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.
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a batch of seventy writ petitions challenging various aspects of local government elections, including alleged violations of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and corrupt practices. The core legal question was whether these petitions were maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, despite the existence of alternative statutory remedies. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that they were not maintainable. The ratio established is that where a special statute provides a specific forum and remedy for election disputes—such as the Election Authority or Election Tribunals—the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked. The Court emphasized that statutory remedies are presumed adequate by the legislature. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that election disputes, which inherently involve complex, disputed questions of fact, are not appropriately resolved through writ jurisdiction but are better suited for specialized tribunals. Additionally, the Court noted that quo warranto jurisdiction is displaced when a statutory forum for such relief exists, and that judicial forums possess inherent power to grant interim relief.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative statutory remedy for election disputes exists?
- Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to resolving election disputes involving disputed questions of fact?
- Is the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto displaced when a statutory forum for such relief is provided?
- Does a judicial or quasi-judicial forum possess the inherent power to grant interim relief even if not explicitly stated in the statute?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1980 PLC (C. S.) 162 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Mst. INAY AT BIBI1980 CLC 431 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 505 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Probation Officer, sought pro forma promotion effective from August 1, 1969, challenging the rejection of his representations by departmental authorities. After the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground of limitation, holding that his subsequent representation was unnecessary and the appeal was time-barred, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner's claim for pro forma promotion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court reasoned that under the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, no appeal lies against a departmental decision determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be promoted to a higher post or grade. The key principle laid down is that service tribunals are statutorily barred from reviewing departmental decisions regarding the fitness of a civil servant for promotion, thereby precluding judicial interference in matters of promotion eligibility and fitness assessments.
Questions settled- Does a service tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal against a departmental decision regarding the fitness of a person for promotion?
- Is a claim for pro forma promotion subject to the statutory bar contained in the proviso to Section 4 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act 1974?
- Can a service tribunal entertain an appeal regarding the fitness of a civil servant to hold a particular post or be promoted to a higher grade?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR SIPRA vs Malik MUHAMMAD DIN ETC.1980 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a second appeal and ordered the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised premises. The core legal questions involved whether a tenant can be ejected for raising unauthorized construction under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 without proving that it materially impaired the value or utility of the property, and whether general principles from section 108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act can be invoked when the written rent note is silent. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner raised substantial questions of law regarding the distinction between statutory grounds of ejectment and the applicability of general law versus special rent restriction law in the presence of an express written agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner and stayed execution proceedings subject to regular payment of rent.
Questions settled- Whether a concession on a point of law made before a lower appellate court is binding on the parties or the High Court?
- Does raising an unauthorized permanent structure without the landlord's consent constitute a violation of the terms of the tenancy under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can the general principles contained in clause (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act be invoked when a written rent note between the parties is silent on the matter?
- Is it necessary to prove that an unauthorized construction has materially impaired the value or utility of the premises when seeking ejectment for infringing a condition of the tenancy?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC.PLD 1980 Lahore 784. · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, NISHTAR HOSPITAL, MULTAN AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 285 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM QADIR vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL WAHEED vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 176 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL WAHEED vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 30 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL HAMEED vs MAJOR MUHAMMAD ARIF, RETURNING OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, OKARA—;1980 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL HAFIZ vs CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE No, 5, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs KHOEDAD KHAN AND 51980 CLC 1462 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- CASTROL LTD., KARACHI vs KARACHI TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
- CARLITO M. DALAC vs M. v. 'ASIAN QUEEN' THROUGH ITS MASTER_CAPTAIN, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 80 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
- BUX ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 626 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
- BUTANI PAPY UDHARAM vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 242 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
- BUTANI PAPU UDHARAM vs THE STATE1980 PLD Karachi 49 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) for alleged smuggling offences under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings before a Special Judge, given the specific statutory framework of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not expressly barred by the Customs Act, 1969, and remains co-extensive with the trial court's power to acquit under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the Court established the principle that while this jurisdiction exists, it should not be exercised prematurely. Parties must first exhaust remedies available within the trial court, particularly where factual disputes regarding the accused's intent or status require the recording of evidence. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature, directing the trial court to proceed with the case.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending before a Special Judge constituted under the Customs Act 1969?
- Are the powers of a trial court under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 co-extensive with the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings before a trial court has recorded evidence on disputed factual matters?
- BURHAN TRANSPORT SERVICE LTD., WAH CANTT. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI41 TAX 182 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- BUDHAN SHAH AND OTHERS vs Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- BRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF ETC.1980 CLC 631 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
- BOSTAN KHAN vs ALI AKSAR1980 SCMR 664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The dispute narrowed down to Khasra Nos. 169 and 168 after the petitioner conceded certain portions and the respondent conceded superior rights to the petitioner regarding Khasra No. 341. The respondent based his superior pre-emptive right on his status as a tenant at will under clause (3) of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 of 1972, while the petitioner challenged this through Khasra Girdawari entries. Both the District Judge and the High Court found the petitioner's reliance on the Khasra Girdawari entries to be fictitious and noted the lack of ocular evidence or testimony from the alleged tenants regarding any dispossession or abandonment of tenancy by the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenancy and fictitious entries were unassailable, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a concurrent finding of fact regarding a tenant's possession and fictitious revenue entries can be assailed in a second appeal or petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a tenant at will possess a superior right of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 of 1972?
- What is the evidentiary value of Khasra Girdawari entries when found to be fictitious and unsupported by ocular evidence or the testimony of the alleged tenants?
- BILQUIS AKHTAR vs POPULATION PLANNING DIVISION1980 PLC (C. S.) 400uu · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
- BHOOP KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1980 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed with a delay of nine days, for which the petitioner sought condonation on the grounds of illness and the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the writ petition. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the medical grounds and circumstances presented by the petitioner constituted sufficient cause to excuse the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the medical certificate provided was unsatisfactory and designed to cater to special needs, and that the petitioner failed to prove he was sufficiently bed-ridden or incapacitated to prevent him from contacting a lawyer during the claimed period. Consequently, the court held that no sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay. The key principle laid down is that generalized medical certificates of doubtful authenticity, unsupported by proof of complete incapacitation from seeking legal recourse, do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under limitation rules.
Questions settled- Whether illness of a petitioner constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under limitation laws when the medical certificate is on a printed form and appears unconvincing?
- Does the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of a writ petition justify excusing a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal when the initial filing is already time-barred?
- BENGAL OIL MILLS LTD. vs HUSSAINI COMPANY KARACHI1980 CLC 1153 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
- BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO vs INCOMETAX OFFICER, CIRCLE V, RAWALPINDI1980 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of six writ petitions challenging the re-assessment of income tax payable by the late former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78. The primary legal questions were whether an assessment or re-assessment can be made on a deceased person under the Income-tax Act 1922; whether such proceedings require fresh notice to the legal representatives under Section 24-B(3); and whether the re-assessment notices under Section 34 were valid without disclosing the underlying material or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's approval. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 24-B is not merely a machinery provision but imposes an enforceable liability on the estate of a deceased person. The Court ruled that where statutory notices under Section 34 had already been served on the assessee during his lifetime, Section 24-B(3) empowers the Income-tax Officer to proceed with the assessment without serving fresh notices on the legal representatives, and that Section 34 notices do not need to disclose the specific information or approval on their face.
Questions settled- Can an income tax assessment or re-assessment be validly made against a deceased person under the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Is the Income-tax Officer required to serve a fresh notice on the legal representatives of a deceased assessee under Section 24-B(3) if notice under Section 34 was already served during the assessee's lifetime?
- Does a notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922 need to disclose on its face the specific information or the prior written approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner?
- Is the pendency of an alternative statutory appeal an absolute bar to the entertainment of a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution where a question of jurisdiction is raised?
- BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE V. RAWALPINDI42 TAX 59 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
- BEGUM BIBI AND 9 OTHERSs vs ABDUL GHANI AND 4 OTHERS1980 SCMR 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the District Court regarding the validity of a land sale. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in second appeal, was justified in overturning concurrent findings of fact concerning the existence of 'legal necessity' for the alienation of ancestral land under Customary Law. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with these concurrent findings, as there was substantial evidence on record—including admissions by the plaintiff and testimony from the vendee—supporting the conclusion that the vendor was driven by necessity to sell the land. The Court reaffirmed that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a High Court cannot competently set aside concurrent findings of fact unless the lower court's judgment is contrary to law, fails to determine a material issue of law, or contains a procedural defect affecting the merits. The appeal was allowed, and the concurrent findings were restored.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 set aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the District Court?
- Does the duty of an alienee to conduct an honest enquiry into the 'legal necessity' for the sale of ancestral land under Customary Law vary with the circumstances of the case?
- Is the testimony of a vendee regarding the vendor's stated purpose for selling land admissible evidence of legal necessity when not challenged in cross-examination?
- BEGUM AKHTAR AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs SAGHIR AHMAD AND 121980 CLC 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged an order by the Additional District Judge who accepted a revision petition, struck off the petitioners' defence for a delay in supplying names and addresses of legal representatives, transferred the suit to his own file, and decreed it simultaneously without evidence. The core legal question was whether the provisions regarding striking off a defence are mandatory and whether the appellate court could arbitrarily interfere with the trial court's discretion and decree the suit upon such default. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Order VIII, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directory rather than mandatory, and courts should favour adjudication on merits rather than dismissing matters on technicalities. The High Court further held that the Additional District Judge improperly interfered with the trial court's proper exercise of discretion and lacked the power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw and transfer the suit to his own file without proper assignment or jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Order VIII, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or directory regarding striking off a defence?
- Can an Additional District Judge transfer a suit to his own file and decree it solely upon striking off a defence without evidence?
- Under what circumstances can a revisional court interfere with the discretionary orders passed by a trial court?
- Does Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 confer powers of transfer on an Additional District Judge?
- Before Syed Sajjad Ali Shah?J MIR MASIH vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AND 31980 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- BEERBAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 119 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
- BASHIRUDDIN SALAR vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DERA GHAZI KHAN1980 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
- BASHIR MUHAMMAD vs KHAN SAFDAR AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the first informant, Bashir Muhammad, seeking the enhancement of a sentence imposed on the respondent, Khan Safdar. The respondent had been convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of the petitioner's brother under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence and a fine. On appeal, the Peshawar High Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing mitigating circumstances including the respondent's tender age, the sudden nature of the occurrence, and the existence of a prior grievance regarding the respondent's expulsion from a colony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court's reduction of the sentence was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was sound and in accordance with established legal principles regarding sentencing discretion in cases involving sudden provocation and mitigating factors. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the request for sentence enhancement.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's decision to commute a death sentence when mitigating circumstances are present?
- Does the existence of a sudden occurrence and the offender's age constitute valid grounds for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the maximum term of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited to six months?
- BASHIR AHMED vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 638 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-08-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs INAYAT MASIH AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former temporary lessee of State land, challenged the allotment of said land to the respondent, Inayat Masih, under the Ejected Tenants' Scheme. After the petitioner's first suit challenging the 1975 allotment was dismissed, he filed a second suit claiming a new five-year lease granted in 1978 and sought a temporary injunction to restrain interference with his possession. The trial and appellate courts refused the injunction, and the High Court dismissed his revision, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent's prior allotment had been cancelled, thereby rendering the petitioner's subsequent lease claim dubious. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that as the respondent's 1975 allotment remained valid and uncancelled, the land could not be validly re-allotted to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, and the court affirmed that no relief could be granted based on a second suit arising from the same cause of action.
Questions settled- Can a temporary lessee obtain an injunction against a prior allottee of State land if the prior allotment has not been cancelled?
- Does a second suit based on the same cause of action as a previously dismissed suit entitle a plaintiff to temporary injunctive relief?
- Is a petitioner entitled to a temporary injunction when the validity of their underlying lease is contested by an existing, uncancelled allotment?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 251 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 391 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-10Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SANAULLAH AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing to stay the execution of a decree during the pendency of an appeal. The core legal question is whether a party who fails to comply with a conditional stay order by not furnishing required security can subsequently obtain a fresh stay order or claim the benefit of the initial order. The Supreme Court held that the stay order was effective only upon furnishing security, and the petitioner's failure to comply for a prolonged period precluded them from obtaining a fresh stay order or invoking the court's discretion. The court established the principle that non-compliance with a conditional stay order vitiates the relief granted, and ignorance of conditions or failure of the trial court to inform does not excuse contravention or entitle the defaulting party to a second exercise of discretion.
Questions settled- Does a conditional stay order cease to be effective if the petitioner fails to furnish security as ordered?
- Can a party who has contravened a condition to furnish security obtain a fresh stay order for the execution of a decree?
- Does ignorance of a condition requiring security excuse non-compliance with a stay order?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs REGISTERED FIRM HAFIZ HABIBUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No. 2, alleging the infringement of its registered trade mark for "Hafiz ka Multani Sohan Halva" through the use of deceptively similar packaging. The core legal question was whether the wrappers and trade mark used by the appellant amounted to a colourable imitation likely to deceive unwary purchasers and pass off their goods as those of the respondent. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that notwithstanding minor dissimilarities, the overall colour scheme, get-up, and dominant phonetic features of the appellant's wrappers were substantially similar and calculated to confuse an average, unwary consumer. The key principle laid down is that in trade mark infringement cases, the test of deceptiveness is whether an unwary purchaser or the careless public is likely to be deceived, and minor points of dissimilarity cannot outweigh overwhelming overall visual and phonetic similarities.
Questions settled- What is the test for determining the infringement of a registered trade mark in relation to an unwary purchaser?
- Whether minor points of dissimilarity between two wrappers can outweigh substantial overall visual and phonetic similarities in a passing off action?
- Is the comparison of a disputed mark with a registered trade mark by a judge a legitimate mode of discovering infringement?
- Whether the standard of confusion applies to the careless public at large rather than an intelligent section of consumers?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Malik ABDUL ALI KHAN AND 11 OTHERS1980 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Rev. 50 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-03-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 577 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-05Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1980 PLC (C. S.) 281 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-29Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 400aaa · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ALLAQA MAGISTRATE, JARANWALA AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 28 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged a Magistrate's order discharging respondents accused of murder, based on a police report finding them innocent. The core legal question was whether, following the amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, a Magistrate retains the power to discharge or cancel a case against an accused person under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Magistrate's power to cancel a case under Section 173(3) remains intact despite the 1972 amendments. The Court clarified that an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 173 is essentially administrative rather than judicial, effectively amounting to a cancellation of the case rather than a formal discharge or acquittal. Consequently, the Magistrate's order was upheld, and the petition was dismissed, noting that an aggrieved complainant retains the remedy of filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate retain the power to cancel a case under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following the amendments by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a judicial order or an administrative order?
- Does the discharge of an accused by a Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to a formal acquittal?
- What is the remedy for a complainant aggrieved by a Magistrate's order cancelling a case under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- BASHIR AHMAD BHATTI vs SAJAD JAVED AKBAR (SPECIAL MAGISTRATE), RETURNING OFFICER, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- BASHER AHMAD ETC. vs MUKHTIAR HUSSAIN ETc.1980 CLC 11 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
- BARKATULLAH/ vs ABDUL HAMID1980 PLD Lahore 548 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs SUGHRA AND oTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 223 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 was filed by the tenant against an appellate court order directing his eviction on the ground of personal bona fide use. The respondents/landlords had sought eviction alleging that four unemployed brothers wished to start their own business in the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on finding that none of the unemployed brothers testified and that the landlords failed to prove genuine requirement. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding that a statement on oath by the landlord shifted a heavy burden onto the tenant to disprove good faith. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellate court's order and restoring the Rent Controller's dismissal. The Court held that the onus rests on the landlord to affirmatively prove bona fide requirement under Section 13 of the Ordinance, and this heavy burden cannot be discharged by bare and bald statements without specifying the intended business or establishing financial capacity to start it.
Questions settled- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish personal bona fide requirement of rented premises under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Whether a bare statement on oath that landlords are unemployed and wish to start an unspecified business is sufficient to establish personal bona fide requirement?
- Does a landlord's claim of personal use shift the burden onto the tenant to disprove good faith without the landlord first proving capacity and specific intent to start a business?
- BARKAT ALI vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT, BHAKKAR, DISTRICT1980 CLC 713 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-26Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI AND OTHERS vs BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning agricultural land disputes and the legality of an order passed in suo motu revisional proceedings by Mr. S. M. Nasim, who was conferred powers of a Member, Board of Revenue for disposing of colony judicial cases. The core legal question was whether a person could be appointed by the government merely to exercise certain powers of a Member of the Board of Revenue without being formally appointed as a full-fledged Member under section 3(2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The Supreme Court held that the government lacks the power to confer only partial judicial powers or distribute business directly, as the distribution of business falls within the plenary jurisdiction of the Board under section 6 of the Act. The Court affirmed that unless a person is duly notified as a Member under section 3(2), they cannot exercise the judicial functions of the Board, rendering orders passed by such persons coram non judice. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the revisional proceedings pending for decision.
Questions settled- Whether the Government has the power to confer partial powers of a Member of the Board of Revenue on a person without appointing them as a full-fledged Member under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
- Does the power to distribute judicial business among members of the Board of Revenue vest in the Government or the Board of Revenue itself under section 6 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
- Are orders passed in revisional proceedings by a person not validly notified as a Member of the Board of Revenue considered coram non judice and without lawful authority?
- BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD.DecreeHolder vs OZZIR ZUBY/Judgmentdebtor1980 CLC 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
- BANARAS KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION ETC.1980 PLC (C. S.) 632 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-12-30Read full judgment →
- BALQEES BEGUM AND 9 OTHERS vs KARAM SHAH AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 169 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for possession of land filed by the plaintiff, claiming ownership and alleging the defendant was a tenant-at-will. The defendant contested the claim, asserting ownership via adverse possession. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court concurrently held that the defendant had acquired title through adverse possession, rejecting the plaintiff's claim. The core legal question was whether the defendant's possession was sufficient to establish adverse possession and whether the plaintiff had proven possession within the statutory twelve-year period. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession were supported by cogent evidence, specifically the payment of land revenue by the defendant to the plaintiff, which constituted an open disclaimer of the plaintiff's title. The Court affirmed that adverse possession requires continuous, overt, and public possession in denial of the true owner's title. Furthermore, the Court held that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must prove possession within twelve years of the suit's institution; failure to do so results in the suit's dismissal.
Questions settled- What are the essential legal requirements to establish a claim of adverse possession over land?
- Does the payment of land revenue by a possessor to the recorded owner constitute an open disclaimer of the owner's title?
- In a suit for possession based on title, is the plaintiff required to prove possession within twelve years of the suit's institution?
- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding adverse possession?
- BAKSHU vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1980 CLC 210 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
- BAKHTAWAR ETC vs AMIN ETC1980 PLJ Supreme Court 252, 1980 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order upholding a District Judge's directions requiring the petitioners to restore a demolished watercourse (khal) and ordering their detention in civil prison for failing to comply. The petitioners had allegedly demolished the khal in violation of a status quo order issued during the pendency of their appeal regarding a temporary injunction. The core legal questions involved whether a court possesses inherent jurisdiction to order the restoration of a status quo ante when an injunction is violated, and whether proceedings for executing such a restorative order constitute double jeopardy alongside penal proceedings for disobeying the injunction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a court has inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to compel the restoration of the original position when a party contravenes an injunction for its own advantage, and that the execution/enforcement of an order is legally distinct from punishment for its disobedience under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3), C.P.C. The key principle laid down is that securing compliance with a court order through execution provisions is an independent mechanism separate from penal consequences for civil contempt or breach.
Questions settled- Whether a court has inherent jurisdiction to direct the restoration of the original position when a party violates a status quo order?
- Does the enforcement of a restorative order through civil imprisonment amount to double jeopardy when proceedings for breach of an injunction are also initiated?
- Can provisions relating to the execution of decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be applied to the execution of orders?
- Is punishment for the civil offense of disobeying an injunction distinct from the execution of the relevant court order?
- BAKHIR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the petitioners' convictions for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular evidence provided by police witnesses, whom the defense alleged were biased and not present at the crime scene. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding that the High Court correctly appraised the evidence. The Court held that the police witnesses were credible eye-witnesses, as their presence was corroborated by the immediate arrest of the accused at the crime scene and the recovery of physical evidence, including a blood-stained hatchet and bullet cases. The Court further determined that the acquittal of a co-accused did not undermine the convictions of the petitioners, as there was overwhelming independent evidence of their participation. The principle established is that police testimony is admissible and sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the arrest of the accused at the spot, and that the acquittal of one co-accused does not necessarily invalidate the convictions of others.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of police witnesses admissible and sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of other co-accused persons?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence when the identification of a specific weapon is not fully established?
- BAIG MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1980 SC MR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a criminal case involving charges under sections 307, 436, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The petitioner, Baig Muhammad, was accused of setting fire to a thatched hut and firing a revolver at the complainant, causing injury. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted unreasonably in denying bail despite the medical evidence indicating the complainant's injury was simple in nature. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal of bail was a proper exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, particularly as the case was still under investigation. The Court affirmed that the mere nature of the injury does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when serious allegations are pending investigation. The petition was dismissed, with the liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application once the challan is submitted to the trial court, to be decided on its own merits.
Questions settled- Does the simple nature of an injury automatically entitle an accused to bail during the investigation stage?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretionary order refusing bail if the order is not unreasonable?
- Is a fresh application for bail permissible after the submission of a challan in court?
- BAHADURI AND 7 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 261 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR SHER vs LAL SHAH1980 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of land, including 'Shamilat' (common) land. The petitioner, a vendee-defendant, challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed the respondent's suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the respondent's suit for pre-emption was defective for failing to specifically mention 'Shamilat' land in the plaint, thereby allegedly violating the requirements of the West Pakistan Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts correctly interpreted the pleadings and evidence. The Court found that the respondent had effectively pre-empted the sale of the 'Shamilat' land by using the phrase 'mae jumla hukuk mutaliq aan arazi mutadawia' (along with all rights pertaining to the land in dispute). The Court affirmed that the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts, which included examining the sale deed, mutation, and party depositions to determine the intent to pre-empt, was sound and did not contravene any legal principle.
Questions settled- Can a suit for pre-emption succeed if the plaint uses general language to include 'Shamilat' land rather than specifying it explicitly?
- Does the appreciation of evidence by lower courts regarding the intent to pre-empt 'Shamilat' land constitute a legal error if based on the totality of pleadings and depositions?
- Does Section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance 1959 prohibit the pre-emption of 'Shamilat' land if the land is not specifically described in the plaint?
- BAHADUR KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 146 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
- BAHADON vs PHATTI AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1533 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- BABUL KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 678 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
- B. R. HARMAN & MOHATTA LTD. vs GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI1980 CLC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a direction for the defendants to file the arbitration agreement in court and refer the dispute to arbitration. The defendant objected that the suit was not maintainable because a condition precedent in the arbitration agreement—requiring the dispute to be first referred to the Board of Directors of the purchasers—had not been fulfilled. The plaintiff contended that this condition precedent was void under section 28 of the Contract Act as an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. The court held that the agreement did not prohibit recourse to a court of law or arbitration, but merely established a condition precedent requiring prior resort to the Board of Directors, which is legally permissible and does not fall within the mischief of section 28. Since the plaintiff admitted failing to fulfill this condition precedent, the court concluded that the suit was premature and not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed it while clarifying that the plaintiff was not precluded from filing a fresh suit after fulfilling the condition precedent.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be referred to a Board of Directors as a condition precedent violates section 28 of the Contract Act?
- Is a suit filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 maintainable without fulfilling a contractual condition precedent?
- Does an agreement making the decision of a Board of Directors a condition precedent to arbitration or legal action amount to a total restraint of legal proceedings?
- AZIZUR REHMAN KIYANI vs ADMINISTRATOR (CHAIRMAN), MUNICIPAL1980 CLC 1088 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- AZIZULLAH KHAN ETC. vs Haji ABDUL JALIL AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Rev. 4 · Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa · 1978-04-22Read full judgment →
- AZIZ UN NISSA vs MOHAMMAD YASIN1980 P Cr. L J 790 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- AZIZ KHAN vs MAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 227 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two Regular Second Appeals arising from a civil suit regarding the ownership of agricultural land. The core legal questions were the validity of a sale deed executed by an attorney based on a power of attorney later declared fraudulent by the issuing Embassy, and the validity of an alleged gift deed by the original owner. The Court held that the power of attorney was a fraudulent, non-binding document, and the subsequent sale transaction was void. Furthermore, the alleged gift deed was found invalid due to the absence of proof regarding the delivery of possession, a mandatory requirement under Muhammadan Law for a valid gift. The Court emphasized that registration of a document does not cure inherent defects like forgery or fraud, and that the presumption of correctness attached to a registered document is rebuttable. Additionally, the Court clarified that an unregistered gift deed, while inadmissible to prove title, may be received in evidence for collateral purposes, such as explaining the nature of possession, provided the requirements of the law are otherwise met.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a document cure the defect of a fraudulent or forged power of attorney?
- Can an unregistered gift deed be admitted into evidence for collateral purposes?
- Is a second appeal maintainable under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit was instituted before the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- Can a respondent file cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without filing a separate appeal?
- AZIZ DIN vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MULTAN CIRCLE ETC.1980 PLC (P. S.) 172 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMED vs P. R. C. APPELLATE COMMITTEE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 568 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- AZIM GUL vs GULBAT KHAN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the conviction and death sentence of Gulbat Khan for murder and attempted murder under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting two co-accused of tender age. The core legal questions pertained to the proper appreciation of ocular testimony, the effect of delay in lodging the first information report, the identification of the weapon used, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused involved any legal error in the appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner, supported by unimpeachable corroboratory evidence and ballistic expert reports, suffered from no legal infirmity. The Court laid down that concurrent findings based on the proper appreciation of ocular and medical evidence by the High Court do not warrant interference unless a glaring legal error or miscarriage of justice is established.
Questions settled- Whether delay in lodging the first information report vitiates the prosecution case when the names of the assailants are disclosed at the earliest opportunity?
- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of ocular testimony without proof of a material legal error?
- Whether discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding minor details affect the core reliability of the eyewitness account?
- Whether the participation of co-accused can be excluded on grounds of age and improbability of association while maintaining the conviction of the principal offender?
- AZHAR HUSSAIN vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
- Azad J & STATE vs SHAFAIT KHAN1980 P Cr. L J 646 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- AZAD GUL vs ABDUL HANAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
- AYUBConvict vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 201 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
- ATTAULLAH AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal regarding the ownership of a katcha shop, classified as evacuee property, located in a rural area. The dispute centers on the interpretation of Settlement Scheme No. VII, specifically regarding the date upon which such rural property stood transferred to its occupant. The petitioners argued that the relevant date for transfer was 1-1-1961, based on their predecessor's occupation, which would have removed the property from the compensation pool and rendered subsequent eviction and transfer orders void. Conversely, the lower courts held that the relevant date was 7-8-1961, the date of the Scheme's enforcement. The Supreme Court observed a significant conflict of judicial opinion within the Lahore High Court concerning this specific date. Finding that the petitioners' contention was supported by existing case law, the Court determined that this cleavage of opinion required resolution. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to settle the legal position regarding the transfer date under Chapter V of Settlement Scheme No. VII, while ordering that the petitioners' possession of the property remain undisturbed pending the appeal.
Questions settled- What is the relevant date for the transfer of rural buildings to occupants under Chapter V of Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Does a property pass out of the compensation pool once it is transferred to an occupant under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs JAN MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 872 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD ETC. vs THE STATE1980 P.Cr. L J 245 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
- ATLAS KHAN AND 4 OTHERS Accuseds vs AZAM KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1018 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER vs COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., ISMAILPUR1980 CLC 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs Department42 TAX 48 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Assesee vs Department42 TAX 46 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
- ASLAM PERVAIZ vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life and concurrent rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the proper appreciation of evidence, specifically the reliability of medical evidence, ocular testimony, and the recovery of the weapon in a murder case stemming from a dispute over a love affair. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through medical evidence, credible independent ocular testimony, prompt lodging of the First Information Report, and corroborating ballistic evidence. The key principle laid down is that where courts below have meticulously scrutinized copious and consistent evidence—including medical, ocular, and expert testimony—without violating any principles of appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of guilt.
Questions settled- Whether minor variations in the trajectory of a bullet as shown by medical evidence are sufficient to discredit reliable ocular testimony?
- Does the prompt lodging of an FIR exclude the possibility of substitution of an accused person?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence by the courts below?
- ASIF ALI vs VICECHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Central Service Tribunal regarding the reversion and supersession of the petitioner, a railway employee, who was passed over for promotion after refusing to appear in a mandatory ability test. The core legal question is whether the employer's requirement of an ability test for promotion to a non-selection post violates applicable promotion rules based on seniority, and whether a senior employee can refuse such a test. The Supreme Court held that the employer is legally competent to prescribe an ability test as a valid method for determining a candidate's fitness for promotion, notwithstanding the general rule of seniority-cum-fitness. The Court laid down the principle that an employee cannot dictate the mode of assessing fitness to the authorities, and refusal to undergo a lawfully devised ability test justifies passing over the employee for promotion and loss of seniority.
Questions settled- Can an employer prescribe an ability test as a condition for promotion to a non-selection post when promotion rules require consideration of seniority and fitness?
- Does an employee have the right to refuse a lawfully required ability test for promotion and dictate the mode of assessing fitness?
- Does an employee who refuses to undergo a mandatory ability test retain a valid grievance regarding supersession and loss of seniority?
- ASHIQ NAWAZ KHAN BABA vs Ch. SHAFAAT ALI AND OTHERS1980 CLC 886 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs STATION COMMANDER, NOWSHERA CANTT.1980 CLC 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
- ASGHARI KHANUM IQBAL vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKTSTAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 350 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 366 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD ZAMAN vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NORTH FOREST DIVISION, RAWALPINDI AND OTHHRS1980 PLC (C. S.) 169 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD AND 2 OTHERS vs FAZAL DAD AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Azad J & K 26 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-12-26Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL RASHID AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order of the trial court dismissing an application for a temporary injunction filed by the appellants-pre-emptors in a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction restraining the vendees from changing the character of the suit land or selling it for building purposes can be granted in a pre-emption suit where no perpetual injunction is prayed for. The Lahore High Court held that the rule precluding temporary injunctions where no perpetual injunction is claimed does not apply to pre-emption matters, as a pre-emptor seeks substitution and requests the maintenance of status quo regarding the nature of the property during the pendency of the suit. The Court laid down that a vendee in a pre-emption suit cannot be permitted to change the very nature and character of the suit land, such as by converting agricultural land into a housing colony or selling it to strangers for building purposes, as this causes irreparable loss and inconvenience to the pre-emptor, and consequently allowed the appeal by granting the temporary injunction.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be granted in a pre-emption suit where a permanent or perpetual injunction has not been prayed for?
- Whether a vendee in a pre-emption suit can change the nature and character of the agricultural land during the pendency of the suit?
- Does the principle of lis pendens apply to prevent the sale of property to strangers for building purposes in a pre-emption action?
- ARK NAVIGATION COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER vs ESSO1980 CLC 57 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
- ARFAN ALI SHAH alias POOPI SHAH vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL HASSAN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, affirmed by the High Court, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question is whether circumstantial evidence—specifically the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused, the establishment of a motive, and the recovery of blood-stained clothes and a weapon at the instance of the accused—is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of ocular testimony. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent with the guilt of the accused. The Court affirmed that delay in sending recovered items to a chemical examiner does not automatically invalidate the evidence unless the identity of the items is successfully challenged. The judgment reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence, when cogent and consistent, is sufficient for conviction, and that the absence of local witnesses for recoveries does not inherently discredit the investigation if the witnesses are otherwise credible.
Questions settled- Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of ocular evidence?
- Does a delay in sending recovered incriminating articles to a chemical examiner automatically invalidate the evidentiary value of such articles?
- Can the testimony of witnesses for recoveries be rejected solely because they are not from the immediate locality of the recovery?
- ANWAR AZIZ CHAUDHARY vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 571(1) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-06Read full judgment →
- AMTUL BATOOL AND ANOTHER vs QAMAR SULTANA1980 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts granting a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo in a suit concerning a residential property. The plaintiff-respondent claimed joint ownership and that a co-owner could not validly sell a specific portion of the undivided property. The core legal question is whether a co-owner in possession can transfer a specific portion of joint property, and whether a temporary injunction can be issued against such a transferee at the instance of another co-owner who is already in possession of a portion. The Lahore High Court held that a transferee of a co-sharer steps into the shoes of the transferor and is entitled to retain possession of a specific portion not exceeding the vendor's share, subject to adjustment at the time of partition, and cannot be treated as a trespasser or restrained by a temporary injunction. The Court laid down that a co-sharer in established possession of an undivided property up to their share may alienate it, and other co-owners cannot obtain interim injunctions against such transferees when they are already in peaceful enjoyment of their own share.
Questions settled- Whether a co-owner in possession of an undivided property may validly transfer a specific occupied portion?
- Whether a transferee from a co-sharer of a specific part of joint property becomes the owner and is entitled to retain possession?
- Whether a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. may be issued against such a transferee at the instance of another co-owner who is equally in possession?
- Does the exception contained in the second paragraph of section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act apply to a Muslim family?