated the record. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact regarding fraud or misrepresentation by a Settlement authority be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction without proving a total lack of evidence or misreading of evidence?
- Does the burden of proving the filing date of a Mukhbari application rest on the petitioner when challenging a finding of the High Court?
- Is the Supreme Court required to summon original Settlement Department records to verify disputed dates of filing in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- HABIB JALIB vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 561 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD., PESHAWAR vs MESSRS SANGEEN KHAN ABDUL JALIL AND 41980 PLD Peshawar 248 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI vs GHAZANFARULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 694 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-19Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Lm., KARACHI vs MOHNI CORPORATION, KARACHI AND 8 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- GULZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI1980 PLD Lahore 544 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
- GULZAR MASIH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed against the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a minor child. The prosecution case entirely rested on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of a witness who allegedly saw the respondent throwing the dead body, an extra-judicial confession, motive, medical evidence, and alleged abscondence. The High Court acquitted the respondent after finding the circumstantial evidence weak, artificial, and insufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's order of acquittal was perverse, arbitrary, or capricious so as to warrant interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had taken a possible and reasonable view of the evidence on record in disbelieving the circumstantial links. Consequently, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that an appellate court's order of acquittal based on a plausible evaluation of evidence will not be interfered with unless it is shown to be arbitrary or capricious.
Questions settled- Whether an order of acquittal passed by the High Court based on circumstantial evidence warrants interference by the Supreme Court when a possible view of the evidence has been taken?
- Is the testimony of a witness who delayed reporting that they saw the accused disposing of a dead body sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
- Does the failure of an accused to offer an explanation for possessing a dead body automatically prove guilt in the absence of direct ocular evidence?
- Can an extra-judicial confession be relied upon when the witness to whom it was made allowed the accused to leave freely afterward?
- GULZAR HUSSAIN vs FAR1D KHAN AND OTHERS1980 CLC 602 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- GULZAMAN KHAN vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 3 Others1980 CLC 1887 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- GULSHER AND OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the status of property claimed to be evacuee. The core legal questions concerned whether an application filed under Section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, was time-barred and whether the disputed land, which had not been treated as evacuee before the statutory target date, could be validly allotted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the application was not time-barred as the respondents had been diligently pursuing remedies before the settlement authorities. The Court held that since the property was never treated as evacuee before the relevant date, it did not form part of the compensation pool. Consequently, the allotment made under the erroneous assumption that the property was evacuee was legally ineffective and could not confer a valid title upon the petitioners. The Court affirmed that an unauthorized allotment of non-evacuee property creates no legal right, and time spent in bona fide pursuit of other legal remedies is excluded from limitation calculations.
Questions settled- Is an allotment of property as evacuee valid if the property was not treated as evacuee before the statutory target date?
- Can time spent pursuing remedies before settlement authorities be excluded when calculating the limitation period for an application under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957?
- Does an allotment of property erroneously assumed to be evacuee confer a valid title upon the allottee?
- GULSHAN BAHAR BEGUM vs NORTHWEST FRONTIER PROVINCE THROUGH CHIEF1980 CLC 904 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
- GUL TAJ BEGUM vs LAL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD SC (A J & K) 60 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
- GUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Gul Rehman, was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Gul Janan and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, which conviction and sentence were upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prosecution case rested on a dying declaration (lodged as the F.I.R. by the victim prior to his death), ocular testimony from two independent witnesses, the recovery of a blood-stained knife on the petitioner's pointing out, and corroborative medical and circumstantial evidence establishing that the petitioner attacked the deceased following an insult to his caste. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the lower courts' findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, with the dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence and independent eyewitness accounts. Holding that no principle of law or natural justice had been violated in evaluating the evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a dying declaration recorded by an Assistant Sub-Inspector can form the basis of a murder conviction without corroboration?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon on the accused's pointing out sufficiently corroborate ocular and dying declaration evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based on the appreciation of evidence in a criminal appeal?
- GUL NAWAB KHAN vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 193 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by Gul Nawab against his conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision petition by the complainant seeking enhancement of the life sentence to death. The core legal issues before the Peshawar High Court concerned whether injured eye-witnesses related to the deceased should be treated as interested witnesses requiring strong corroboration, whether an apparent conflict between medical post-mortem opinion on the time of death and direct ocular evidence discredits the prosecution's case, and whether the trial court correctly awarded life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. The High Court held that relationship alone does not render witnesses interested absent a motive to falsely implicate the accused, and that direct, creditworthy ocular testimony from injured witnesses outweighs conflicting medical estimate opinions. The court further held that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by logistical constraints. Finding the prosecution's evidence robust, the High Court maintained the convictions and sentences, dismissing both the appeal and revision petition.
Questions settled- Does mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the victim render them interested witnesses requiring independent corroboration?
- Can expert medical opinion on the time of death prevail over credible and consistent ocular account provided by injured eye-witnesses?
- Does the inadequacy or absence of a clear motive negate direct and trustworthy eye-witness testimony in a murder trial?
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 89 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1980 PLD Rev. 48 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs HASSAN KHAN AND 4 OTHERs1980 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed the decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the vendees had validly improved their position regarding the right of pre-emption based on contiguity through subsequent gift and exchange transactions, and whether this issue was properly raised and pressed before the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to press the plea of improvement before the trial court and the appellate court, despite it being framed as an issue. The Court observed that the plea of improvement could not be accepted without positive findings of fact regarding the alleged gift and exchange transactions, which were absent in the lower court proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that a party cannot seek relief on a ground that was not actively pursued or established through findings of fact in the lower forums. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not entertain arguments that were abandoned or not pressed during the trial and first appellate stages.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of improvement of position in a pre-emption suit for the first time in the Supreme Court if it was not pressed before the lower courts?
- Is a plea of improvement in a pre-emption suit maintainable without positive findings of fact regarding the alleged underlying transactions?
- Does the failure to press an issue before the trial and appellate courts preclude a party from relying on it in a petition for leave to appeal?
- GUL MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL HAMID KHAN1980 CLC 944 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
- GUL JAMAL AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by special leave, arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court confirming the convictions and death sentences of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on the retracted judicial confessions of the appellants, along with the subsequent joint recoveries of the deceased's clothes, a blood-stained dagger, and other belongings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a retracted confession of one co-accused can legally corroborate the retracted confession of another under Section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Court ruled that a co-accused's confession is not strictly 'evidence' as it is not on oath and cannot be cross-examined; thus, one piece of tainted evidence requiring corroboration cannot corroborate another. However, the Court distinguished between statements and physical acts, holding that the physical conduct of an accused leading to recoveries is admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1872, even if joint statements are inadmissible under Section 27. Finding sufficient independent corroboration, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can the retracted confession of one co-accused be used to corroborate the retracted confession of another co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Is a joint recovery statement made by multiple accused admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872 if it is not clear who gave the information first?
- Can the physical act of an accused leading the police to a place where evidence is hidden be admitted as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1872, independent of any statement?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive render a case doubtful when there are voluntary and corroborated confessions?
- GUL HASSAN AND ANOTHER/Opponents vs HAMIDULLAH AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07Read full judgment →
- GUL ARAB vs ADAM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondents in a criminal case involving charges under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the nature of the firearm injuries sustained clearly established an offence under Section 307, rather than the lesser offence under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as suggested by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and the potential classification of the offence when exercising its discretion to grant bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of bail is primarily a matter of judicial discretion. The Court found that the High Court had provided sufficient reasons for its decision based on the material available on the record at that stage. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion, affirming that appellate intervention is not warranted where the lower court has exercised its discretion reasonably.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail primarily a matter of discretion for the High Court?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail?
- Does the classification of an offence as falling under Section 307 or Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require definitive determination at the bail stage?
- GUAL AM FAROOQ vs FAZAL GHANI1980 CLC 1082 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the appellant landlord against the respondent tenant seeking eviction from a commercial shop on grounds including personal bona fide need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Although the Rent Controller ordered eviction, the lower appellate court reversed this decision. The landlord contended that divergent findings were delivered by the same appellate court in a parallel ejectment case involving an adjacent shop. The High Court affirmed that under Section 15(4) of the Ordinance read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, findings of fact reached by the first appellate court are final unless shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or flawed by procedural error. Furthermore, holding that an appeal is a continuation of original proceedings, the Court ruled that the landlord's successful acquisition of the adjacent shop during parallel proceedings invoked the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 13(3) of the Ordinance, rendering the instant ejectment application incompetent and infructuous.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact rendered by the first appellate court be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of misreading of evidence or procedural defect?
- Does the statutory bar in the proviso to Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 apply to a pending ejectment appeal when the landlord obtains possession of another building in the same urban area via parallel proceedings?
- Whether an appeal constitutes a continuation of original proceedings for the purpose of applying statutory bars under rent restriction laws?
- GROUP CAPT. A. M. MORAD vs MESSRS B. R. HERMAN & MOHATTA LTD., KARACHI AND 10 OTHERS1980 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed departmental orders issued by the Central Excise and Land Customs Department against a tobacco dealer. The core legal question was whether the departmental authority's order, which imposed penalties for a tobacco shortage based on an alleged admission, was legally sustainable when the authority failed to address the respondent's specific plea that the admission was obtained through duress and coercion by an inimical inspector. The Supreme Court held that the departmental order was untenable because it failed to record a clear finding on the crucial defense of mala fides, despite the respondent's evidence regarding the inspector's bias. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction in quashing the departmental order, as the failure to consider the plea of coercion rendered the administrative decision improper in law. The principle laid down is that administrative orders imposing penalties must address all material defenses, particularly allegations of duress, and a failure to do so justifies judicial intervention in writ proceedings.
Questions settled- Is an administrative order imposing a penalty legally sustainable if the authority fails to record a finding on a material plea of mala fides and duress?
- Can the High Court in writ proceedings quash a departmental order that fails to address the respondent's defense of coercion regarding an alleged admission?
- Does the failure of a departmental authority to consider evidence of bias on the part of the investigating officer render the resulting penalty order untenable?
- GUL vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which upheld the appellant's conviction for murder. The appellant was originally tried alongside others for the murder of the deceased, with the prosecution relying on ocular testimony, motive, and the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet. While the High Court acquitted the co-accused due to lack of corroboration, it maintained the appellant's conviction, finding the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet sufficient corroboration of the eye-witness testimony. The appellant contended that the recovery was suspicious, citing a discrepancy in dates regarding the Chemical Examiner's report and alleging the recovery witness was biased. The Supreme Court held that since the document concerning the Chemical Examiner's dates was not put to the Investigating Officer for clarification during trial, it could not be relied upon on appeal. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the weight of evidence and the credibility of witnesses are matters of fact and evidence appreciation, which the Court would not revisit. Consequently, the conviction was upheld.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence?
- Can a document not put to the Investigating Officer for clarification during trial be relied upon for the first time in appeal?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon at the instance of an accused serve as valid corroboration for ocular testimony?
- GOVERNMENT vs PIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Azad J & K 39 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1976-12-03Read full judgment →
- GORDHANDAS vs WAPDA1980 PLC (C. S.) 86 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-01-06Read full judgment →
- GOLDEN PLASTICS LTD. vs COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
- GLAXO LABORATORIES LTD. vs SIND LABOUR COURT No, 2, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the reinstatement of a probationer whose services were terminated for unsatisfactory performance. The core legal question was whether the termination of a probationer for failing to meet performance standards constitutes a termination simpliciter under the contract of service, or a dismissal for misconduct requiring compliance with the procedural safeguards of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court had concluded that the termination was essentially a removal for unsatisfactory work, thereby necessitating adherence to the disciplinary procedures for misconduct. The petitioner contended that the termination was a simple contractual termination, not attracting the requirements of Standing Order 15. The Supreme Court observed that the submission involved a question of law of public importance regarding the nature of employment and the applicability of disciplinary procedures to probationers. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether such termination requires the formal procedure prescribed for misconduct.
Questions settled- Does the termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory performance constitute a termination simpliciter or a dismissal for misconduct?
- Is compliance with Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, required when terminating a probationer for unsatisfactory work?
- GHULAMULLAH SHAH AND 5 OTHERS vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL1980 PLD Karachi 122 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YASIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 974 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YASIN AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATECUMDEPUTY1980 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-07-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs BACHAL AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of murder and attempted murder charges. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's conviction based on the re-appraisal of ocular testimony and the admissibility of a dying declaration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's acquittal. The Court held that where ocular testimony is tainted by admitted enmity, lacks independent corroboration, and involves witnesses whose presence at the scene is coincidental and doubtful, it is unsafe to rely upon such evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that it will not interfere with a well-considered judgment of acquittal unless there is a compelling reason for re-appraisal of evidence. The absence of independent local witnesses and physical evidence at the crime scene further undermined the prosecution's case, justifying the High Court's decision to reject the testimony and acquit the accused.
Questions settled- Is it safe to rely on ocular testimony when the witnesses have admitted enmity with the accused and lack independent corroboration?
- Should an appellate court interfere with a well-considered judgment of acquittal based on the re-appraisal of evidence?
- Does the absence of independent local witnesses at the scene of the crime undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- GHULAM SHABBIR SHAH vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs MEMBER (ESTABLISHMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE1980 PLC (C. S.) 230 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-08-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR MALIK vs SHLWAT HUSSAIN RIZVI AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 486 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 16 OTHERS1980 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding his claim to a Grade 18 post within the Family Planning Organization. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having voluntarily accepted an ex-cadre appointment as a Social Scientist in Grade 17, could subsequently claim entitlement to promotion to Grade 18 in preference to colleagues who remained in the original cadre and were subsequently promoted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition on merits. The Court held that because the petitioner had willingly accepted a selection-based, ex-cadre post with higher status and pay, effectively bypassing his seniors at the time, he could not later challenge the promotion of those seniors within their original cadre. The key principle established is that an employee who voluntarily opts for a different career path or ex-cadre appointment, thereby gaining immediate benefits, cannot subsequently assert seniority rights or promotion claims against those who remained in the original cadre.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant who voluntarily accepts an ex-cadre appointment claim seniority over colleagues who remained in the original cadre?
- Does the acceptance of a selection-based post preclude a civil servant from challenging the subsequent promotion of colleagues in their former cadre?
- Is a writ petition maintainable regarding terms and conditions of service for a civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- GHULAM SABIR vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's previous dismissal of a criminal petition challenging a conviction under the anti-corruption laws. The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, had been convicted for accepting illegal gratification from a school teacher to facilitate a transfer. The core legal questions addressed were whether the conviction was sustainable given the petitioner's alleged lack of authority to effectuate the transfer and whether there was sufficient evidence of conscious acceptance of illegal gratification. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner's arguments had already been thoroughly considered and rejected in the original judgment. The Court affirmed that even if a public servant lacks the specific authority to perform the requested service, the act of accepting illegal gratification for rendering or attempting to render service or disservice to any person with another public servant falls squarely within the ambit of the second part of section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court found no justification for reviewing its earlier decision and upheld the conviction.
Questions settled- Does the lack of authority of a public servant to perform a requested service exclude their liability under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction be sustained under the second part of section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the public servant accepted gratification for attempting to render service with another public servant?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the grounds raised were already considered and rejected in the original judgment?
- GHULAM RASUL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION AUTHORITY1980 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER vs INAYAT ALI AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 2005 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1980 CLC 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two regular second appeals arising out of pre-emption suits filed by the respondent for possession of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the respondent-plaintiff successfully established his superior right of pre-emption as a collateral and co-sharer of the vendors, and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sustainable when based on inadmissible oral testimony and failure to produce the best evidence, namely the pedigree table. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and dismissed the respondent's suits. The court held that the right of pre-emption, being a predatory inroad on free transactions, must be established most positively, and that oral evidence regarding pedigree which fails to satisfy the requirements of the Evidence Act is inadmissible and insufficient to discharge the onus of proof, permitting interference with concurrent findings in a second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a pre-emptor's status as a collateral can be interfered with in a second appeal when based on inadmissible evidence?
- Does oral testimony failing to satisfy the requirements of the Evidence Act suffice to prove relationship and a superior right of pre-emption?
- What is the legal effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on a material assertion made in examination-in-chief?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court which held that the disputed evacuee residential property was not available for transfer to the petitioner. The property had been previously divided and transferred to respondents 3 to 9, but the Additional Settlement Commissioner subsequently remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a fresh determination of the parties' entitlement. Following the remand, the petitioner filed an N.C.H. Form seeking transfer of the portion in his possession, which was rejected on the ground that the dispute was confined to the original parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the rejection, holding that property already transferred prior to Settlement Scheme No. VIII does not constitute 'available property' merely because a remand order requires a re-examination of the original parties' entitlement. The Court laid down the principle that a remand order for the limited purpose of re-examining the entitlement of existing litigants does not reopen the property to new claimants or outsiders.
Questions settled- Does a remand order directing a re-examination of the entitlement of original litigants render the property 'available property' for new claimants?
- Can an outsider intervene and claim transfer of evacuee property on the strength of a form filed after a remand order has been passed?
- Whether the reopening of a settlement case on remand is limited to the parties who were before the appellate authority?
- GHULAM RASOOL MIR AND 57 OTHERS vs ALLOTMENT OF LAND COMMITTEE, NEW M1RPUR ETC1980 CLC 1519 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 679 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-02-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 643 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR ETC.s vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 82 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QAD1R AND 3 OTHERS vs ATTA ULLAH AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs Rao MUHAMMAD USMAN ALI KHAN1980 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the grounds that he was residing with his son, the accommodation was insufficient, and domestic discord made separate residence necessary. The tenant contended that the landlord failed to specifically plead that his current accommodation was unsuitable and failed to discharge the onus of proving bona fide requirement. The High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal, holding that the landlord's pleadings sufficiently implied the unsuitability of his current accommodation and that his bona fides were established by evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the decision, holding that the question of bona fide requirement is essentially one of fact. The Court further ruled that since the landlord was not occupying his son's house in his own right, he was entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant to occupy his own property.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's failure to explicitly plead the unsuitability of his current accommodation defeats a claim for personal bona fide requirement if such unsuitability is implied in the pleadings and established by evidence?
- Whether a landlord residing in a house owned by his son is considered to be occupying a residential building in his own right so as to bar him from seeking eviction of his tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is the question of a landlord's bona fide personal requirement of a premises a question of fact that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with?
- GHULAM NABI vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, LAHORE FOREST DIVISION1980 PLC (C. S.) 232 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs AHMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 446 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE1980 PLD Karachi 343 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court upon a reference to determine whether the failure to file a list of witnesses within seven days of the settlement of issues under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, debars a party from producing witnesses in attendance who are brought to court on their own accord under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code. The core legal question concerns the distinction between summoning witnesses through the court and producing witnesses independently. The Full Bench held that while Order XVI, Rule 1 strictly requires a list of witnesses to be filed within seven days if a party wishes to procure the attendance of witnesses through the coercive process of the court, it does not extinguish a party's right to independently produce witnesses in attendance on the day fixed for evidence. The ratio decidendi is that the term 'call' in Order XVI refers strictly to summoning through court processes and is distinct from the 'production' of witnesses under Order XVIII, Rule 4. The key principle laid down is that procedural provisions must be construed harmoniously to advance the administration of justice without shutting out vital evidence on purely technical grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to file a witness list within seven days under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prohibits a party from producing witnesses on its own accord under Order XVIII, Rule 4?
- What is the legal distinction between 'calling' a witness through the court and 'producing' a witness during a civil trial?
- Can a trial court refuse to record the testimony of witnesses who are present in court on the ground that they were not included in the witness list filed under Order XVI, Rule 1?
- How should Order XVI, Rule 1 and Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be construed harmoniously?
- GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs ABDUL REHMAN AND 4 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 594 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 CLC 640 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 721 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH ETC.1980 CLC 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the right of pre-emption regarding a sale of land. The central legal question was whether a prospective pre-emptor who acts as an attesting witness to a sale deed waives their right of pre-emption and is subsequently estopped from filing a pre-emption suit. The High Court held that while mere attestation of a sale deed does not automatically constitute waiver, the circumstances surrounding the attestation are critical. Where evidence establishes that the pre-emptor was aware of the contents of the deed, or where the pre-emptor falsely denies the attestation to conceal their participation, such conduct amounts to a waiver of the right of pre-emption. The court established that waiver is the abandonment of a known right; therefore, if a pre-emptor signs a deed with knowledge of the transaction or actively participates in the bargain, they are estopped from asserting their pre-emption right. Consequently, the appellate court's reversal was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored.
Questions settled- Does the mere attestation of a sale deed by a pre-emptor constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Under what circumstances does the attestation of a sale deed by a pre-emptor operate as an estoppel against a subsequent pre-emption suit?
- Is a pre-emptor who denies attesting a sale deed, despite evidence to the contrary, precluded from asserting their right of pre-emption?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SHARFAN KHATOON AND 7 OTHERS1980 CLC 427 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MORE1980 PLD Rev. 32 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1980-02-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MULTAN AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 635 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-08-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD NAJAL vs FAZAL KARIM QURESHI1980 CLC 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Mst. NOOR BIBI AND 5 OTHERS1980 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Baluchistan High Court, which declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding a property dispute. The first respondent had filed a suit in the Family Court claiming property gifted in lieu of dower, which was decreed in her favour and upheld on appeal by the District Judge. The petitioners, sons of the fifth respondent, challenged these findings and raised a new plea regarding the Family Court's jurisdiction over claims involving step-sons. The Supreme Court considered whether constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked against concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence and whether a new jurisdictional objection not raised in lower courts could be entertained. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be disturbed in limited constitutional jurisdiction, and an objection as to jurisdiction not raised before the lower forums cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Family Court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not raised in the lower courts?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY1980 CLC 2103 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD alias GHULAMOON vs MAULA DAD AND 6 OTHERS1980 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the purchasers against the allottee vendor. The core legal question concerned whether an allottee of government land under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 could avoid agreements of sale and eject the purchasers by relying upon section 19 of the said Act and paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959, after having received consideration, parted with possession, and when the Provincial Government did not contest the claim. The Supreme Court held that the vendor could not be permitted to take advantage of such statutory prohibitions to the detriment of the purchasers due to his own conduct and the conduct of the Provincial Government. The key principle laid down is that a vendor who has entered into an agreement of sale, received consideration, and handed over possession of state land cannot rely on statutory restrictions against alienation to non-suit purchasers, especially where the state raises no objection.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee of government land can rely on section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 to defeat an agreement of sale after receiving consideration and handing over possession?
- Does paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959 apply to an agreement of sale as distinguished from the actual disposition of property?
- Can a vendor take advantage of statutory bars to deprive purchasers of the benefit of a transaction when the Provincial Government does not contest the suit?
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 3 OTHER1980 CLC 241 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order issued under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, which had been affirmed by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord’s requirement for the disputed shop for personal use was established in good faith, particularly when the landlord failed to appear as a witness to testify regarding his needs. The court held that the landlord’s failure to testify, combined with evidence that he was an elderly, sick individual residing in a different city, rendered the claim of personal requirement unsubstantiated. The court concluded that an objective assessment of 'good faith' is impossible without the landlord submitting to cross-examination to explain his intentions and capabilities. Consequently, the court set aside the ejectment order, ruling that the landlord failed to prove the bona fide nature of his requirement. The principle established is that a landlord’s personal testimony is generally essential to prove the good faith of a personal use requirement, especially when circumstantial evidence casts doubt on the feasibility of that requirement.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a general attorney sufficient to establish a landlord's personal requirement for a shop in good faith?
- Does a landlord's failure to appear as a witness to testify regarding personal need invalidate an ejectment application based on that need?
- Can a landlord claim personal requirement for a shop in good faith when evidence suggests he is too elderly and sick to operate a business?
- GHULAM MOHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERSConvicts vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 40 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 282 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MRS. CHAMAN SULTAN SHAFI1980 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the first appellate court ordering the eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of the respondent's bona fide personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the respondent's requirement for the premises was bona fide, given the petitioner's arguments regarding the respondent's existing accommodation, the timing of the eviction notice, and the lack of testimony from the respondent's children. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's bona fide need were sound and free from legal infirmity. The Court established that a landlord's requirement for premises is not negated by the mere existence of other family-owned accommodation over which the landlord has no control, nor by the failure to mention personal need in an initial notice if verbal requests were made. Furthermore, it was held that there is no legal requirement for a landlord to examine their children as witnesses to prove the bona fide nature of their accommodation needs.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's failure to mention personal need in an initial notice invalidate a subsequent eviction application based on bona fide requirement?
- Is a landlord required to examine their children as witnesses to prove the bona fide nature of their personal accommodation requirement?
- Can a landlord's requirement for premises be considered bona fide if they have access to other family-owned accommodation over which they have no control?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 775 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs ENFORCEMENT STAFF AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1650 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-01-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mst. Jindan by means of a hatchet, which was confirmed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involved the sufficiency and reliability of corroborative evidence, specifically regarding an infirm eye-witness and weapon recoveries, to sustain a capital conviction. The Supreme Court held that while the primary eye-witness was old and infirm requiring reliable independent corroboration, and motive was a weak piece of evidence, the testimony of an independent witness regarding the production of the blood-stained hatchet and clothes provided sufficient corroboration. Although the court noted that mitigating circumstances such as grave and sudden provocation from a prior revenge killing made imprisonment for life a more appropriate sentence, it declined to interfere with the legal death sentence. The key principle laid down is that recovery of incriminating articles through an independent witness can legally corroborate tainted ocular testimony, and appellate courts will not normally interfere with a legal sentence of death absent an error of law.
Questions settled- Whether the evidence of an old and infirm eye-witness requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Can the production of blood-stained articles through an independent witness furnish sufficient corroboration of tainted ocular evidence?
- Does evidence of motive constitute sufficient corroboration for an unreliable eye-witness in a criminal trial?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a legal sentence of death passed by lower courts?
- GHULAM HAIDER SHAH AND ANOTHER vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HABIB vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 754 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FAREED vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI alias GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKBAR AND 6 OTHERS vs S. H. O. POLICE STATION, BHAKKAR AND 21980 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner Ghulam Abbas sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his criminal appeal by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Ibrahim and the sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the fatal knife blow inflicted by the petitioner on the left side of the chest piercing the heart warranted a reduction of the offense from culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304-I to grievous hurt under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's act of stabbing the deceased on a vital part of the body, namely the heart, reasonably gave rise to the presumption of knowledge that the injury would likely cause death, thereby attracting criminal liability for the charged offense rather than a lesser charge. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit.
Questions settled- Whether a single knife blow to the chest piercing the heart constitutes an offense under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code rather than section 326?
- Can an accused who inflicts a knife injury on a vital part of the body be presumed to know that death is likely to result?
- GHIASUL HAQ AND OTHERSs vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1980 PLD SC (A J & K) 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- GHAZI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PAKISTAN AND 2 oTHERs vs AMANULLAH KHAN1980 CLC 1917 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GAUL AM HUSSAIN vs QADAR KHAN1980 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 10th April 1978, which involved a pre-emption dispute. The petitioner sought a review on the grounds that the area in question, Jangal Khel, had been historically treated as part of the Kohat Municipality since 1892, that a Civil Judge had previously declared it an urban area, and that a 1954 Notification by the N.-W.F.P. Government included the area within municipal limits. The core legal question was whether these grounds justified a review of the previous judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the arguments raised were merely attempts to re-argue the case, which falls outside the scope of review jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the specific land in dispute was definitively located within the municipal limits of Kohat City based on the provided Gazette Notification. The principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used as a mechanism for the rehearing of a case or to re-litigate points already adjudicated upon by the Court.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be used to re-argue points already decided in a previous judgment?
- Does the scope of review jurisdiction permit the rehearing of a case on its merits?
- GANESH CHANDRA KHAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER41 TAX 128 · Bombay High Court · 1975-08-10Read full judgment →
- GAFAR SHAH vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-07Read full judgment →
- G. REHMAT ALI vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE & TAXATION, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 238 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- G. M. E. PATEL vs TAJAMUL HUSSAIN1980 CLC 443 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-08Read full judgment →
- FLIGHT LT. ANWARUL HASAN SIDDIQUI vs FAMILY JUDGE, COURT No, III, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Family Court and the appellate court, which resulted in an ex parte decree for the dissolution of marriage and payment of deferred dower against the petitioner, a military officer. The core legal questions involved whether the proceedings should have been stayed under the Soldiers Litigation Act, 1925, despite the petitioner being represented by an advocate, and whether a Family Court can simultaneously entertain and decree claims for dissolution of marriage and deferred dower. The Sindh High Court held that the Soldiers Litigation Act does not apply when a party is duly represented by an advocate empowered to plead and act. Furthermore, the Court held that a claim for deferred dower can be validly joined with a suit for dissolution of marriage, and the decree for dower properly matures upon the granting of the dissolution decree, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. The petition was dismissed on the basis that the Family Court acted within its lawful jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 6 of the Soldiers Litigation Act 1925 require the suspension of proceedings against a soldier who is represented by a duly authorized advocate?
- Can a claim for deferred dower be instituted simultaneously with a suit for dissolution of marriage in the Family Court?
- Whether a Family Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree for deferred dower concurrently with the granting of a decree for dissolution of marriage?
- Does the failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction?
- FIRM CHAIRGH HASSAN vs Kh. HABIB J001980 CLC 1740 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1971-08-29Read full judgment →
- FEROZUR RAHMAN BATLA vs THE STATE Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 663 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ1980 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of multiple service appeals brought under Article 212 of the Constitution, concerning the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the abatement of pending civil court proceedings under the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The primary legal questions concerned determining the exact date on which pending court proceedings abated, whether the government possesses a right of appeal under the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, the retrospective applicability of proviso (c) to Section 4(1), and the application of the Act to WAPDA employees following statutory amendment. The Supreme Court held that under Article 212 of the Constitution (as amended), pending civil proceedings abated on 22 February 1974, the date the Service Tribunal was established, rather than the date of enactment of the Act. Such abatement accrued an immediate vested right of appeal to any party, including the Government, under Section 6. The Court further ruled that the prospective insertion of proviso (c) to Section 4(1) on 6 May 1974 did not impair rights of appeal accrued prior thereto. For newly included classes, such as WAPDA employees under the 1975 amending Ordinance, the Act applies mutatis mutandis from the extension date, causing pending civil appeals to abate on that date.
Questions settled- On what specific date did pending civil court proceedings abate pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution and the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can a government department competently file an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the proviso to Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 after the abatement of civil proceedings?
- Does proviso (c) to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 operate retrospectively to divest an accrued right of appeal arising from an earlier statutory abatement?
- When a service statute is extended to a new statutory authority or class of employees by amendment, on what date do their pending proceedings before ordinary courts abate for the purposes of preferring an appeal to the Service Tribunal?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs BIBI SHAHZADI AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
- FAZLI RABBI vs KHANIMULLAH AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- FAZALUR REHMANTenant vs GHULAM HABIB AND 2 OTHERS Land lords1980 CLC 887 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-23Read full judgment →
- FAZALUR REHMAN vs M UHAMMAD SiDDIQUE1980 CLC 492 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-15Read full judgment →
- FAZALUDDIN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, SIND AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S) 652 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
- FAZAL NOOR AND ANOTHER vs AKHTAR MUNIR/1980 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-14Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 101980 CLC 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →