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.
- Syed MUKHTAR HUSSAIN AND 2 Othbrss vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1979 PLD Lahore 748 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside an ex-parte inquiry and dismissal of three employees (petitioners) of Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd., directing a fresh inquiry while holding the initial postal service of notices insufficient because the employees were evading arrest. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that if service of notices for the second inquiry was invalid due to postal non-service, the initial show-cause notices sent via the same postal medium should also be declared invalid, effectively barring any disciplinary proceedings against them. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the employer had complied with the requirements of Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance by sending notices to the correct postal addresses and publishing them in a newspaper while the petitioners were deliberately evading service. The Court established that an employer fulfills the legal requirement of informing a workman of alleged misconduct by sending a written notice through post to the last known address or via the press when the employee is intentionally unavailable, thereby preventing workers from exploiting their own evasion to defeat lawful disciplinary proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether service of a show-cause notice through post and press is legally sufficient when the employee is deliberately avoiding arrest and whereabouts are unknown?
- Can an employee utilize their own evasion of service to invalidate disciplinary proceedings and show-cause notices issued by the employer?
- Does an employer comply with Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance by sending notice to the workman's last known address or publishing it in a newspaper?
- Syed MIR AHMAD SHAH vs THE PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 599 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking a declaration of ownership over an evacuee house and challenging its transfer to the respondents. The appellant had previously challenged the rejection of his transfer application through a writ petition in the High Court and a subsequent petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed on the merits. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the previous decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court operated as res judicata. The High Court of Lahore held that even if Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply in terms, the general principles of res judicata bar a party from re-agitating a matter in a civil court that has already been decided on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, including in writ jurisdiction. The Court further ruled that a pronouncement on the merits by the Supreme Court operates as res judicata even if made while disposing of a matter in limine without summoning the opposite party.
Questions settled- Whether the general principles of res judicata apply to bar a civil suit when the same matter was previously decided on the merits in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a decision of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition in limine on the merits operate as res judicata in subsequent civil proceedings?
- Can a subordinate civil court review or bypass a lawful order passed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the previous order was passed in writ jurisdiction rather than a civil suit?
- Syed IRSHAD HUSSAIN vs HABIB BANK LTD.1979 P LC 543 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
- Syed GUL MUHAMMAD AND Another vs ULUS KILLI NASOZAI AND ANOTER1979 PLD Quetta 154 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
- Syed GHAZANFAR ALI vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 39 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed ESSA NOORI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TURBAT AND 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 188 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the transfer of criminal proceedings from a tribunal under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 to a Military Court, as well as the convictions of certain detainees by a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulation 8 and Martial Law Order 2. The core legal questions involved whether a tribunal under the said Ordinance constitutes an ordinary criminal court whose cases are transferable under Martial Law orders, whether proper statutory prerequisites and competent authority mandates were fulfilled for case transfers, and whether convictions rendered without evidence, cross-examination, or opportunity for defense are sustainable. The Balochistan High Court held that a tribunal under the 1968 Ordinance is not an ordinary criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that case transfers to Military Courts require strict compliance with statutory pre-requisites and competent authority which were lacking, and that convictions based on no evidence and in violation of due process are without lawful authority. The court laid down principles governing the strict interpretation of Martial Law transfer powers and the protection of citizens against arbitrary military trials.
Questions settled- Whether a tribunal constituted under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 is an ordinary criminal court?
- Can a case pending before a special tribunal be transferred to a Military Court without fulfilling the pre-requisites prescribed in Martial Law orders?
- Whether a conviction by a Summary Military Court recorded without affording an opportunity of cross-examination and defense can be sustained in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a trial and conviction by a Military Court on the same facts where others were tried constitute double jeopardy under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Syed ANAYAT HUSAIN NAQVI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1979 P Cr. L J 529 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-27Read full judgment →
- Syed ABBAS ALI SHAH vs SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & TRIBUNAL, TANDS1979 P Cr. L J 303 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting as a Tribunal, based on a police report. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and validity of a police report containing vague allegations and past challans without particulars, and whether such a report complies with the mandatory requirements for taking cognizance under the Act. The Sindh High Court held that a police report devoid of specific details regarding the time, place, and outcome of past cases fails to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings and the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court laid down the principle that statutory provisions empowering a Tribunal to take cognizance must be read together with mandatory procedural safeguards, and vague police reports lacking necessary particulars cannot legally sustain preventive proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a vague police report lacking details of time and place vitiate proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Can a Tribunal take cognizance based on a police report that lists past criminal cases without stating their outcomes?
- Are the provisions regarding cognizance under Section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 subject to the mandatory requirements of Section 6 of the said Act?
- SWISSAIR TRANSPORT Co. LTD., KARACHI vs Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN1979 PLC 140 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, LOWER BARI DOAB, SAHIWAL vs MESSRS AZIZ1979 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the supply of canal water to land purchased by the respondent for industrial purposes, which was later sought to be converted for agricultural use. Following an arbitration award made a rule of the court, the respondent sought water supply, which the irrigation authorities refused. The High Court declared the refusal without lawful authority and directed the authorities to supply water. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court’s direction was not an improper bypass of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873, but rather a necessary consequence of declaring the administrative refusal void. The Court reasoned that since the Superintending Engineer had previously sanctioned the supply pursuant to the binding court decree, remanding the matter for a fresh administrative decision would be a futile exercise. The judgment affirms that where a legal obligation is established by a final decree and administrative prerequisites are met, the High Court may issue consequential directions to ensure the effective implementation of its declaration under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a High Court issue a consequential direction to supply canal water after declaring an administrative refusal to do so as without lawful authority?
- Is a government department bound by a decree making an arbitration award a rule of the court if it was a party to the proceedings?
- Does the High Court's direction to supply water bypass the procedural requirements of Section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 when the underlying sanction has already been granted?
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs CHIEF MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR1979 PLD Quetta 213 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD vs JUNIOR LABOUR COURT NO.IV AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC 322 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD AND Another vs Mst. KHURSHID BIBI AND Another1979 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an appellate court's decision to restore a pre-emption suit that had been previously dismissed in default. The core legal question was whether the appellate court and the High Court properly exercised their discretion in restoring the suit, specifically regarding the evaluation of rebuttal evidence concerning the plaintiffs' alleged dilatory tactics. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly exercised their discretionary jurisdiction. The Court found that the evidence, including the prompt filing of the restoration application and the testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses, adequately demonstrated that the delay was not a deliberate attempt to prolong proceedings to arrange the Zar-Panjum. The Court affirmed that the decision was consistent with established legal authorities and that there was no justification for interference. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts possess the discretion to restore suits dismissed in default when the evidence supports the conclusion that the default was not a result of deliberate dilatory tactics, and such discretion will not be interfered with if properly exercised.
Questions settled- Can a court restore a suit dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the evidence shows the delay was not a deliberate dilatory tactic?
- Is the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by a High Court in upholding an appellate order for suit restoration subject to interference by the Supreme Court if the evidence was properly considered?
- SUBAH SADIQ ETC. vs Mistry TAJ DIN ETC.S1979 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a long-standing eviction dispute concerning a shop in Jhelum. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of personal use and reconstruction, which the Rent Controller, District Court, and High Court concurrently upheld. The petitioner challenged the eviction, arguing that the landlord's evidence—stating the shop was required for his son's business—was inconsistent with the original pleadings, which claimed the landlord required it for his own business. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether such a discrepancy in pleadings versus evidence regarding the specific beneficiary of the premises (landlord versus his child) constitutes a fatal defect under the relevant rent legislation. The Court held that since the statute explicitly permits eviction for the use of the landlord or his male children, the discrepancy was immaterial. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that a failure to formally amend the pleadings necessitated dismissal, noting that the Rent Ordinance aims to eliminate procedural technicalities. The Court affirmed the eviction, clarifying that a landlord's requirement for his children is legally consistent with the statutory grounds for eviction.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between a landlord's pleading that a shop is required for personal use and evidence that it is required for a son's use invalidate an eviction application?
- Is a landlord required to formally amend an eviction application if the evidence clarifies that the premises are needed for a child rather than the landlord personally?
- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 permit eviction based on the requirement of a landlord's male children?
- STATE vs SHAHBAZDINO AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents1979 P Cr. L J 547 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
- STATE vs NABI BUX1979 PLD Karachi 419 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMADILYAS AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 491 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
- STATE vs IQBAL HUSSAIN1979 P Cr. L J 772 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL (SIND) vs Mir ALLAH BUX AND Other1979 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION vs Mst. SARWAT KAZMI1979 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing its appeal against a decree passed in favor of the respondent (the widow of the assured). The petitioner had repudiated the life insurance contract on the ground that the assured deliberately concealed having cancer at the time of submitting the proposal. In the suit, the petitioner repeatedly failed to file its written statement and was debarred from defending, leading to a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner argued that under Rule 158 of the Sind Chief Court Rules (O. S.), the suit should have been set down for final disposal as a short cause, allowing cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was debarred from defending, and the medical certificates were hearsay without examining their authors, no prejudice was caused. However, the Court clarified that deliberate concealment of material information in insurance contracts, which require utmost good faith (uberrima fides), can be a ground for avoiding the contract.
Questions settled- Does the deliberate concealment of a material illness by an assured entitle an insurance company to repudiate or avoid the insurance contract?
- Can a defendant who has been debarred from defending a suit for failure to file a written statement claim a right to cross-examine witnesses on hearsay medical certificates?
- What is the effect of the principle of utmost good faith (uberrima fides) on the disclosure obligations of a proposer in a life insurance contract?
- STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1979 PLC 538 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
- STAFF AND WORKERS UNION vs MESSRS DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS1979 PLC 107 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-28Read full judgment →
- SOHRAB KHAN vs ABDUL JALIL AND 2 OTHERS1979 CLC 62 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-25Read full judgment →
- SOCIETE DE FABRICATION ET DE DISTRIBUTION DE PARFUMERIE ET COSMETIQUE1979 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These miscellaneous appeals arise from decisions of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing both the appellants' oppositions and the parties' respective trade mark applications regarding foreign-owned trade marks ('Cheramy' and 'Chant d'Aromes'). The core legal question is whether the second respondent could properly claim to be the proprietor of foreign-owned trade marks that had not yet been used or registered in Pakistan. The court held that although the foreign appellants had not used their marks in Pakistan, the respondent had prior knowledge of the foreign ownership and acted in bad faith by deliberately copying the marks, rendering its claim of proprietorship false and improper. The key principle laid down is that an applicant who knowingly appropriates a foreign-owned trade mark cannot claim good-faith proprietorship under trade mark law, and the Registrar must exercise discretion to refuse registration to prevent deception and maintain the purity of the register.
Questions settled- Whether an applicant can claim to be the proprietor of a foreign-owned trade mark that has not been previously used in Pakistan?
- Does prior knowledge of a foreign owner's trade mark render an applicant's claim to proprietorship false and improper?
- Can the Registrar refuse a trade mark application in the exercise of discretion under section 14(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1940 due to the applicant's improper conduct?
- Whether the absence of local use by a foreign owner permits a local trader to appropriate an international trade mark?
- SMITH KLINE ANDFRENCH OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs A. RASHID PM AND ANOTHBRPL D 1979 Karachi 212 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SIND ALKALIS LTD., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The provided judgment text is empty. As the input contains no content, it is impossible to provide a summary, identify statutory provisions, extract keywords, formulate legal questions, or identify the author of the judgment. Please provide the text of the judgment to proceed with the analysis.
- SIKANDAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN1979 PLD Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Additional District Judge against a tenant for wilful default. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in ordering the tenant's immediate ejectment without recording further evidence, despite the tenant's denial of the landlord's title and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller acted correctly. The court determined that the tenant’s denial of the landlord’s title was mala fide and frivolous, particularly as the tenant had failed to pay any rent despite being served with proper notices. The court affirmed the principle that where a tenant fails to pay rent and frivolously denies the landlord's title, further inquiry into the matter is unnecessary, and the Rent Controller is empowered to order ejectment straightaway to prevent futile litigation and delay. The court emphasized that a tenant cannot withhold rent while challenging title without depositing it in court.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller order ejectment without further evidence when a tenant denies the landlord's title and fails to pay rent?
- Does a tenant's denial of the landlord's title absolve them from the obligation to pay rent?
- Is a Rent Controller required to hold further inquiry into the rate of rent when the tenant has failed to pay any rent at all?
- SIKANDAR AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 965 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
- SIBTE AHMED ZAIDI vs GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC 90 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1978-09-29Read full judgment →
- SHUJAAT MIRZA vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-01Read full judgment →
- SHOAIB DASTGIR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY1979 PLD Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- SHERZADA KHAN vs THE COMMISSIONER (F. C. R.), PESHAWAR AND 2 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
- SHERU ETC. vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) ETC.1979 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed challenges to the restoration of land allotments. The core dispute arose between original allottees under the 'Grow More Food' Scheme, whose allotments were initially cancelled for default in rent payments, and subsequent allottees under a 15-year lease scheme. After the original allottees failed to clear arrears by the stipulated deadline, the land was resumed and re-allotted. However, the original allottees later deposited the arrears and successfully sought restoration of their allotments through revenue authorities. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were time-barred, as they were filed well beyond the limitation period without sufficient explanation. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision, affirming that the original allottees were rightly restored to their position. The Court noted that the subsequent allottees were adequately compensated by the direction to provide them with alternative land, thereby upholding the administrative restoration of the prior allotments.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for special leave to appeal filed beyond the statutory limitation period without sufficient explanation is maintainable?
- Can a court dismiss a petition for special leave to appeal solely on the ground of being time-barred?
- Does the restoration of a prior land allotment by revenue authorities constitute a valid exercise of administrative discretion when alternative land is provided to subsequent allottees?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT Alias 14AYATO AND Other1979 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted one co-accused and commuted the death sentence of another to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in granting the benefit of doubt to the acquitted accused based on contradictions in eye-witness testimony regarding his movements and weapon possession, and whether the commutation of the death sentence for the other accused was legally justified given the circumstances of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the acquitted accused was reasonable, as contradictions in eye-witness accounts regarding the accused's actions created a genuine doubt about his participation. Furthermore, the Court upheld the commutation of the death sentence, finding that the High Court exercised its discretion appropriately given the absence of previous enmity and the fact that the altercation arose suddenly from a heated exchange. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a serious defect in the reasoning or a disregard for accepted principles of evidence appreciation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence if the findings are reasonable?
- Does a contradiction in eye-witness testimony regarding the movements of an accused justify the grant of benefit of doubt?
- Is the absence of previous enmity and the sudden nature of an altercation a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns twelve connected writ petitions challenging orders of reversion from the post of Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officer to Engineering Supervisor. The petitioners sought declarations that these orders were passed without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to entertain these petitions, or if such jurisdiction was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable, ruling that the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary matters. The Court rejected arguments that the High Court could intervene regarding "threatened" actions or where departmental remedies were not exhausted. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional framework established by Article 212 and the Service Tribunals Act 1973 creates a comprehensive, exclusive forum for service disputes, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court in all matters pertaining to service terms and conditions, regardless of whether the impugned action is completed or merely threatened.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding a threatened service-related action?
- Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Can a civil servant approach the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without first exhausting departmental remedies?
- Does an order of reversion from a higher post to a lower post constitute a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- SHER AND Others vs THE STATE AND Other1979 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and dishonest misappropriation of property. The prosecution's case rested on a delayed First Information Report lodged six months after the deceased went missing, subsequent statements of a co-accused, and the late-recorded statement of the co-accused's wife. The co-accused had given conflicting statements, initially implicating himself and the petitioners, but later exculpating himself while altering the weapons attributed to the petitioners and adding other accused. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in relying on the inadmissible police statement of the co-accused to refuse bail. Given the six-month delay in reporting, the mid-night occurrence making identification difficult, and the one-month delay in recording the eye-witness's statement, the Court held that the case was one of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and bail was granted to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can a High Court rely on an inadmissible police statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to refuse bail?
- Does a significant delay in lodging a First Information Report combined with conflicting statements of a co-accused make a murder case one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- What is the effect of a one-month delay in recording an eye-witness's statement on the assessment of a bail application in a murder case?
- SHER ALAM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHER KHAN AND 4 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 2 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs BOSTAN AND Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave arose from a pre-emption suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant, which was decreed by the trial court subject to the deposit of pre-emption money within a specified time. Upon a second appeal, the Lahore High Court enhanced the pre-emption price and granted a fresh deadline for depositing the differential amount. The plaintiff failed to deposit the amount within the extended time and subsequently sought an extension of time under section 151 and section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, nearly twenty months later. The High Court dismissed the application, holding the plaintiff guilty of gross negligence, and directed that the suit stood dismissed. The core legal question was whether the High Court's explicit direction for the dismissal of the suit upon failure to deposit the enhanced amount operated retrospectively and in excess of jurisdiction due to an alleged absence of such a warning in the original appellate judgment. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a pre-emption suit for non-payment of the price within the prescribed time results from the mandatory provisions of Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rather than by reason of any express direction in the decree, and that the omission of such a default clause does not render the decree inoperative or prevent the suit from failing. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a default clause regarding non-payment of pre-emption money in a decree affect the legal consequence that the suit stands dismissed upon such default?
- Can a court extend the time for depositing pre-emption money when the plaintiff is guilty of gross negligence?
- Whether the dismissal of a pre-emption suit for failing to deposit the required amount stems from the court's specific direction or from the mandatory provisions of Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD vs ABDUL AZIZ (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES).1979 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing a second appeal arising from rent proceedings. The landlord originally sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on grounds of default and bona fide personal requirement. While default was not established, the High Court held that the premises were bona fide required by the legal heirs of the deceased landlord due to the size of their family. The petitioner challenged the High Court's order primarily on the ground that the learned Judge had impermissibly relied on affidavits received during the hearing of the second appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the affidavits were obtained merely to elucidate facts that could have favoured the tenant, and found the High Court's judgment elaborate and well-reasoned with no material defect. Holding that no grounds for leave to appeal were made out, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, granting the tenant four months to vacate subject to regular rent payments.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in a second appeal obtain affidavits from parties to elucidate factual matters without rendering its judgment defective?
- Does a High Court's finding on bona fide personal requirement based on family size justify eviction in rent proceedings?
- Sheikh HAFIZURRAHIM AND 12 OTHERS vs SHAFIQ AHMAD1979 CLC 506 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL HAQUE vs Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR1979 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arose from a suit for specific performance where an ex parte decree was initially granted, then set aside by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the defendant had been duly served and, if not, whether the ex parte decree could be sustained under the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regarding the defendant's knowledge of the proceedings. The High Court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity by ignoring evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the suit and the hearing date. The Court found that the defendant possessed actual knowledge of the litigation, rendering any procedural irregularities in service immaterial under the proviso added by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that where a defendant has sufficient knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing, an ex parte decree cannot be set aside merely on grounds of procedural irregularity in the service of summons.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, preclude setting aside an ex parte decree if the defendant had knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing despite service irregularities?
- Is the date fixed for framing issues considered a 'date of hearing' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court in revision set aside an order of a trial court that failed to consider material evidence regarding the defendant's knowledge of the suit?
- Does the publication of a summons in a newspaper constitute a valid mode of service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SHARIFAN BEGUM vs GULZAR BEGUM ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-07Read full judgment →
- SHAMOON AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- SHAMIMULLAH KHAN vs AVERY SCALES LTD.1979 PLC 308 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-26Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM RAHMANI vs Mst. AISHA BIBI1979 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an eviction order passed against a tenant for non-payment of rent. The core legal question was whether the tenant's failure to deposit arrears of rent, as directed by the Rent Controller, constituted a default under the relevant rent control legislation, despite the tenant having previously furnished a bank guarantee during an interim appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that the interim order for a bank guarantee lapsed upon the dismissal of the tenant's first appeal, thereby restoring the Rent Controller's original direction to deposit rent. Because the tenant failed to deposit the arrears or obtain a stay order from the High Court, the failure to comply with the Rent Controller's direction amounted to a wilful default. The Court affirmed that the striking off of the defence was legally justified. The principle laid down is that an interim order for security or a bank guarantee does not substitute for the statutory obligation to deposit rent once that interim order expires, and the mere filing of a subsequent appeal without a stay order does not excuse non-compliance with a valid rent deposit order.
Questions settled- Does an interim order for a bank guarantee survive the dismissal of the appeal in which it was granted?
- Does the mere filing of a second appeal without obtaining a stay order excuse a tenant from complying with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent?
- Does the failure to deposit rent as directed by a Rent Controller constitute a default justifying the striking off of a tenant's defence?
- SHALIMAR (PAKISTAN) LTD., LYALLPUR(F A ISALABAD) vs PAKISTAN1979 CLC 546 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-07Read full judgment →
- Shakil Z. Lari vs Messrs UNITED LINER AGENCIES (Par.) Ltd.1979 PLC 507 · Labour Court · 1979-09-01Read full judgment →
- SHAHZULLAH vs SYED SHAHABUDDIN AMD ANOTHBR1979 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
- SHAHZAD MUMTAZ vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 336 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
- SHAHZAD GUL AND 9 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Peshawar 224 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
- SHAHNAZ MAQBOOL vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the denial of admission to the Liaqat Medical College, Hyderabad, to the petitioner, who was rejected for submitting certificates on separate sheets rather than within the printed Appendices of the application form. The core legal question was whether this technical omission rendered the application "incomplete" under the Prospectus rules, and whether a subsequent rule change could retrospectively bar the petitioner from admission. The Court held that the rejection was based on a hyper-technical misinterpretation of the rules, as the petitioner had provided the required information. The Court reaffirmed that Prospectus rules must be construed strictly and that any provision which is unfair or unreasonable must be struck down as invalid. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the new eligibility rule could not be applied retrospectively to penalize the petitioner for the delay caused by the college's initial wrongful rejection. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the college to admit the petitioner to the current session at her own risk.
Questions settled- Can a medical college reject an application form on technical grounds when the required information has been provided in a different format?
- Does a notice to a student to appear for an interview constitute a representation sufficient to create an estoppel?
- Are rules contained in a medical college prospectus subject to strict construction?
- Can a new eligibility rule in a prospectus be applied retrospectively to bar a candidate who was wrongly denied admission in a previous session?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs SHAUKAT ALI1979 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the allotment of land in Chak No. 53/4-R, Bahawalpur. The petitioner originally sought to adjust his rural land claim against urban land allotted to him, which was rejected because the land fell within municipal limits. Following the failure of his initial challenges through appeal, revision, and a writ petition, the petitioner initiated a second round of litigation by acting as an informer, alleging that the respondent held excess land. Settlement authorities dismissed this claim, noting the petitioner had already exhausted his legal remedies and that the land in question had been correctly confirmed in the respondent's name based on a mutation of inheritance regarding deceased brothers. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the adjustment of his claim was no longer open to him, as he had exhausted all legal remedies. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the allegation of excess land holding, affirming that the property was rightly allotted to the respondents based on inheritance.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner re-litigate a claim for land adjustment after exhausting all appellate and writ remedies?
- Is an allotment of land based on a mutation of inheritance valid when the original claimant has failed to prove excess land holding by the allottee?
- Does a settlement authority have the power to confirm land in favour of a respondent based on inheritance mutation after previous litigation has concluded?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE. SHEIKH UPURA AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD ETC. vs The STATE1979 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The petitioners were charged under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Amin and injuries to his son. The petitioners argued that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version, specifically regarding the number of injuries and the type of weapons used, and raised a plea of alibi and the remoteness of the motive. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail. The Court held that the presence of the petitioners' names in the F.I.R., the presence of an injured eyewitness, and the recovery of blood-stained earth established a prima facie case. It further ruled that a plea of alibi cannot be determined at the bail stage and must be proven at trial. Consequently, the Court found no violation of fundamental principles of justice and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be effectively determined at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
- Does the presence of an injured eyewitness in the F.I.R. constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
- Is the cancellation of bail by a High Court justified when the prosecution case is supported by F.I.R. details and recovery of incriminating evidence?
- SHAFQAT ALI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 174 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 91 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
- SHAD MUHAMMAD vs KHANPUR1979 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision Petition arose from a dispute over a superior right of pre-emption, where the trial and appellate courts differed on the nature of the defendant's possession based on conflicting entries in the Jamabandi (revenue record). The core legal question referred to the Full Bench was whether entries in the column of cultivation must prevail over entries in the column of rent (Lagan) when there is an apparent conflict between them. The Court held that there is no inflexible rule that one column must prevail over the other. Instead, the Court ruled that when entries in the column of cultivation and the column of rent appear to be in conflict, they must be read together to determine the true nature of possession. The Court emphasized that revenue entries are to be interpreted in light of the facts and circumstances of each case, and that such entries are relevant under the law, carrying a presumption of truth unless rebutted.
Questions settled- Whether entries in the column of cultivation are to prevail over the entries in the column of rent or both are to be read together where there is a conflict between the two entries?
- Does an entry in the revenue record regarding the nature of possession carry a presumption of truth under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Can entries in the column of rent (Lagan) be considered relevant evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- SHABIR ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 829 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN Alias TIKKA vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-16Read full judgment →
- Sh. SALAHUDDIN vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of a residential quarter. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the refusal of a temporary injunction by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss sufficient to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit challenging the allotment of the property to a third party. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a valid legal character or a prima facie case, noting that his own allotment was conditional and subject to cancellation without compensation. Furthermore, evidence indicated that the property was not to be allotted to anyone pending the outcome of the respondent's appeal. The Court affirmed that the grant of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial discretion, which was properly exercised by the lower courts in accordance with established legal principles.
Questions settled- Does the grant of a temporary injunction require the petitioner to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience?
- Can a petitioner claim a right to a temporary injunction when their own interest in the property is conditional and subject to cancellation?
- Is the refusal of a temporary injunction by lower courts subject to interference under revisional jurisdiction if the discretion was exercised according to judicial principles?
- Sh. MUHAMMD SAEED vs Mst. HAMIDAN BEGUM ETC.S1979 SCMR 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order against a tenant, Sh. Muhammad Saeed, who operated a cloth merchant business. The landlord sought ejectment on the ground of unauthorized subletting of the premises to a tailor, Muhammad Buta. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent, rendering him liable for eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This finding was upheld by the District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in a Second Appeal, which dismissed the matter in limine on the basis that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the alleged sub-tenant was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed in Second Appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed these findings, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the tailor's presence was merely an association to boost business rather than a subletting arrangement. The Court held that the cited precedents were distinguishable on their facts and found no grounds for interference, thereby dismissing the petition while granting the tenant time to vacate.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship be disturbed in a Second Appeal?
- Does the association of a tailor in a cloth merchant's shop constitute subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction if they allow a third party to use the rented premises without the landlord's consent?
- Sh. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1979 PLD Lahore 379 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Mst. MUBINA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 42 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves two second appeals filed by a transferee-landlord against the dismissal of his eviction applications sought solely on the ground of non-payment of rent. The primary legal issue was whether notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is mandatory to establish default in payment of rent, and whether a tenant's deposit of rent after informal knowledge creates an enforceable tenancy that waives the requirement of such statutory notice. The Sindh High Court held that the service of notice in writing by registered post under Section 13-A is an imperative statutory requirement, not a mere formality. The court held that without the prescribed written notice sent via registered post by the new landlord, a tenant cannot be deemed to have committed a default in paying rent for the purposes of eviction under Section 13. Furthermore, statutory protections provided under rent restriction legislation cannot be contracted out of or waived by implied conduct, such as depositing rent.
Questions settled- Is notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 mandatory before a tenant can be held to be in default of rent by a transferee-landlord?
- Can a tenant be deemed to have defaulted in payment of rent to a new landlord in the absence of written intimation sent by registered post under Section 13-A of the Ordinance?
- Does a tenant's deposit of rent to a transferee-landlord constitute a waiver or contract out of the statutory protection afforded by Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ARIF vs RAWALPINDI IMPROVEMENT TRUST, RAWALPINDI1979 CLC 483 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-12Read full judgment →
- Sh. MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs Mir MUHAMMAD MUDASSIR AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 745 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-08Read full judgment →
- Sh. MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs Mir MUHAMMAD MUDASSIR AND ANOTHBR1979 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-08Read full judgment →
- Sh. HAFEEZURREHMAN AND 3 OTHERS vs DR. SHAFIQ AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1979 CLC 28 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- Sh. AZMATULLAH vs MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER, LAHORE CIRCLE, LAHORE CANTT.1979 PLD Lahore 911 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MOHAMMAD BAKHSH AND 4 OTHERS1979 CLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL MAJID vs MEMBER II, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL MAJID vs HABIB AHMAD (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1979 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The case was transferred by the District Judge from Gujar Khan to Rawalpindi without notice to the parties. Subsequently, the Civil Judge at Rawalpindi issued notices to the parties' advocates. The respondent's advocate noted on the notice that his engagement was limited to the Gujar Khan court and requested service on the respondent personally. The Civil Judge ignored this, proceeded ex parte, and decreed the suit. The respondent's applications to set aside the ex parte order and decree were dismissed by the trial court. The High Court, in revision, set aside the decree and remanded the case for disposal on merits. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the failure to serve the respondent personally, despite the advocate's specific disclaimer of authority for the new venue, constituted a material irregularity. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct this procedural failure.
Questions settled- Does a transfer of a civil suit without notice to the parties constitute a material irregularity?
- Can a High Court interfere in revision with concurrent findings of lower courts if there is a material irregularity in procedure?
- Is service of notice on an advocate valid when the advocate has explicitly stated their engagement is limited to a different court?
- Sh. ABDUL GHAFFAR vs QATEEL SHAFAI AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
- SEPARAS KHAN vs Sh. ABDUL KHALIQ AND 9 Other1979 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, N: W. F. P. GOVERNMENT, PESHAWAR AND 21979 PLC 124 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The provided judgment text is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to generate a summary, identify statutory provisions, extract keywords, formulate legal questions, or determine the author of the opinion.
- SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD AND CO-OPERATION1979 PLD Supreme Court 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the Punjab Service Tribunal's decision, which had permitted a government servant to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The respondent had applied for voluntary retirement after 24 years of service, which was accepted by the government, though the application was technically premature. Subsequently, the respondent sought to withdraw his retirement request, which the government denied. The Service Tribunal, relying on the principle that a specific government memorandum lacked the force of a rule, ruled in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal. The Court held that the respondent’s retirement was valid under Article 178(4)(a) of the 1962 Constitution, as the government had accepted the request and the respondent had already availed of leave preparatory to retirement benefits. The Court established that once a voluntary retirement option is exercised and accepted, and the process is acted upon, it creates a binding finality. Consequently, the respondent could not unilaterally withdraw his request, and the government's subsequent corrective order did not invalidate the original retirement.
Questions settled- Can a government servant unilaterally withdraw a request for voluntary retirement after it has been accepted and acted upon?
- Does a government memorandum regarding the finality of retirement options possess the force of a rule?
- Can an order of retirement be considered valid under Article 178(4)(a) of the 1962 Constitution if it is issued in substance despite technical defects in the application?
- SATAR GUL AND Another vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE `B', N_ W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 2 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-11Read full judgment →
- SARDARA vs Mst. SAKINA AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- SARDAR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 252 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
- SARDAR vs THE STATE Petitioner1979 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of his bail plea by the Sessions Judge. The primary contention advanced by the petitioner was that his co-accused had been acquitted on the same prosecution evidence, which, according to the petitioner, exonerated him from the murder charge. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of co-accused in a separate trial based on the same evidence entitles a absconding co-accused to bail as a matter of right. The Peshawar High Court rejected the application, holding that the trial of the petitioner must be conducted independently of the previous trial. The court emphasized that accepting the petitioner's argument would render the examination of witnesses in his trial a mere formality. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had remained an outlaw for eight years, disentitling him to bail, while directing that his trial be held expeditiously.
Questions settled- Can evidence disbelieved in a trial resulting in the acquittal of co-accused be automatically relied upon to grant bail to an absconding co-accused in a separate trial?
- Does prolonged abscondance of an accused operate as a ground to refuse bail in a murder case?
- Whether the trial of a newly arrested absconder must be conducted independently of the earlier trial of his co-accused?
- Sardar TAJ MUHAMMAD ODHO AND Other vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER1979 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs BARKAT ALI AND 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-20Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD ETC vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions for special leave to appeal arising from land settlement disputes under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The core legal question is whether the High Court, upon finding an administrative order vitiated by a misreading of the record, is justified in resolving complex, controversial factual issues itself rather than remanding the matter to the relevant Settlement authority for fresh determination. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's procedure of resolving disputed facts and admitting new documents, while simultaneously excluding the petitioners from participation in remanded proceedings, raised questions of fundamental importance. The key principle laid down is that when an administrative order is flawed due to a misreading of the record, the proper judicial course is to remand the case for fresh disposal by the competent authority rather than assuming the role of the fact-finding tribunal. Furthermore, judicial proceedings should not exclude parties whose interests are directly affected by the outcome of the remanded issues.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in resolving controversial factual issues itself when an administrative order is vitiated by misreading of the record?
- Should a case be remanded to the original authority for fresh disposal when the initial administrative order is found to be based on a misreading of the record?
- Can a court exclude a party from participating in remanded proceedings while simultaneously leaving issues affecting their interests open for determination?
- SIRAJ DIN vs NAZAR HUSSAIN AND Another1979 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had restored a death sentence previously reduced to transportation for life by the High Court. The petitioner sought commutation of the restored death sentence, arguing that he was entitled to the benefit of a general amnesty declared by the President of Pakistan on December 23, 1971, and that the restoration of the death sentence after a significant lapse of time violated his acquired expectancy of life. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the amnesty was inapplicable because the petitioner did not stand sentenced to death on the date of the declaration, as the High Court had already set aside the sentence. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument regarding expectancy of life, noting that the petitioner had been on notice since May 1970, when leave to appeal was granted, that the death sentence remained subject to potential restoration. The Court affirmed that no legal grounds existed to interfere with the sentence in review jurisdiction, suggesting the petitioner approach the executive government for clemency.
Questions settled- Does a general amnesty for death row convicts apply to a person whose death sentence was set aside by the High Court prior to the date of the amnesty declaration?
- Can a convict claim an acquired expectancy of life when an appeal against the reduction of their sentence is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Does the restoration of a death sentence by the Supreme Court after a lapse of several years constitute a valid legal ground for review?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD ETC vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Ot11ers1979 PLD Supreme Court 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against orders passed by the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of a land allotment and subsequent writ proceedings. The dispute pertains to 98 kanals and 12 marlas of land originally allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, which was cancelled on the ground that the allottee had not procured it. The petitioners, claiming as subsequent purchasers from the allottee, challenged the cancellation and related orders. The High Court partially dismissed the writ petition, set aside certain portions regarding informants, and made findings regarding the allottee's entitlement and the validity of the petitioners' purchase, while declining to permit reopening of certain matters and dismissing subsequent challenges to non-impleadment in parallel proceedings. The core legal questions involve the propriety of the High Court resolving highly controversial factual issues by examining new documents rather than remanding the case, and the validity of leaving certain entitlement questions open while excluding the petitioners from subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised regarding the course adopted by the High Court in resolving controversial matters and excluding the petitioners from open proceedings were of fundamental importance and warranted a detailed examination. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court is justified in resolving highly controversial factual issues and admitting new documents on record instead of remanding the case to the settlement authorities?
- Whether subsequent purchasers of disputed evacuee land can be excluded from proceedings examining the allottee's entitlement and holding?
- Whether a petition for special leave to appeal is premature when a parallel writ petition raising the same relief is still pending before the High Court?
- Sardar BAHADUR KHAN vs THR CHIEF MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR & CHIEF1979 PLD Quetta 176 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-14Read full judgment →
- SARDAR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 799 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI SHAH vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Peshawar 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
- Sardar ABDUL.GHAFOOR KHAN AND 3 Other vs THE FEDERAL LAND1979 PLD Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order by the Federal Land Commission which declared a sale mutation of land by a declarant in favor of his minor sons void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Commission had interpreted the phrase "gift or otherwise" in the second proviso to clause (b) of paragraph 7 of the Regulation using the ejusdem generis principle to restrict the scope of valid transfers. The core legal question was whether the term "otherwise" in the proviso should be construed narrowly or broadly, and whether the Commission had jurisdiction to review such transfers. The Court held that the principle of ejusdem generis was inapplicable due to the absence of a specific genus and the context of the provision. It ruled that "otherwise" should be interpreted broadly to include sales, thereby exempting transfers to heirs from the retrospective nullification provisions of the Regulation. Consequently, the Court found the Commission's order invalid, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of such bona fide transfers to heirs.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'gift or otherwise' in the second proviso to clause (b) of paragraph 7 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, require a restricted interpretation under the principle of ejusdem generis?
- Does the Federal Land Commission have the jurisdiction to review the merits of a land transfer made in favor of heirs under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Is a sale of land by a declarant to his minor sons considered a valid transfer under the exemptions provided in the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- SANA ULLAH vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Etcs1979 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition. The underlying dispute originated from a civil suit for possession of land and shops, which was decreed by a Civil Judge. Both parties challenged aspects of the decree, with the defendant filing a Regular First Appeal in the High Court and the plaintiff filing a civil revision before the District Judge. The defendant challenged the District Judge's jurisdiction to hear the revision, arguing that the suit's valuation exceeded the District Judge's pecuniary jurisdiction. After the District Judge rejected this plea, the defendant sought relief via a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed, holding that such procedural matters should be resolved through the ordinary remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rather than through extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that it was inappropriate to interfere via writ jurisdiction while the revision and appeal were still pending in competent forums. The Court affirmed that parties must exhaust ordinary civil remedies before seeking constitutional intervention.
Questions settled- Is it appropriate for the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the underlying civil dispute is already pending before a competent court?
- Should procedural disputes regarding the valuation of a suit and the resulting forum of appeal be resolved through the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or through a writ petition?
- Does the forum of appeal or revision in a civil suit depend on the valuation fixed by the plaintiff or the valuation determined by the trial court in its decree?
- SALIMA BIBI vs SHARIF HUSSAIN1979 CLC 417 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1979 P Cr. L J 968 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 5 Other1979 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of land to displaced persons. The respondents were allotted land based on verified claims, which were later reduced due to a calculation error by the Central Record Office, resulting in an excess allotment. The appellants filed a Mukhbari application seeking cancellation of the respondents' allotments. Before the final order, the respondents voluntarily surrendered the excess land situated in Dera Ghazi Khan. Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the respondents' land in Sahiwal, which fell within their legitimate entitlement. The High Court set aside this order, finding no evidence of fraud and noting that the excess was a result of administrative miscalculation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the respondents had a right to retain land equivalent to their verified entitlement. The Court held that since the respondents had already surrendered the excess land, the cancellation of the land within their legitimate entitlement was legally unjustified and lacked merit.
Questions settled- Can land allotted to a displaced person be cancelled if the excess allotment was due to an administrative miscalculation rather than fraud?
- Does a displaced person have the right to choose which land to surrender when an excess allotment is identified?
- Is the cancellation of land within a claimant's legitimate entitlement legally valid if the claimant has already voluntarily surrendered excess land elsewhere?
- SALEEM AKRAM vs MUHAMMAD ZAKIR KHAN CHANGEZI AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 972 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN AND Other vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER II AND Other1979 PLD SC 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the transfer of a residential property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as heirs of a non-claimant displaced person, could challenge the transfer of property made to a claimant displaced person in 1960, based on an N.C.H. form filed in 1959 that remained unaddressed until 1975. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the petition, holding that the property had been validly transferred in 1960 and that the petitioners' failure to pursue their claim for over fifteen years constituted laches, precluding the reopening of the matter. The Court further held that a conditional observation made by a High Court judge regarding potential reconsideration of the claim was contingent upon the actual resumption of the property from the original transferee, which did not occur. The key principle laid down is that long-standing property transfers cannot be reopened at a belated stage due to the claimant's lack of vigilance and the finality of the original transfer order.
Questions settled- Can a property transfer made by settlement authorities be reopened after a significant lapse of time due to the claimant's lack of vigilance?
- Does a conditional observation by a court regarding the potential reconsideration of a claim create a vested right if the underlying condition is not met?
- Is a transfer of property to a claimant displaced person valid if a non-claimant's earlier application was not formally disposed of but the non-claimant failed to pursue it for many years?
- SAKHI MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER1979 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the cancellation of an allotment of land. The petitioner occupied a 12-marla plot of land owned by the Provincial Government under the management of the District Council, Sheikhupura, pursuant to a lease agreement dated 9 August 1977. Upon alleged non-payment of rent in advance and unauthorized construction, the District Council issued a notice directing the petitioner to surrender vacant possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed any enforceable legal right under writ jurisdiction to challenge the eviction notice issued by the District Council. The Supreme Court held that under the executed agreement, the petitioner was merely an allottee whose legal status was at best that of a licensee. Because the licence was expressly revocable upon notice pursuant to the agreement's terms, the petitioner had no legal basis to challenge the eviction notice under writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee occupying government land under a revocable agreement holds the status of a mere licensee?
- Can a licensee whose licence is validly revoked pursuant to contractual terms challenge an eviction notice through writ jurisdiction?
- SAIFUL HAQUE HASHMI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE CHIEF1979 PLD Karachi 298 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-11Read full judgment →
- SAID MOHAMMAD vs MESSRS FIRDOUS TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 467 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-06-01Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada K. A. K. AFRIDI vs CHAIRMAN, P. I. A. CORPORATION1979 PLC 289 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-08-06Read full judgment →
- SAEEDULLAH KIJAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1979 PLC 515 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-05-11Read full judgment →