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.
- ABDUR RASHID AND ANOTHER vs Mst. SHAHEEN BIBI AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH RASH1D vs ZARINA RASHID1980 CLC 550 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-20Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 250 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs FAZALUR REHMAN AND 7 OTHERS1980 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land acquisition and mortgagee rights, wherein the petitioners challenged a High Court judgment dated 26-10-1977. The primary legal question concerned whether the significant delay in filing the petition could be condoned based on the petitioners' assertion that a rehearing application was pending in the High Court, rendering the judgment's announcement premature. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the High Court was the sole competent forum to adjudicate disputes regarding the announcement of its own orders. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners had applied for a certified copy of the judgment well beyond the prescribed limitation period, providing no satisfactory explanation for this failure. Consequently, the Court found the petition hopelessly time-barred. The principle laid down is that procedural disputes regarding the announcement of a lower court's judgment must be addressed before that court, and an unexplained failure to adhere to statutory limitation periods for filing appeals or obtaining certified copies precludes the Supreme Court from entertaining the matter.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court the appropriate forum to resolve a dispute regarding the date of announcement of a High Court judgment?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained when the application for a certified copy of the impugned judgment is filed beyond the limitation period?
- Does the pendency of an application for rehearing in the High Court justify the delay in filing an appeal in the Supreme Court?
- ABDULLAH JAN vs MST. JA MILA BEGUM (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) AND OTHERS1980 CLC 875 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WALI M. J. MAKHDOOM vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 517 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs MUHAMMAD YASIN1980 CLC 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS Opponents1980 P Cr. L J 979 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs Mst. ZARMAR JAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 566 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Abdul Salam, sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his bail application by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving charges under sections 307, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, given that a co-accused, Sher, facing similar allegations of ineffective firing on a police party, had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts failed to apply correct legal principles regarding bail and neglected the principle of equality of treatment for similarly situated accused persons. Finding no distinction between the petitioner's case and that of the co-accused, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the provision of substantial security. The judgment emphasizes that courts must ensure consistent treatment of accused persons in similar circumstances when adjudicating bail applications.
Questions settled- Is an accused person entitled to bail if a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does the failure to maintain equality of treatment between similarly situated accused persons constitute a valid ground for the Supreme Court to grant bail?
- Should bail be refused when the alleged offence involves ineffective firing causing no injury?
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN ETC.1980 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's applications for the quashment of criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is facing prosecution under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code on allegations of purchasing timber and issuing post-dated cheques that were subsequently dishonoured. The core legal question concerns whether criminal proceedings ought to be quashed under section 561-A when the case involves disputed questions of fact regarding the transaction and the intent of the accused. The Supreme Court held that disputed questions of fact, such as the circumstances of issuing the cheques and whether the dispute is purely civil in nature, require investigation through the recording of evidence by the trial court and cannot be resolved in quashment proceedings. The Court affirmed that the High Court rightly refused to quash the proceedings, establishing that factual controversies must be determined by the appropriate trial court rather than at the leave to appeal stage.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code when the case involves disputed questions of fact?
- Can a dispute involving the issuance of dishonoured cheques be classified as purely civil without recording evidence at the trial stage?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with criminal proceedings that require factual investigation by the trial court?
- ABDUL REHMAN vs KHALIDA BI AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1098 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs FAZAL KARIM AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an eviction application filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default and personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the District Judge reversed this, finding the landlord's personal requirement proven. During the pendency of the tenant's second appeal in the High Court, the original landlord died. Both parties sought to introduce new evidence regarding the requirement of the premises, as the original landlord's personal need was no longer the operative issue. The High Court refused to allow additional evidence and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the death of the original landlord created a fundamentally new situation. The Court held that where a landlord dies during appellate proceedings, the question of personal requirement must be re-evaluated in light of the legal heirs' needs. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case, directing the High Court to permit both parties to lead evidence on the issue of personal requirement under the relevant rent legislation.
Questions settled- Does the death of a landlord during the pendency of an appeal regarding personal requirement necessitate the production of fresh evidence?
- Can an appellate court refuse to allow evidence regarding the personal requirement of legal heirs when the original landlord dies during the appeal?
- Is a tenant entitled to challenge the personal requirement of legal heirs if the original landlord dies after the initial eviction order?
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs POSTMASTER GENERAL1980 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a postal clerk from service following a departmental inquiry into allegations of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld his dismissal by the departmental authorities. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal failed to properly examine the evidence regarding the charges and whether it failed to assess the propriety of the punishment imposed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal had adequately reviewed the evidence, noting that the Inquiry Officer and the departmental authority had thoroughly examined the case and reached reasonable conclusions. The Court further held that the Tribunal's failure to explicitly discuss the quantum of punishment did not invalidate the order, as the finding of guilt on multiple charges implicitly justified the dismissal. The judgment reaffirms that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal where the Tribunal has properly applied its mind to the evidence and the departmental proceedings are found to be regular and free from perversity.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's order if the Tribunal has reviewed the evidence and reached a non-perverse conclusion?
- Is a Service Tribunal's order invalid if it fails to explicitly discuss the quantum of punishment despite upholding the finding of guilt?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to re-examine evidence in a service matter if the lower Tribunal has already properly evaluated it?
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 375 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HASHIM AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over commercial premises involving a passage and staircase situated between two shops in Tharparkar District. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner had the jurisdiction to cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued to the first respondent in respect of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that once a P.T.D. has been validly issued following the failure of the petitioner to fulfill his own offered purchase price, the P.T.D. becomes final and the Settlement Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to cancel it. The Court laid down the principle that the Settlement Department has the jurisdiction to determine questions of fact regarding the classification of property, and a party cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging the creation of a separate property unit after initially offering to purchase it.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed once it has been issued to a party?
- Does the Settlement Department have the jurisdiction to determine questions of fact regarding the classification and numbering of properties?
- Can a party challenge the creation of a separate property unit after having initially offered to purchase the same unit from the Settlement Department?
- ABDUL RAZAQ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 403 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (ADMN.), HYDERABAD1980 CLC 1250 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellants for the murder of five individuals during a violent clash in a village. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established that the appellants initiated a premeditated attack, or if the evidence indicated a sudden fight arising from a chance encounter. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's reliance on ocular evidence was flawed, as the key witnesses were either interested parties, had their credibility undermined by significant discrepancies and omissions in the initial reports, or were not present at the scene. Furthermore, the court held that the dying declaration was incomplete and failed to clarify the origin of the conflict. Consequently, the court set aside the murder convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove premeditation. The court held that in cases of a sudden fight where the origin of the conflict is unclear and casualties occur on both sides, the appropriate conviction is for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than premeditated murder.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the origin of the conflict and the evidence suggests a sudden fight?
- Is a dying declaration that is incomplete and fails to address the crucial question of how an occurrence began of any corroborative value?
- Does the status of a witness as a 'natural witness' automatically confer credibility if their name was omitted from the initial First Information Reports?
- When can a court reduce a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the context of a cross-fire incident?
- ABDUL RAUF AND 3 OTHERSs vs THE STATE1980 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court order affirming a Special Judge's decision to proceed with a trial under the Customs Act, 1969, despite a negative report from the investigating agency. The core legal question was whether a Special Judge is competent to take cognizance of an offense based on a negative report submitted by an investigating officer. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court is not bound by the investigating officer's opinion. The ratio established that a court may take cognizance of an offense based on the material available before it, regardless of whether the investigating officer recommends prosecution or suggests discharge. The key principle laid down is that the court's power to proceed with a trial is independent of the investigator's opinion, provided a prima facie case exists. The judgment affirmed that statutory provisions for taking cognizance allow the court to evaluate the record independently and proceed if sufficient grounds for suspicion exist, ensuring that the judicial process is not stifled by negative reports.
Questions settled- Can a Special Judge take cognizance of an offense under the Customs Act 1969 based on a negative report submitted by an investigating officer?
- Is a court legally bound by the opinion of an investigating officer when deciding whether to initiate a trial?
- Does a court have the authority to proceed with a trial if the investigating officer recommends the discharge of the accused?
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Abdul Rashid, an accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking 'B' class jail facilities as an under-trial prisoner. The core legal question is whether the notification governing jail classifications confers a justiciable, enforceable right on under-trial prisoners to demand 'B' class facilities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the relevant notification makes certain classes of prisoners eligible for better classes in jail custody, it does not confer any enforceable or justiciable right upon them that can be invoked through constitutional proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being without merit, affirming the decision of the Sind High Court.
Questions settled- Does a jail classification notification confer an enforceable right on under-trial prisoners under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a prisoner claim 'B' class jail facilities as a matter of legal right?
- ABDUL RASHID vs SESSIONS JUDGE, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 574 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs SALEH MUHAMMAD1980 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a tenant's second appeal in a rent ejectment case. The landlord sought ejectment on grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller found no default in rent payment but ordered eviction based on the landlord's personal requirement, a finding upheld by the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal questions were whether a landlord's past acceptance of irregular, periodic rent payments establishes a binding practice that overrides statutory requirements, and whether the landlord's claim of personal need was bona fide. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a tenant cannot contract out of statutory rent payment obligations, nor can a practice of irregular payment override the law. The Court affirmed that a landlord's tolerance of delayed payments does not constitute a waiver of the statutory requirement for timely payment. Furthermore, the Court declined to re-examine concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement, as these were supported by evidence.
Questions settled- Can a tenant and landlord contract out of the statutory requirements for rent payment?
- Does a landlord's past acceptance of irregular rent payments create a binding practice that overrides the statutory obligation to pay rent monthly?
- Can a tenant rely on a practice of irregular rent payment to justify non-payment of rent?
- Does a landlord's tolerance of delayed rent payments constitute a waiver of the right to demand timely payment?
- ABDUL RASHID vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs ADMINISTRATOR, MARKET COMMITTEE, OKARA AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 509 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND 46-Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 283 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) AND ANOTHER vs SADIQ ALI1980 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute over the outhouses of a bungalow in Lahore, which were subject to a partition agreement between the parties in 1960. The core legal question was whether the outhouses constituted a separate entity capable of being transferred independently, and whether the parties were bound by their prior mutual consent to the partition of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that the parties had previously agreed to the partition of the bungalow, and had subsequently acted upon this agreement by constructing boundary walls to demarcate their respective portions. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners could not now challenge the division of the property. The key principle laid down is that where parties have mutually consented to a mode of property division and have acted upon that agreement by creating physical demarcations, they are bound by their civil rights and cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the partition or the status of the property portions as separate entities.
Questions settled- Are parties bound by a mutual agreement to partition property when they have acted upon that agreement by physically demarcating the portions?
- Can a party challenge the status of property portions as separate entities after having previously consented to their division?
- ABDUL RAFIQ vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FUEL, POWER AND NATURAL1980 PLC (C. S.) 1 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAB ETC, vs WALI MUHAMMAD ETC.1980 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the cancellation of a land allotment and subsequent lease of agricultural land in District Sahiwal. The core legal question involves the jurisdiction of civil courts to interfere with orders of Colonization Officers regarding the interpretation of government policy letters/schemes, and whether ejected tenants in possession on the date of a government policy directive are entitled to purchase proprietary rights. The Supreme Court held that civil courts possess jurisdiction to strike down orders of Colonization Officers when such officers act in excess of their power by violating statutory schemes or policy letters having the force of law. The Court affirmed the Lahore High Court's judgment, holding that since the plaintiffs were still in possession of the disputed land when the government policy letter of 28th March 1963 was issued prohibiting the ejection of such tenants and granting them proprietary rights, they were fully eligible, and the subsequent lease of the land to the defendants was void and in excess of jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to interfere when Colonization Officers act in excess of their power by violating government schemes or policy letters?
- Does a government policy directive protecting ejected tenants in possession from eviction and allowing them to purchase proprietary rights apply to tenants who remain in possession at the time of its issuance?
- Can Colonization Officers ignore government policy schemes regarding the settlement of land without acting in excess of their jurisdiction?
- ABDUL QUDOOS vs MANGTA1980 PLD Azad J & K 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM MIR vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 400a · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADUS vs ZARBAZ KHAN AND OTHRES1980 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging concurrent findings of revenue courts regarding a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlord had successfully sued the petitioner for recovery of rent arrears and eviction due to default. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the Revenue Court possessed jurisdiction to try the suit, whether the tenant had defaulted on rent payments, whether the tenant was entitled to a proportionate reduction in rent due to alleged short delivery of land, and whether the tenant was entitled to compensation for unauthorized superstructures. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Revenue Court had proper jurisdiction over the tenancy dispute. Furthermore, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the existence of default, the absence of short delivery of land, and the lack of entitlement to compensation for improvements made without the landlord's consent. The judgment reaffirms that factual findings made by lower courts regarding rent default and land possession are generally not open to interference in appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a Revenue Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit for recovery of rent and eviction against a tenant of agricultural land?
- Is a tenant entitled to a proportionate reduction in rent if they allege short delivery of the leased land?
- Can a tenant claim compensation for superstructures erected on leased agricultural land without the landlord's consent?
- ABDUL QADIR vs MUHAMMAD AZIM AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 612 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAD1R vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 397 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner under Section 395/397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for his involvement in a dacoity on a passenger bus. The petitioner challenged the conviction on the grounds that his judicial confession was involuntary, procedurally flawed due to the Magistrate's failure to formally record that he identified himself as a Magistrate, and that the confession was self-exculpatory and uncorroborated. The Supreme Court examined the validity of the confession and the corroborative evidence provided by prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the confession was voluntary and properly recorded, noting that the Magistrate's testimony at trial sufficiently established that the petitioner was aware of the Magistrate's status, despite the omission in the written record. Furthermore, the Court found that the retracted confession was sufficiently corroborated by independent eyewitness testimony, rendering the conviction safe. The petition was dismissed, affirming that a retracted confession, when corroborated by reliable evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Can a retracted confession be relied upon for conviction if it is corroborated by independent evidence?
- Does the failure of a Magistrate to record in writing that they identified themselves to the accused invalidate a judicial confession?
- Is a confession considered voluntary if the accused asserts they did not participate willingly but admits to the preparatory acts of the crime?
- ABDUL MAJID ETc. vs BARKAT Etc1980 CLC 152 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER vs WAJID ALI AND 6 OTHERS1980 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of a property comprising two shops, a residential house, and a chaubara. The petitioners, who were locals, filed an L.H. Form for the transfer of the residential portion, which was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1959 on the ground that the property was an inseparable compact unit. The property was subsequently auctioned to the respondents. Over three years later, the petitioners appealed the rejection, which was dismissed as time-barred. After a series of remands and revisions, the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court both maintained that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the property was inseparable. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the initial rejection was void as it was passed behind their back, and thus limitation did not apply. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the long delay. The Court also ruled that a new question of fact regarding the validity of the auction confirmation could not be raised for the first time in the second round of litigation before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed three and a half years after the rejection of a transfer form can be entertained without sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a party raise a new question of fact regarding the validity of an auction confirmation for the first time before the Supreme Court in a second round of litigation?
- Does the omission of a revisional authority to consider the question of limitation and its condonation vitiate its order?
- ABDUL MAJID (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs D R. DIN MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs AbALAT HUSSAIN1980 CLC 995 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's order dismissing a civil petition regarding the transfer of property under settlement laws. The petitioners challenged the transfer of property on grounds of illegality in the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, the rejection of a transfer form without a hearing, and the violation of plinth area restrictions. The core legal questions were whether the review petition was maintainable given that it was not signed by the counsel who argued the original petition, and whether the grounds raised in the review petition warranted a re-hearing. The Court held that the review petition was improperly constituted under the relevant rules and that the merits of the case could not be re-litigated in review jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that the requirement for the original counsel to sign the review petition is intended to ensure the petition is confined to matters transpired during the original hearing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that review jurisdiction cannot be used for re-hearing a case on merits and that procedural requirements regarding counsel signatures must be strictly observed.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained if it is not drawn and signed by the counsel who argued the original petition?
- Does the scope of review jurisdiction permit the re-hearing of a case on its merits?
- Is a party permitted to raise new grounds in a review petition that were not agitated during the hearing of the original petition?
- ABDUL LATIF vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 177 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATEEF DAR vs DISTRICT ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE. SATELLITE TOWN, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of a building plot allotment in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi. The petitioner, who was allotted a plot in 1956, failed to pay the required 20% advance price of the plot as stipulated in the allotment conditions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's obligation to pay the 20% advance was contingent upon the delivery of full possession of the plot, thereby rendering the cancellation of the allotment unlawful due to the government's failure to deliver the entire area. The Supreme Court held that the payment of the 20% advance was a condition precedent for the allotment itself, serving as security for future instalments, and was independent of the physical delivery of possession. Consequently, the Court upheld the arbitrator's award and the decisions of the lower courts, confirming that the petitioner's failure to comply with this condition justified the cancellation of the allotment. The key principle established is that contractual obligations designated as conditions precedent for an allotment must be fulfilled regardless of the status of possession delivery.
Questions settled- Is the payment of an advance deposit for a plot allotment a condition precedent independent of the delivery of possession?
- Can an allottee justify non-payment of the required advance price on the grounds that full possession of the plot has not been delivered?
- Does the failure to pay a required advance deposit for a plot justify the cancellation of the allotment?
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LOCAL1980 CLC 1832 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1081 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs SATTAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1980 CLC 692 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 151 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs MASHAL KHAN1980 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs IQBALURREHMAN AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM ETC. vs MALHI KHAN1980 PLD Rev. 82 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-07-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 673 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KAREEM vs THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, DISTRICT KASUR1980 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JALIL AND ANOTHER vs MANSOOR AHMAD1980 CLC 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff-applicant filed a civil suit for an injunction against the respondent-defendant in the civil court, Karachi. Issues were settled on 23rd March 1979, requiring parties to submit a list of witnesses within seven days. The plaintiff complied, but the defendant did not. Subsequently, after closing his evidence, the defendant applied to produce three witnesses, which the trial court allowed in the interest of justice. The plaintiff filed a revision application against this order. The core legal question was whether the trial court had the discretion to permit a party to examine witnesses when that party failed to file the list of witnesses within seven days of the settlement of issues under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that if a party fails to present the list of witnesses within the stipulated seven days, the court has no discretion to permit that party to call witnesses, and the trial court acted illegally in exercising its jurisdiction. The revision application was allowed and the trial court's order was set aside.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the discretion to permit a party to call witnesses when that party failed to present a list of witnesses within seven days after the settlement of issues?
- What does the term 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 encompass?
- Is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 competent against an interlocutory order permitting a party to examine witnesses?
- ABDUL JABBAR GHAZI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 375 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ & SONS LTD., LAHORE vs THE PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT1980 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMIDAccused vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of two women and house trespass. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the First Information Report (FIR), the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the voluntariness of a retracted confession, and the integrity of the weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the document treated as the FIR was not the initial information received by the police, rendering it a mere statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the eyewitness accounts were inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and injury locations. The court also ruled that the confession was involuntary due to the delay in producing the accused before a Magistrate, and the recovery of the weapon was suspicious due to unexplained delays in forensic analysis and the use of test bullets not matching the recovered weapon. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a delay in producing an accused before a Magistrate for a confession render the confession involuntary?
- Can an FIR recorded after the police have already initiated an investigation be considered a valid First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to produce a recovery witness from the public invalidate the recovery of an incriminating weapon?
- Is the testimony of eyewitnesses reliable when it contradicts the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired?
- ABDUL HAMID vs SECRETARY, REHABILITATION AND REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE1980 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID ETC. vs RASHID AHMED ETC.1980 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioners' Inter-Court Appeal concerning the disposal of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question related to whether a disputed chaubara above a shop was a residential, commercial, or converted property, and whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner was bound by the Settlement Commissioner's remand order to transfer it as a converted property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the commercial nature of the property used as a hotel since before the partition were unexceptionable, and that the remand order did not restrict the Additional Settlement Commissioner from confirming the transfer of the property as a commercial unit along with the shop underneath. The Court established that findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the nature of a property will not be disturbed where supported by evidence, and remand orders must be interpreted reasonably according to their true scope.
Questions settled- Whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner is bound to transfer a property as a converted property pursuant to a remand order?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 be disturbed in appellate proceedings?
- Whether a chaubara used as a hotel since before partition constitutes a commercial unit transferable by auction?
- ABDUL HAMEED vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 545 (1) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED AZMI ETC. vs PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ETC.1980 PLC (C. S.) 674 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-12-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 236 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION1980 PLC (C. S.) 548 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-08-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs Mst. KALSOOM BEGUM1980 CLC 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs SETTLEMENT OFFICER/COLLECTOR, S1ALKOT1980 PLC (C.S.) 204 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-07-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR JUNEJO vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 344 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND 7 Other vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1980 PLC (C.S.) 440 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-11-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 12 OTHERS1980 CLC 273 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL FAZAL KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AMJAD KHAN1980 PLD Lahore 706 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 357 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 640 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-07-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD YOUSIF1980 PLD Rev. 37 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1979-07-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB ETC.1980 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the resumption of State land originally allotted to the petitioner under the Grow More Food Scheme. Following the resumption of the land by the Collector for breach of conditions, the petitioner exhausted all legal remedies, with the Board of Revenue and the High Court upholding the resumption. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained an order from the Provincial Minister for Rehabilitation and Colonies restoring the land, which effectively overturned the final decisions of the statutory authorities. The core legal question was whether a Provincial Minister possesses the jurisdiction to act as a quasi-judicial authority and override final findings of fact made by the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that the Minister lacked such authority. The Court established the principle that the general power of supervision vested in the Government does not extend to interfering with the judicial or quasi-judicial functions of specified statutory authorities, unless the governing statute explicitly provides for such revisional or appellate power. Consequently, the High Court correctly declared the Minister's order to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does a Provincial Minister have the jurisdiction to override a final judicial or quasi-judicial order passed by the Board of Revenue?
- Does the general power of supervision vested in the Government include the authority to interfere with the judicial functions of statutory authorities?
- Can a government official record findings of fact contrary to those established by a competent statutory authority in a matter that has reached finality?
- ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF J & K AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1644 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- ABDUL AHAD vs Mst. RABIA BIB1 AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1134 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- ABADULLAH AND 3 OTHERS vs THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER1980 CLC 736 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-09Read full judgment →
- ABAD ALI vs PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT No, 15, BAHAWALPUR1980 PLD Lahore 299 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
- A. S. RIZVI vs MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 400ww · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
- A. R. AZAR vs PAKISTAN THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD. P. W. R., LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 139 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- A. QUTUBUDDIN KHAN vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI1980 CLC 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves objections raised by the defendant against an arbitration award of Rs. 56,000 granted in favor of the plaintiff following the termination of a construction contract. The core legal questions addressed by the court relate to whether the objections filed against the award were barred by limitation based on the date of service of notice, and whether an award can be set aside on the ground of insufficiency or lack of evidence when the sole witness's testimony remained unchallenged due to the defendant's non-participation in the proceedings. The court held that the objections were time-barred as the postal delivery slip conclusively established service of notice beyond the statutory period, and further held that an arbitration award cannot be set aside merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence where some evidence existed, especially as it was a non-speaking award with no error apparent on its face. The key principle laid down is that while a court may set aside an award in a genuine case of 'no evidence', it cannot interfere with an award on the ground of insufficiency or credibility of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award can be set aside by a court on the ground of insufficiency of evidence?
- How is the date of service of notice of the filing of an award determined for the purpose of limitation when postal delivery records and internal inward registers conflict?
- Can a non-speaking arbitration award be challenged on the basis of an error apparent on the face of the award involving disputed questions of fact?
- A. MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE EVACUEE PROPERTY TRUST BOARD, GOVERNMENT1980 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
- A. M. MOHAJIR vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, GHARIBWAL CEMENT LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-09Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR vs RAMZAN AND Other1979 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which gave the respondents the benefit of Exception I to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, altering their convictions to Section 304, Part I, and dismissing the revision petition for enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents acted under grave and sudden provocation due to illicit intimacy and whether such benefit could be extended to a co-accused not related to the woman involved. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appraised the evidence regarding provocation and that the co-accused, who treated the woman as his own sister, was equally entitled to the benefit of the exception. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the principle that grave and sudden provocation can extend to a close friend sharing a familial bond in the context of sudden discovery was upheld.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court erred in giving the benefit of Exception I to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the accused were armed?
- Can the benefit of grave and sudden provocation be extended to a co-accused who is not a blood relative of the woman involved but shares a close familial regard?
- Whether the period of sentence already undergone is adequate in cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- ZULFIQAR HAILER ETC. vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-31Read full judgment →
- ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO vs The STATE1979 SCMR 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed by the appellant, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, requesting the Chief Justice of Pakistan to recuse himself from the Bench hearing his appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant alleged that statements attributed to the Chief Justice in a foreign newspaper indicated bias and prejudgment of the case, suggesting the Chief Justice acted as a spokesman for the Chief Martial Law Administrator. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice's interactions with foreign media during an international judicial conference constituted sufficient grounds for recusal based on apprehended bias. The Court held that the application was misconceived and based on a distorted interpretation of the Chief Justice's remarks. The Court clarified that the Chief Justice's statements were merely intended to explain the independence of the Pakistani judiciary and the treatment of the appellant in custody, rather than commenting on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, affirming its commitment to deciding the appeal impartially and in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by unfounded allegations of bias.
Questions settled- Can a judge be recused from a case based on allegations of bias stemming from statements made to the press regarding the independence of the judiciary?
- Does a judge's explanation of judicial procedures and custodial conditions to foreign media constitute prejudgment of a pending appeal?
- Is an application for recusal maintainable when it is based on a distorted interpretation of a judge's public statements?
- ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO AND 3 Other vs THE STATE1979 PLD Supreme Court 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order deals with a situation arising from the continued inability of Mr. Justice Waheeduddin Ahmad, a member of the Bench hearing the appeals, to sit on the Bench due to serious illness involving a cerebro-vascular episode. The core legal question was whether the hearing of the appeals could legally continue before the remaining seven Judges of the Bench in the absence of the incapacitated Judge, or whether such absence barred continuation or necessitated adjournment or reference under Article 209 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the hearing of the appeals could lawfully continue before the remaining seven Judges, as the minimum requirement of three Judges under the rules was satisfied, and that the inability of a Judge due to an act of God did not amount to removal under Article 209. The key principle laid down is that where a member of a Bench becomes physically incapacitated for an indefinite period, the remaining judges exceeding the statutory minimum number may continue the proceedings without constituting an illegal reconstitution or requiring removal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the continued absence of an incapacitated Judge from a Bench prevents the remaining Judges from continuing the hearing of a case?
- Does the inability of a Judge to perform judicial functions due to illness constitute removal under Article 209 of the Constitution?
- Can a multi-member Bench continue hearing appeals when one of its members becomes permanently or indefinitely unavailable due to health reasons, provided the minimum quorum is met?
- ZIKRUR REHMAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1979 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-09Read full judgment →
- ZIAUDDIN vs F. S. ALEXANDER AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- ZIA HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, LAHORE DIVISION1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 31 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-12-30Read full judgment →
- ZAWAR HUSSAIN vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHIWAL AND ANOTHER---1979 P Cr. L J 397 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
- ZARINA BIBI vs MEHBOOB Etc. ,.1979 PLD Lahore 36 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- ZARINA BEGUM vs DISTRICT MAGISTATE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 706 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
- ZAREEN KHAN vs Agha JAN MUHAMMAD1979 CLC 40 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
- ZAMIRUDDIN AHMAD vs Mst. AISHA ABBAS AND 6 Other1979 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a protracted commercial tenancy dispute concerning an evacuee property in Karachi, initially let to the petitioner by the Custodian and later purchased by the respondents in open auction. The respondents filed an ejectment application against the petitioner before the Rent Controller on the grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and impairing the utility of the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, and the first appellate court eventually maintained the dismissal. However, upon a second appeal, the High Court set aside the dismissal and ordered ejectment on the ground of default, holding that the tenant failed to pay rent at the rate assessed by the Karachi Municipal Corporation after receiving proper notice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the tenant's refusal to pay rent according to the latest municipal assessment rendered him a contumacious defaulter, despite subsequent reductions in assessment. The Court established that a statutory tenant under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act must diligently fulfil tenancy conditions, and failure to pay due rent after proper notice justifies ejectment.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a tenant to pay rent in accordance with the latest municipal assessment after proper notice constitute a default rendering them liable to ejectment?
- Can a High Court in second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the lower courts ignored crucial aspects of the evidence regarding rent default?
- Is a statutory tenant protected from ejectment under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act when they fail to fulfil the terms and conditions of the tenancy?
- ZAHOOR AHMED vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 864 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-17Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →