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.
- AMROZ KHAN vs ARBAB MOHAMMAD GHALIB1980 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction petition filed by a transferee landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant, who denied the landlord-tenant relationship due to lack of notice of property transfer, can be evicted for such denial, and whether the alleged default in rent payment was wilful. The Rent Controller and the appellate court ordered eviction based on the denial of tenancy. The High Court upheld the finding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, as the transfer deed was valid. However, it set aside the eviction order, holding that the tenant’s denial was not a conscious repudiation of the relationship but a result of ignorance regarding the transfer, as the tenant continued paying rent to the original owner. The court established that where a tenant denies the landlord's title due to lack of notice of transfer, and continues to pay rent to the original owner, such denial does not automatically warrant eviction; the matter of wilful default and bona fide requirement for reconstruction must be adjudicated on merits.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's denial of a transferee landlord's title, based on a lack of notice of transfer, constitute a ground for immediate eviction?
- Is the production of the postman necessary to prove the service of a registered notice when the addressee denies receipt?
- Can a tenant be held in wilful default of rent if they continued paying the original landlord without knowledge of the property's transfer?
- AMIR vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 286 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
- AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs UMRA1980 CLC 628 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI vs CHAIRMAN, C. D. A., ISLAMABAD1980 PLC (C. S.) 333 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
- AMIR AHMAD vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ETC.1980 PLC (C. S.) 670 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-11-04Read full judgment →
- AMIR ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellant for the double murder of his brother and sister-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony that conflicted with medical evidence regarding the distance of firing, and whether a dying declaration could sustain a conviction when the certifying doctor was not examined and the parties had a history of hostility. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court found the ocular testimony unreliable because the medical evidence of tattooing and scorching on the victims' bodies indicated a close-range shooting, directly contradicting the witness's claim of a long-range attack. Furthermore, the witness's presence at the scene was deemed doubtful as he was not mentioned in the FIR or inquest report. Regarding the dying declaration, the Court ruled that, given the background of intense family hostility, it was unsafe to rest a conviction on this solitary piece of evidence alone. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on ocular testimony that is fundamentally contradicted by medical evidence regarding the distance of firing?
- Is a dying declaration sufficient to support a conviction in a case involving significant inter-party hostility?
- Does the failure to examine the doctor who certified a declarant's fitness to make a dying declaration render the declaration unreliable?
- AMIR A LI vs CHAIRMAN, C. D. A., ISLAMABAD1980 PLC (C. S.) 335 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
- AMEER ALI alias SITY vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 489 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH vs ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous application sought the rehearing of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal that had previously been dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner contended that the opposite party had resiled from the settlement agreement that originally prompted the withdrawal of the petition, thereby necessitating a rehearing on the merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the application as misconceived. The Court held that since the petition was dismissed upon the express prayer of the petitioner in the presence of both parties, the subsequent breach of the underlying settlement agreement by the opposite party did not constitute valid grounds to recall or set aside the consent order. The Court clarified that while the petitioner might possess other legal remedies to address the breach of the settlement, the withdrawal of the petition was a final act that could not be undone by simply seeking a recall of the consent order. The principle established is that a consent order dismissing a petition as withdrawn cannot be reopened due to a subsequent breach of the settlement agreement.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal, dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to a settlement, be reopened if the opposite party subsequently resiles from that settlement?
- Does the breach of a settlement agreement provide sufficient grounds to recall a consent order dismissing a petition?
- ALTAF AHMAD vs FAZAL DIN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER, I. D. B. P., LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 180 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ALLAUDDIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 151 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDINO vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA AND ANOTHER vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 105 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHSH vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 601 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA ETC.s vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G), LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA AND ANOTHERs vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 37 OTHERS1980 CLC 517 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, civil servants in the Health Department, challenged their transfer orders, alleging the transfers were malicious, capricious, and intended to disrupt their personal lives, specifically regarding their children's education. They argued that they should have been suspended rather than transferred while an inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 was pending. The Lahore High Court dismissed their writ petition, holding that under the West Pakistan Health Department Ministerial Service (Sub-Regional) Rules, 1965, civil servants are liable to transfer within the province and no evidence of mala fide intent was established. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that under Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a civil servant has no vested right to remain posted at a specific location and is liable to be transferred anywhere within or outside the province. Consequently, as the transfer did not adversely affect their terms and conditions of service, the petitioners were not 'aggrieved persons' entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain posted at a specific location?
- Can a civil servant challenge a transfer order on the grounds of personal inconvenience or hardship?
- Is a civil servant an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when transferred without a change in terms and conditions of service?
- Does Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 authorize the transfer of a civil servant to any post within or outside the province?
- ALLAH RAK HA vs HAMIDA BIBI1980 CLC 851 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTAConvict vs The STATE1980 P Cr. L J 163 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, based solely on circumstantial evidence. The core legal question is whether such evidence—comprising last-seen testimony, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and various recoveries—is sufficient to sustain a conviction when the body was never recovered and the evidence is highly suspect. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. The Court rejected the extra-judicial confession as unreliable and fabricated, deemed the recoveries of bones and personal effects as planted, and dismissed the last-seen evidence as weak and insufficient. The Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the facts proved must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of any other reasonable hypothesis. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that no conviction for murder is permissible unless the fact of death is proven fully, either by direct evidence, such as the recovery of the body, or by circumstantial evidence of an exceptionally strong character.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the body of the deceased has not been recovered?
- Is an extra-judicial confession admissible if made while the accused is in police custody?
- What is the evidentiary value of last-seen testimony in a murder case?
- What standard of proof is required for a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
- ALLAH DITTA vs GHULAM NABI alias NABI BAKHSH AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that allowed a respondent's writ petition challenging his eviction from agricultural land. The petitioner, a landlord, had successfully applied to Revenue Authorities to change the respondent's status in the Khasra Girdawari from 'tenant' to 'lessee', subsequently obtaining an eviction order. The High Court held that even if the respondent were a lessee, he was entitled to protection under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 if he was in actual cultivating possession, similar to a tenant-at-will. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the High Court did not interfere with the Revenue Authorities' correction of the land records, but correctly identified that the respondent's eviction was without lawful authority. The Court held that a person in cultivating possession cannot be evicted without due process, and the mere classification as a 'lessee' rather than a 'tenant' does not automatically strip an occupant of protections against arbitrary dispossession. Consequently, the High Court's decision to declare the eviction unlawful was upheld.
Questions settled- Does a person classified as a 'lessee' in revenue records lose the protection against eviction afforded to a 'tenant' under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 if they are in actual cultivating possession?
- Can a landlord evict an occupant from agricultural land without due process of law?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an eviction order where the occupant is excluded from statutory remedies available to tenants due to their classification as a lessee?
- ALLAH DITTA vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER FOREST DIVISION, LAHORE1980 PLC (C. S.) 241 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA KHAN vs M. S. LADY WILLINGDON HOSPITAL1980 PLC (C. S.) 156 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND 6 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD LATIF AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND 17 OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND 111980 CLC 175 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DINO vs CHIEF MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 184 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DINO AND 15 OTHERS vs Haji ISLAMUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS1980 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave arose from execution proceedings where the petitioners, as legal heirs of the original objector, sought to resist the delivery of possession of an attached house to an auction-purchaser. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could assert a right to retain possession based on an agreement to sell and the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, despite the predecessor’s repeated failures to establish this claim in prior litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were precluded from re-agitating the issue. The Court observed that the predecessor had previously filed objections under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and subsequent suits, all of which were dismissed or abated. Consequently, the claim to retain possession against the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser had been conclusively rejected by the courts. The principle laid down is that where a claimant fails to successfully vindicate a claim of possession based on part performance in multiple prior proceedings, they cannot reopen the matter during execution after the sale has been confirmed and a certificate issued.
Questions settled- Can a person in possession of attached property under an agreement to sell raise objections to attachment based on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 after their previous claims have been dismissed?
- Does the dismissal of objections under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude a party from re-agitating the same issue in subsequent execution proceedings?
- Can legal heirs of a deceased objector reopen litigation regarding property title after the original objector's suits and revisions were dismissed or abated?
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE SUMMARY MILITARY COURTS Nos. 36_37, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 83 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-21Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH ETC. vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH ETC. vs NOOR KHAN ETC.1980 CLC 498 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impugns the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Sargodha, which dismissed an appeal against the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a property dispute. The core legal question was whether a perfunctory appellate judgment that fails to state points for determination, record reasons, or discuss necessary requisites for injunction satisfies the requirements of law. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate judgment was illegal, arbitrary, and failed to meet the mandatory requirements of a speaking judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment and remanded the matter to the District Judge for a fresh decision with an elaborate judgment.
Questions settled- Does an appellate judgment that merely recites facts and dismisses an appeal without reasoning constitute a valid judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What are the dual objectives of requiring an appellate court to record a self-evident judgment supported by elaborate reasoning?
- Can a perfunctory disposal of an appeal without resolving points of controversy be sustained in revision?
- ALLAH BAKHSH ETC. vs GHULAM SHABBIR SHAH1980 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of ownership based on an alleged verbal sale of land, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. During the pendency of their second appeal in the High Court, one of the co-plaintiffs died. Despite an objection regarding the abatement of the appeal being raised, the petitioners failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record, leading the High Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it had abated in toto. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter. Upon review, the Court observed that the plaint claimed a joint purchase without specifying individual shares or the apportionment of consideration paid by the vendees. Consequently, the Court held that the transaction was indivisible. Applying the principle that the death of one co-purchaser in an indivisible transaction results in the total abatement of the suit, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, confirming that the appeal could not proceed.
Questions settled- Does the death of a co-plaintiff in a suit involving an indivisible joint purchase result in the total abatement of the appeal?
- Can an appeal proceed when a co-appellant dies and their legal representatives are not brought on record?
- All Muhammad V. Akhund, UMAR DIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 418 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- ALICO CIVIL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, LAHORE vs Syeda MUSHTRI1980 CLC 466 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges an order dated 26 April 1972 passed by the trial court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for permission to sue in forma pauperis and directed the deposit of court-fee solely on the basis of a report submitted by the Collector. The core legal question is whether an application to sue as a pauper can be dismissed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed for examining witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that relying entirely on the Collector's adverse recommendation without examining the petitioner's witnesses, as required by law, constitutes an illegal act and material irregularity. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law, laying down the principle that the mandatory procedure of examining witnesses under the relevant civil procedure rules cannot be bypassed.
Questions settled- Whether an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis can be dismissed solely on the basis of a Collector's report without examining witnesses?
- Does the failure to follow the mandatory procedure for examining a petitioner's witnesses under Order XXXIII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a material irregularity?
- Can a counsel's lack of instructions from respondents serve as a valid ground for revoking a power of attorney?
- ALI vs THE STATE1980 PLD Karachi 303 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER KHOSO vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1980 CLC 2084 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-13Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 280 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
- ALI MUMAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1980 CLC 2214 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1975-11-18Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs SARFRAZ1980 PLD Rev. 28 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1979-06-27Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs NAZIR Erc.1980 PLD Lahore 52 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under subsection (5) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who were charged along with others for murder, attempted murder, and rioting under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the respondents, who were members of an unlawful assembly armed with weapons but inflicted only simple injuries on prosecution witnesses and did not assault the deceased, are entitled to bail, or if they should be held constructively liable for murder. The Lahore High Court held that the case of an accused who did not cause injuries to the deceased and is only responsible for simple injuries to witnesses is distinguishable at the bail stage from those who assaulted the deceased, particularly where a firearm was introduced by a subsequently appearing person, bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2). The petition for bail cancellation was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who inflicted only simple injuries and did not assault the deceased is entitled to bail in a murder case?
- Does the principle of constructive liability apply rigidly at the bail stage for members of an unlawful assembly?
- When does a case fall under further inquiry for the purpose of bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs Maulvi SULTAN AHMAD AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
- ALI KHAN vs SHAH ZAMAN AND 8 OTHERS1980 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed from the complainant's side, challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which altered the convictions and sentences of the respondents originally awarded by the trial court for offenses including murder, rioting, and hurt. The core legal question concerns the propriety of altering convictions from murder to lesser offenses and whether the delay in filing the petition for enhancement of sentences and setting aside of acquittals should be condoned. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition is barred by 33 days and declined to condone the delay based on the unverified ground of wrong legal advice by counsel, lacking the requisite affidavit. The key principle laid down is that delay in filing petitions for enhancement of sentences or against acquittals will not be condoned lightly on the mere assertion of wrong advice by counsel without proper supporting affidavits.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a petition for enhancement of sentence can be condoned on the ground of wrong legal advice by counsel without an affidavit from the counsel?
- Will the Supreme Court condone a 33-day delay in filing a petition against the alteration of convictions and sentences based on unverified assertions of legal misadvice?
- ALI KHAN vs MALIK MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN--Petitioner1980 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order resolves three petitions for leave to appeal arising from a murder prosecution under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The petitioner was convicted of murdering a practicing lawyer due to long-standing family enmity, based on eye-witness testimony supported by evidence of prolonged abscondence. The trial court convicted three accused, but the High Court acquitted two co-accused on benefit of doubt while maintaining the petitioner's conviction and death sentence, using his one-year abscondence as necessary corroboration. The Supreme Court evaluated whether prolonged abscondence could serve as valid independent corroboration and whether private revenge or family honor constituted mitigating circumstances for sentencing. The Court held that while abscondence must be evaluated in light of the absconder's antecedents and explanation, prolonged abscondence without satisfactory explanation provides decisive corroborative value to natural and truthful eye-witnesses. Further, private revenge does not constitute a mitigating circumstance. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can prolonged abscondence serve as independent corroboration to support the testimony of interested eye-witnesses?
- Does private revenge or family enmity constitute a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an employee or clerk of a deceased victim be categorized as an independent witness for the purpose of corroborating eye-witness testimony?
- ALI KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND, HYDERABAD AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 189 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and the Federal Land Commission, which had set aside an earlier order validating the petitioner's purchase of agricultural land. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to purchase land acquired by the vendor under Martial Law Regulation 89/91. The core legal question was whether the alienation was valid under Martial Law Regulation 115, notwithstanding the absence of prior permission from the Collector. The Court held that the initial order by the Land Commissioner, Sind, which validated the transaction as a bona fide sale, was correct. It ruled that the lack of prior Collector permission did not invalidate the transaction, as Federal Land Commission instructions explicitly allowed for the confirmation of genuine sale agreements. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Paragraph 7 of Martial Law Regulation 115 encompasses transactions creating rights or interests in land, not merely completed registered sale deeds. Consequently, the impugned orders setting aside the validation were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Does the absence of prior permission from the Collector under the scheme of Martial Law Regulation 89/91 invalidate a sale agreement?
- Can a transaction creating a right or interest in land be approved under Paragraph 7 of Martial Law Regulation 115 even if a formal sale deed was not executed at the time?
- Are instructions issued by the Federal Land Commission regarding the scrutiny of land transfers binding on the Land Commissioner?
- ALI IMAM vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE1980 PLC (C. S.) 352 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN vs MIRCHO1980 PLD Rev. 30 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-04-25Read full judgment →
- ALI GUL vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
- ALI GUL SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 507 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
- ALI GUL AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 791 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- ALI F DIN vs KHADIM HUSSAIN1980 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide need of the landlord. The petitioner contended that upon the expiry of the written lease deed, the condition requiring advance payment of rent by the 5th of each month ceased to apply, and the statutory period of sixty days under Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 became applicable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this contention, affirming the rule laid down in Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Sharif (PLD 1971 Lah. 610). The Court held that a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of a lease by efflux of time remains governed by all the terms and conditions of the expired agreement, including the mode and time of rent payment. Consequently, failure to pay advance rent as stipulated in the expired lease constituted a default. The Court also declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need, dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of a written lease remains bound by the terms and conditions of the expired agreement regarding the mode and time of rent payment?
- Does the acceptance of late rent by a landlord in the past operate as a permanent waiver of the advance payment clause in a lease agreement?
- Whether the statutory sixty-day period for rent payment under Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 applies when an expired lease agreement stipulated a specific date for advance payment?
- ALI ASGHAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1032 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR vs HABIBULLAN AND ANorma1980 PLD Karachi 244 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-29Read full judgment →
- ALI AK FITAR AND ANOTHER vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS1980 CLC 2180 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-09-08Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMED vs TRIBUNAL AND SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SHIKAR PUR AND 21980 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ALI AHMED vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, SECTOR 2, HYDERABAD1980 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1980 PLC (C. S.) 75 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-12-03Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD PANHWAR AND ANOTHERS vs VICECHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF SIND1980 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
- AL1 HASSAN vs ABDUL QADEER1980 CLC 912 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant on the ground of default in rent payment for eight months. The Rent Controller found the tenant guilty of wilful default and ordered ejectment. However, the first appellate court set aside this order, holding that past instances of accepting lump sum rent established an implied agreement permitting periodical payments, justifying the exercise of discretion in the tenant's favour. Upon further appeal, the High Court examined the past receipts and held that they merely demonstrated past indulgences by the landlord rather than an implied agreement, which was neither pleaded nor supported by the evidence. The High Court ruled that an indulgence by a landlord does not create a right or equity to its continuance, nor does the acceptance of rent in lump sum on past occasions automatically entitle a tenant to judicial discretion. Consequently, the appellate judgment was set aside and the ejectment order restored.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of rent in lump sum on past occasions by a landlord establish an implied agreement for periodical payments?
- Can a plea regarding an implied agreement for rent payment be raised for the first time at the appellate stage without being pleaded or supported by evidence?
- Does an indulgence shown by a landlord in accepting delayed rent create a right or equity for the tenant to demand its continuance?
- AL-HILAL AGENCIES LTD. vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER41 TAX 40 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs MANGO() KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, CONSOLIDATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 159 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
- AKHLAQ AHMED vs KARACHI PORT TRUST AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1873 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a suit for permanent and temporary injunction filed by the petitioner against the Karachi Port Trust (K.P.T.) regarding a building allegedly vesting in the Evacuee Property Trust Board, where the petitioner claimed to be a tenant. The trial court dismissed the suit and refused temporary injunction based on a statutory notice bar under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. The appellate court maintained the dismissal on different grounds, finding no cause of action and holding that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under the Land Control (Karachi Division) Act, 1952. The core legal questions involved whether a plaint could be dismissed or rejected on factual findings derived from affidavits without recording evidence, and whether the jurisdictional bar under the Land Control Act was properly attracted. The Sindh High Court held that a suit disclosing a prima facie cause of action cannot be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without recording evidence on disputed questions of fact. The Court laid down the principle that factual controversies regarding unauthorized occupation and statutory bars to jurisdiction must be determined through proper framing of issues and recording of evidence, rather than summary dismissal on affidavits, and balanced public interest in infrastructure projects against private possessory rights regarding temporary injunctions.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on disputed questions of fact without recording evidence?
- Can an appellate court uphold the dismissal of a suit on entirely new factual grounds not established by evidence on the record?
- Whether a civil court's jurisdiction is validly barred under the Land Control (Karachi Division) Act, 1952 without proof that the impugned action was taken under its provisions?
- How is the balance of convenience to be weighed when an injunction is sought against public works of national and strategic importance?
- AKHLAQ AHMAD vs KARACHI PORT TRUST AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning an area of 170 sq. yds. in Karachi. The petitioner, claiming as a lessee under the Evacuee Property Trust Board, filed a civil suit against the Karachi Port Trust after the latter attempted to demolish structures on the land. The trial court dismissed the suit entirely for want of statutory notice under the Karachi Port Trust Act, but the first appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding interim relief because the Karachi Port Trust gave a written assurance not to evict the petitioner from an admitted area of 230 sq. yds. The Sind High Court in revision set aside the trial court's dismissal of the plaint but declined to interfere with the discretion exercised against the petitioner regarding the disputed 170 sq. yds. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to show any error of law or jurisdictional defect in the impugned revisional order, noting that the Evacuee Property Trust Board itself did not support the petitioner's claim to the disputed 170 sq. yds. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit can be dismissed in limine for want of notice under section 87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion regarding interim relief under revisional jurisdiction without showing a jurisdictional defect?
- Whether a lessee can claim interim injunction over disputed property when the superior lessor board does not support the lessee's claim?
- AKBAR vs Mst. JEHANDADI AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1775(1) · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
- AKBAR vs MUZAFFAR KHAN1980 CLC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
- AKBAR TAREEN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 969 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs Mst. ATIQ KHATOON1980 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's dismissal of a civil petition for special leave to appeal regarding an ejectment order. The petitioner, an occupant of evacuee property, challenged an eviction order granted on the grounds of rent default. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could avoid eviction by raising a new argument in review proceedings—specifically, that a prior application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding rent payment cured the default—and whether such an application constituted a waiver of the landlady's right to seek ejectment. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the new ground could not be raised for the first time at the review stage. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner had clearly defaulted on rent payments following the statutory notice, and the landlady's prior application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not constitute a waiver of her right to seek ejectment under the relevant rent restriction laws. The principle established is that review petitions cannot be maintained on grounds not previously raised before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can a new legal ground be raised for the first time during review proceedings if it was not agitated before the High Court or the Supreme Court?
- Does an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding rent payment constitute a waiver of a landlord's right to seek ejectment under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a tenant liable for ejectment if they fail to pay rent for more than six months after receiving a statutory notice of transfer and demand?
- AK BAR AU AND 4 OTHERS vs EHSAN ELLAHI1980 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions were whether the first appeal was deliberately undervalued and understamped, and whether the suit property was urban property, thereby exempt from pre-emption. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately and fraudulently undervalued the appeal by filing a fictitious statement of net profits to evade proper court fees, despite knowing the land was fallow and uncultivated. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend time for making up the deficiency, as doing so would prejudice the appellants' accrued right of limitation. Furthermore, the Court found the trial court's determination that the land was urban property to be correct based on uncontradicted evidence. The key principle laid down is that where a party is contumacious, negligent, or acts with mala fide intent to evade court fees, the court will not grant an indulgence for the extension of time if it deprives the opposite party of a valuable defence like limitation.
Questions settled- Does an appeal need to be valued according to the law in force at the time of its presentation, regardless of the valuation used in the original plaint?
- Can a court grant an extension of time to make up a deficiency in court fees if the party has acted with mala fide intent or gross negligence?
- Does the burden of proof shift in a civil case once evidence is placed on the record by one party?
- Is land situated in a residential zone near a town and cantonment considered urban property for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1912?
- AJMAIR vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- AJEEB vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
- AJAIB HUSSAIN AND An0thers vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND 5 Otherss1980PLC 198 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
- AJAB KHAN vs KARIMI INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 259 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
- AIZAZ NAZIR vs CHAIRMAN, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, SUKKUR AND 21980 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ KHAN vs Rai Sahib ROOP CHAND AND 2 OTHERS1980 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the status of two plots of land in Karachi, which the petitioner claimed were evacuee property acquired through a government auction. The respondent, the original owner, had previously been declared a non-evacuee by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in 1950. The core legal question was whether the property, despite the owner's non-evacuee status, became evacuee property due to entries in the Custodian's register or by being "treated as" evacuee property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the property was not evacuee property. The Court established that mere book entries in the Custodian's register do not constitute evidence of property being "treated as" evacuee property without factual proof of such treatment, such as the collection of rent or occupation by refugees. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 3(1) of the 1957 Act requires that property must have been treated as evacuee immediately before January 1, 1957, which was not established in this case.
Questions settled- Does the mere entry of a property in the Custodian's register, without evidence of actual treatment as evacuee property, render it evacuee property?
- Can property be classified as evacuee property if the owner has been declared a non-evacuee by the Custodian?
- What constitutes 'treating' a property as evacuee property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957?
- Does Section 3(1) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, allow property to be deemed evacuee if it was not treated as such immediately before January 1, 1957?
- AIJAZ ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THARPARKAR AND 4 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 72 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-19Read full judgment →
- AHSANULLAH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 654 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHAMIM vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 59 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-08-01Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN AND OTHERS vs Mst. NAWAB BIBI1980 SCMR 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Nawab Bibi filed a suit for joint possession of agricultural land and a house as the daughter and legal heir of the propositus, Ilam Din. The trial court decreed the suit, and the district judge dismissed the subsequent appeal. The High Court dismissed the defendants' revision petition regarding the agricultural land while remanding the matter regarding the house. The defendants sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, raising contentions regarding the representation of a minor legal representative, the admissibility of criminal court proceedings to determine the date of death of the propositus, and the limitation period for a co-sharer's suit. The Supreme Court held that allowing a minor to be represented by her mother as a guardian was proper, that the criminal court record showing the propositus as alive in 1950 was admissible since no contemporaneous objection was raised, and that the suit was within limitation as the plaintiff was a co-sharer and the cause of action arose from the mutation order. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the grant of an application to bring a minor legal representative on record through her mother constitutes valid representation by a guardian?
- Can an objection regarding the admissibility of a document exhibited without objection before the trial court be raised at the Supreme Court stage?
- Whether a suit for joint possession by a co-sharer is barred by limitation when adverse possession is not proven?
- Does a criminal court order declaring a person an absconder serve as a relevant fact in determining whether that person was alive during the relevant year?
- AHMAD DIN AND A/AMERs vs IMAM DIN (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)1980 PLD Lahore 672 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-12Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant, a Patwari, was accused of demanding a bribe to provide a copy of a khatuni. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Department, involving a decoy witness and a raiding party led by a Magistrate. The marked currency notes were recovered from the appellant's co-accused. The appellant contended that the conviction relied solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a decoy witness and offered an alternative explanation for the possession of the notes, which he failed to substantiate. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was supported by concurrent findings of the lower courts, which were based on credible evidence, including the recovery of the marked notes and the testimony of the raiding party. The Court affirmed that the evidence of a decoy witness, when corroborated by other witnesses and physical evidence, is sufficient for conviction. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate any misreading of evidence or error of law in the lower courts' concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a decoy witness sufficient to sustain a conviction for bribery if corroborated by other evidence?
- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence if no misreading or omission is shown?
- Does the failure of an accused to examine a material witness in support of their defense plea allow the court to draw an adverse inference against the accused?
- AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI MEMON vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Divisional Forest Officer, challenged his retirement and the subsequent denial of leave preparatory to retirement (LPR). Following the rejection of his LPR application on December 7, 1973, the petitioner sought departmental review, which was ultimately dismissed by the Chief Minister in 1976. He subsequently appealed to the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court examined whether the appeal was filed within the statutory limitation period prescribed by the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court held that even assuming the petitioner had a right to departmental review, he failed to file his appeal before the Tribunal within the mandatory timeframe after the expiry of the ninety-day period for departmental decision-making. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the appeal was time-barred under the proviso to section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, establishing that statutory limitation periods for service appeals are strictly enforced regardless of pending departmental representations.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a departmental review extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal beyond the statutory timeframe?
- When does the cause of action arise for a civil servant aggrieved by the denial of leave preparatory to retirement?
- Is an appeal before a Service Tribunal time-barred if filed after the expiration of the ninety-day period prescribed for departmental decision-making?
- AHAD SHER vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, where the appellant was found in possession of a hand grenade and detonator. The core legal question was whether mere possession of explosive substances suffices for conviction under Section 5, and whether the burden of proof shifted to the accused under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act. The Peshawar High Court held that mere possession is insufficient; the prosecution must establish circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the possession was for an unlawful object. The Court ruled that the presumption of guilt under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act only applies if the accused was already charged with a scheduled offence, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Court clarified that while Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serves as a safeguard against false implication, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate a search if circumstances justify the departure. Consequently, the conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidence of unlawful intent.
Questions settled- Does mere possession of an explosive substance constitute an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 without proof of suspicious circumstances?
- Does the presumption of guilt under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act apply to an accused not previously charged with a scheduled offence?
- Does non-compliance with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render a search illegal?
- Is the definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 wide enough to include a grenade without a detonator?
- AFZAL HUSSAIN SYED vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 697 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a civil servant challenging an order of compulsory retirement passed by the Government of Punjab under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 after completing 25 years of service. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution applies to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, and whether the competent authority can exercise the power to retire a civil servant under Section 12(ii) more than once or at any time after the completion of 25 years of qualifying service. The High Court held that under Section 12(ii) of the Act, the competent authority possesses unfettered discretion to retire a civil servant at any time after 25 years of qualifying service in the public interest, without restriction as to time or prior scrutiny. Consequently, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, ousting High Court jurisdiction under Article 212. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to terms and conditions of civil service?
- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 where an order affecting a civil servant is passed without jurisdiction or is void ab initio?
- Can a competent authority exercise the power of retirement under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 at any time after a civil servant completes 25 years of service?
- AFZAL AHMED vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C.S.) 340 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMAD MIRZA vs PAKISTAN NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE ARTS1980 PLC (C. S.) 329 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
- AFTA B AHMAD vs REHMAT ALI1980 CLC 999 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- ADIT vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT1980 PLD Rev. 38 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs CHATUR SINGH TARAGI41 TAX 95 · Allahabad High Court · 1975-09-24Read full judgment →
- ADAM MAHBOOB KHAN vs STATE-- ADAM--1980 PLD Rev. 46 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SABOOR KHAN vs KARACHI UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1965-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a student's request for interim relief to continue his engineering studies while an appeal regarding allegations of unfair means in an examination remained pending. The appellant sought authorization to join the next higher class, arguing that he had achieved first-class marks and that the university's allegation was based on the premise that his neighbor copied from him, rather than the reverse. The University contended that answer books showed clear evidence of copying. The Supreme Court, without deciding the merits of the underlying dispute, focused on the balance of convenience regarding the appellant's academic progression. The Court held that interim relief should be granted to prevent the interruption of the appellant's studies, reasoning that if the appeal were successful, the student would avoid academic loss, whereas if the appeal failed, the University would suffer no injury by his provisional admission. Consequently, the Court directed the provisional admission of the appellant to the next higher class, subject to the final outcome of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a student be granted provisional admission to a higher class pending the final adjudication of an appeal regarding examination malpractice?
- Does the balance of convenience favor allowing a student to continue studies when the outcome of an appeal regarding unfair means is pending?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN, COLONY DEPARTM ENT AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1042 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1971-12-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN BUTT vs Mst. AISHA BIBI ETC.1980 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition concerning the disposal of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petition was barred by 149 days, and the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a medical certificate stating he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the inordinate delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his illness rendered him unable to move about or impart necessary instructions for filing the petition within the period of limitation. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred, affirming the principle that medical grounds alone, without proof of incapacitation from filing, do not warrant the condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Whether illness supported by a medical certificate constitutes sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing a petition for special leave?
- Is a petitioner required to prove that illness incapacitated them from giving instructions in order to condone delay?
- Can delay in re-filing a petition be condoned without explaining the period of limitation elapsed after the expiry date?
- ABDUR REHMAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEWS) AND 4 OTHERS vs MOHABBAT1980 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Letters Patent Appeal Bench of the Peshawar High Court which decreed the respondents' suit for a declaration of ownership and possession in respect of suit land. The respondents filed the suit claiming to be owners in possession as hissadars since time immemorial, challenging contrary revenue entries. While the trial court, district judge, and single judge of the high court differed on the issue of limitation, the letters patent bench decided in favor of the respondents. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the judgment solely on limitation. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that since the courts below concurrently found the respondents to be in possession since time immemorial, and the land forms part of the shamilat land in which the petitioners are co-sharers who can seek partition, the petitioners suffered no tangible grievance or material prejudice. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a declaratory suit regarding revenue record entries by a co-sharer in possession face a bar of limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can leave to appeal be refused where the petitioners suffer no material prejudice and have the remedy of partition available as co-sharers in shamilat land?
- ABDUR RAUF KHAN vs COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS1980 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the confiscation of a motor vehicle by Customs authorities. The petitioner purchased a Mercedes Benz, which was subsequently seized by police for lacking proof of lawful import. The Deputy Collector of Customs confiscated the vehicle and imposed a penalty, later modified by the Collector of Customs to a redemption fine and payment of taxes, waiving the personal penalty. The petitioner challenged the seizure and the imposition of the fine, arguing the seizure was illegal for non-compliance with statutory notice requirements and that the Collector lacked authority to impose fines without sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving lawful import and payment of duty lies on the possessor of the goods under the Customs Act, 1969. The Court affirmed that the seizure was lawful and the Collector’s findings were supported by evidence, noting that the petitioner failed to prove lawful acquisition. The Court established that where goods are seized for suspected illegal import, the onus of proving lawful authority or payment of duty rests entirely upon the person in possession.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving lawful import and payment of duty lie on the person in possession of the goods under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can a vehicle be confiscated under the Customs Act, 1969, if the possessor fails to provide proof of lawful import or duty payment?
- Is the seizure of goods by police authorities illegal if the owner is not provided with the grounds of seizure in writing at the time of the action?
- ABDUR RASHID vs Hakeem MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1980 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the appellate courts. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant from a shop, claiming it was required for his son's homeopathic practice. The tenant contended that the application was not bona fide, citing a prior rent increase and the fact that the son was already practicing in a 'Chaubara'. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, finding that the rent increase was due to higher local taxes and that the existing 'Chaubara' was insufficient for the son's requirements. The Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's subsequent appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the appellate courts, noting that a ground-floor shop is inherently more accessible for a dispensary than a 'Chaubara'. The Court affirmed that the landlord's requirement was bona fide and dismissed the petition, while granting the tenant four months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Does a prior increase in rent necessarily negate the bona fide nature of a landlord's requirement for eviction?
- Can a court consider the accessibility of a ground-floor shop versus a 'Chaubara' in determining the suitability of premises for a professional practice?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by appellate courts regarding the suitability of premises for a landlord's needs subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- ABDUR RASHID SHAH vs KHURSHID AHMAD AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 977 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →