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.
- ASHIQ vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 480 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-20Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 13 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-04Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ ALI vs Syed ATHAR ALI NAQVI AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-23Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI SHAH AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' applications for the quashment of criminal proceedings. The petitioners were accused of securing appointments as teachers under a municipal corporation by producing bogus qualification certificates, subsequently facing trial before a Special Judge Anti-Corruption under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings and trial before a Special Judge are maintainable when the alleged forgery of certificates occurred prior to the petitioners' formal appointment as public servants. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the offense was completed the moment the accused reported for duty and joined service procured on the basis of the forged certificates, and that they continued to hold the posts and draw salaries on that basis. The key principle laid down is that using a forged certificate to secure employment and subsequently joining service constitutes a continuing or completed transaction making the appointee liable as a public servant under the relevant anti-corruption and penal laws.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings under anti-corruption laws are maintainable against a public servant who allegedly produced a forged qualification certificate before obtaining the appointment?
- At what point is an offense relating to the procurement of public employment by means of a forged certificate completed?
- Can an offense that is not a scheduled offense under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 be tried jointly with scheduled offenses by a Special Judge?
- ASGHAR ALI AND 10 Other vs RATIONING CONTROLLER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-19Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD ALI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1979 P Cr. L J 441 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE OPERATIVE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION ELECTRIC1979 PLC 389 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH vs OPERATIVE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, ELECTRIC1979 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal concerning the dismissal of a worker. The core legal question is the interpretation of Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically whether the grievance procedure requiring notice to an employer under subsections (1) to (4) of Section 25-A remains mandatory for cases of termination, dismissal, or retrenchment, or if subsection (6) provides an independent, direct remedy to the Junior Labour Court. The Court held that the 'non obstante' clause in subsection (6) signifies that for cases of termination, dismissal, discharge, lay-off, or lock-out, the procedural requirements of notice under subsections (1) to (4) are dispensed with. Consequently, a workman aggrieved by such termination must approach the Junior Labour Court directly within the prescribed two-month limitation period. The Court affirmed that subsections (1) to (4) remain applicable for other industrial grievances not involving termination. As the petitioner's application was time-barred under this interpretation, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the grievance procedure prescribed in subsections (1) to (4) of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, apply to cases of termination of employment?
- What is the legal effect of the 'non obstante' clause in subsection (6) of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is a workman required to give notice to an employer before approaching a Junior Labour Court for termination of service under Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can the High Court interfere with a Tribunal's decision under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 based solely on an alleged erroneous interpretation of law?
- ARBAB AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 538 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-02Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL IMAN FARUQI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1979 PLC 120 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-12Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs MESSRS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI vs CHIEF' MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR AND 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 804 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI SHAH vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LAHORE AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 201 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- ANSAR MAHN400D AND 2 Others vs The STATE1979 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 149, and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted to the petitioners on the ground that they were only attributed simple injuries, and whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the same under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly cancelled the pre-arrest bail, observing that the ground relied upon by the Sessions Judge was not available for granting pre-arrest bail, especially when the accused were named in the First Information Report for serious offences and no mala fides or political motives were alleged. The petition was accordingly dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may seek post-arrest bail after being taken into custody.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted solely on the ground that an accused was only attributed simple injuries in a murder case?
- Are the grounds for granting post-arrest bail identical to those required for pre-arrest bail?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court cancel pre-arrest bail granted by a lower court?
- ANJUMAN ISLAMIA HIGH SCHOOL, LALAMUSA vs MUHAMMAD HASHAM AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 873 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-23Read full judgment →
- ANIS AHMED vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 709 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the legality of orders passed by customs authorities ordering the confiscation of imported air-conditioning machines and imposing a redemption fine on the alleged ground that the items were not covered by a valid import licence because they were of less than three brake horsepower. The core legal question was whether the imported air-conditioners fell within the prohibited category of domestic air-conditioners requiring less than three brake horsepower, and whether the customs authorities correctly calculated the brake horsepower and efficiency of the machines. The court held that the customs authorities failed to discharge the strict burden of proof required in penal proceedings under the Customs Act to establish unlawful import, as their calculation of motor efficiency and brake horsepower relied on theoretical assumptions and extraneous material rather than conclusive evidence. The court laid down the principle that provisions of the Customs Act carrying penal consequences must be strictly construed, and where the authorities fail to establish the alleged contravention, the benefit of doubt must be resolved in favour of the importer.
Questions settled- Whether the customs authorities can confiscate imported goods on theoretical and conjectural calculations of motor efficiency without discharging the strict burden of proof?
- Does a court have the power in constitutional jurisdiction to review the decision of a subordinate authority if it is based on an erroneous assumption or interpretation of facts?
- Are provisions of the Customs Act involving penal consequences to be construed strictly?
- Whether the term 'brake horsepower' in import trade control headings can be treated as a clerical error or a prospective policy change?
- AMIR KHAN vs PROJECT MANAGER, PMDC, QUETTA1979 PLC 526 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-04-27Read full judgment →
- AMIR DIN ETC vs SABIR HUSSAIN1979 PLD Lahore 896 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of occupancy rights in land governed by the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The appellants (vendees) challenged the trial court's decree in favour of the respondent (pre-emptor), arguing that the land was not subject to pre-emption and that the respondent's remedy lay under the Punjab Tenancy Act rather than a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions were whether the sale of occupancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act was immune from pre-emption and whether the respondent was precluded from filing a pre-emption suit due to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The Court held that the notification previously exempting such lands from pre-emption had been rescinded, rendering the sale pre-emptible. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the respondent was restricted to a suit under the Punjab Tenancy Act, noting that section 114(1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act specifically exempts occupancy rights in government-owned lands from the abolition of pre-emption rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondent's right to pre-empt the sale.
Questions settled- Is the sale of occupancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Does section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act abolish the right of pre-emption in respect of occupancy rights in all lands owned by the Government?
- Can a pre-emptor be restricted to a suit under the Punjab Tenancy Act instead of a suit for pre-emption regarding the sale of occupancy rights?
- AMIR BUX AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 314 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
- AMIR BUX Alias AMIR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 568 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-16Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI vs MOHAMMAD AND 13 OTHERS1979 CLC 373 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-26Read full judgment →
- AMIR ABDULLAH AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTI ER-1979 P Cr. L J 29 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-03Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN vs NOORUL BASAR AND 3 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN (A. KHAN) vs CHOTEY KHAN1979 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant. The landlord, having acquired the property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, served a notice under Section 30 of the Act. The tenant contested the ejectment application, asserting that no landlord-tenant relationship existed and that the statutory notice was invalid because it was addressed to 'Ayub Khan' instead of his name, Amanullah Khan. The High Court found that the tenant was known by both names, validating the notice. It further ordered the tenant's ejectment directly, noting that since the tenant had denied the landlord-tenant relationship and failed to pay rent, remanding the case to determine default would be an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that because the tenant denied the relationship and defaulted on rent, no purpose would be served by remanding the case. The Court also ruled that the petitioner, having himself invoked the High Court's jurisdiction via a second appeal, was disentitled by his conduct from challenging the competency of that appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 is valid if addressed to an alias or alternative name by which the tenant is known?
- Can a tenant who has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing an appeal subsequently challenge the competency of that appeal to seek special leave from the Supreme Court?
- Is it necessary to remand an ejectment case to the Rent Controller to determine the issue of default if the tenant has already denied the landlord-tenant relationship and failed to pay rent?
- AMANAT ULLAH vs SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK,1979 PLC 293 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
- AMANAT KHAN vs Mst. BEGUM JAN AND Another1979 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was a legal defaulter in rent payment given his pleas of adjustment for repairs and bonds, and an established practice of paying rent in lump sums. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the adjustment, his default in paying rent from August 1974 to December 1974 was wilful and contumacious, and subsequent delayed tenders did not cure the earlier default. Furthermore, past acceptance of lump-sum rent by the landlord does not absolve the tenant from the statutory obligation to pay rent regularly. The petition was dismissed, upholding the ejectment orders.
Questions settled- Whether past acceptance of lump-sum rent by a landlord absolves a tenant from the liability to pay rent regularly as it falls due?
- Can uncorroborated oral testimony of a tenant suffice to prove adjustment of rent against alleged expenses incurred on house repairs?
- Does a delayed tender of rent for a subsequent period cure an earlier wilful default in the payment of rent?
- AMANAT ALI AND Other vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 551 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-14Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
- ALTAF AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHRR1979 P Cr. L J 1000 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-01Read full judgment →
- ALPHA INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 47 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The judgment text provided is empty. Consequently, no summary, legal analysis, or case-specific details can be extracted or generated. Please provide the full text of the judgment to enable the creation of the required metadata.
- ALLY Brother & Co., LAHORE vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD1979 PLD Lahore 857 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. LAHORE vs THE PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1979 PLC 443 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs RAJBA AND Other1979 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder case involving the deaths of three individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The Court determined that the alleged eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the scene was fabricated, as evidenced by inconsistencies in their statements and the lack of credible corroboration. Furthermore, the Court found that the medical evidence directly contradicted the ocular testimony, particularly regarding the nature of the injuries and the weapons allegedly used. The Court also noted that the jail records relied upon by the prosecution appeared to be tampered with. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is demonstrably false, inconsistent with medical findings, and lacks independent corroboration, it cannot form the basis for a conviction, especially in an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence is strengthened.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on ocular testimony when the witnesses are proven to be chance witnesses and their presence at the scene is fabricated?
- Does medical evidence that contradicts the specific details of ocular testimony regarding weapon usage and wound types warrant the rejection of that testimony?
- Is an acquittal by the High Court sustainable when the prosecution's case relies on witnesses whose testimony is inconsistent with medical reports and whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
- ALLAH WASAYA vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA AND 6 Other vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 2 Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions directed against a common order of the Lahore High Court concerning the duration of interim stay orders issued during the pendency of writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution. The core legal question is whether Article 2-A of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977—which extended the life of interim orders from sixty days to six months—stood impliedly repealed by a subsequent amendment adding an Explanation to Article 2(2) of the said Order via C. M. L. A. Order No. 6 of 1977. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of implied repeal does not apply, as both provisions can be harmonized and Article 2-A operates as a specific exception that continues to govern the tenure of interim orders. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that specific provisions regarding the duration of interim constitutional orders remain intact despite general amendments.
Questions settled- Whether Article 2-A of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 stood impliedly repealed by the subsequent promulgation of C.M.L.A. Order No. 6 of 1977?
- Can the Explanation added to Article 2(2) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 be reconciled with Article 2-A of the same Order?
- What is the maximum permissible tenure of an interim stay order passed by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution read with the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977?
- Does the doctrine of implied repeal apply when two statutory provisions dealing with the same subject-matter can be harmonized?
- ALLAH RAKHIO AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 443 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHI AND Another vs MALIK KHAN1979 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
- ALLAH JURIO vs THE STATE AND 5 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. L J 531 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA, ETC vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE, Em1979 PLD Lahore 841 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs FAROOQ AHMAD AND 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 917 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by landlords against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could be invoked to condone a delay in filing an appeal under the special law, specifically when the limitation period prescribed by the special law differed from the general law. The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation, dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Court affirmed that where a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that provided in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by operation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 cannot be applied to extend the period of limitation for appeals governed by such special enactments, as the special law's specific limitation provisions prevail over the general provisions of the Limitation Act.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
- Is the period of limitation for a second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 different from that prescribed by the Limitation Act 1908?
- ALLAH DITTA AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 190 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs MESSRS GODEON CINEMA, KARACHI1979 PLC 138 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND Another1979 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the grant of bail to the respondent accused by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether bail was rightly granted to the respondent on the basis of affidavits of eye-witnesses exculpating him and discrepancies in the medical evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the affidavits formed part of the record to be considered for connecting the accused with the offence, thereby bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the medical evidence did not prima facie corroborate the prosecution case. The key principle laid down is that affidavits of eye-witnesses exculpating an accused can be duly considered at the bail stage as part of the material to determine if a case falls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and appellate courts will not interfere with the discretionary grant of bail if exercised in accordance with settled principles.
Questions settled- Can affidavits of eye-witnesses exculpating an accused be considered when deciding a bail application?
- Whether the grant of bail based on further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants interference when supported by material on record?
- Does uncorroborated first informant statement alongside contradictory medical evidence justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH AND 10 OTHERS1979 CLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 877 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ AND Another vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-05Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND Other1979 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs ABDULAH KHAN1979 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petitioners' pre-emption suit. The dispute involved a sale of land measuring 90 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Mallo Mahe, which the petitioners sought to pre-empt on the ground that they were owners in the estate and Patti. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit, holding that the respondent-vendee did not acquire full proprietary rights in another parcel of land purchased in the amalgamated village of Sattokey. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal, holding that by virtue of section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, the respondent had become an owner of the purchased property and thus the plaintiffs had no superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the merger of the villages were hypothetical and belatedly raised. The Supreme Court consequently refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether a vendee acquires full proprietary rights in land purchased from an allottee under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Does a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit have a superior right when both parties own land in the amalgamated estate?
- Can a new factual or legal contention regarding the merger of villages be raised for the first time in second appeal?
- ALI MAHMOOD vs GHULAM AHMAD1979 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 941 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs RAFIQUDDIN AND 9 OTHERS1979 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN vs THE STATE1979 PLD Karachi 661 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-10Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN AND Other vs THE STATE1979 PLD Supreme Court 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in ocular testimony, the timing of the F.I.R., and the reliability of recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's evidence was inherently unreliable, noting that the ocular witnesses were biased, their testimony contradicted medical evidence, and the F.I.R. appeared to be a result of deliberation following a counter-version provided by an injured accused. Furthermore, the Court found the High Court misread evidence regarding blood-stained clothing and failed to properly evaluate the motive. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits; a conviction cannot be sustained merely by highlighting the weaknesses of the defense. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to provide independent corroboration in a case of disputed ocular evidence.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained based solely on the weakness of the defense case?
- Does the failure to chemically examine alleged blood-stained clothing undermine the reliability of ocular testimony?
- Is ocular evidence credible when it contradicts medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and the nature of injuries?
- Should an F.I.R. be considered unreliable if it is lodged after the police have already received a counter-version of the incident?
- ALI HASAN AND Another vs Sh. BASHIR AHMAD AND Another1979 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-21Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR vs The STATE1979 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed seeking review of the Supreme Court's order dated 14th December 1977, which had dismissed the petitioner's criminal petition for special leave to appeal seeking bail in a pending murder case. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to bail on grounds of parity because co-accused persons had been granted bail despite similar initial allegations in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court observed that during the investigation, the injured witnesses specifically attributed firearm injuries resulting in two deaths and three injured persons to the petitioner, whereas the co-accused were merely alleged to have thrown brick-bats or used blunt weapons. The Court held that even if the co-accused had been erroneously granted bail, that fact would not automatically entitle the petitioner to the same concession. Consequently, the Court found no error apparent on the record to justify review and dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Whether an accused directly attributed with causing fatal firearm injuries is entitled to bail on the ground of parity if co-accused have been granted bail?
- Does the erroneous grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle another accused in the same case to bail as of right?
- Whether a review of an order refusing leave to appeal against a bail rejection is maintainable where the petitioner's case is distinguishable from that of co-accused granted bail?
- ALI AHMED vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 294 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1978-05-13Read full judgment →
- Alhaj KHALIL AHMAD vs THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 494 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges an order of the trial court rejecting the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to compel the plaintiff-respondent to conclude its affirmative evidence on issues where the onus lay on the plaintiff before the defendant-petitioner was required to lead evidence. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the right to begin and the reservation of evidence under Order XVIII, rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Lahore High Court held that a plaintiff must lead and conclude its affirmative evidence on issues for which it bears the burden of proof before the defendant is called upon to enter evidence, and cannot improperly reserve its affirmative evidence under the guise of rebuttal. The court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the practice of subordinate courts in reserving a plaintiff's affirmative evidence until after the defendant closes its case is illegal and prejudicial to the defense.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff reserve its affirmative evidence on issues where the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff until after the defendant has concluded its evidence?
- Whether the practice of subordinate courts in allowing a plaintiff to reserve affirmative evidence until after the defendant closes its case is in accordance with law?
- Does the reservation of evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to issues where the onus of proof lies on the party beginning?
- AKRAM KHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
- AKRAM ALI SHAH vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, KASUR AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a writ petition filed against the refusal of the Station House Officer (SHO) to register a cross-version FIR regarding a physical altercation between two parties. Both parties sustained injuries and sought registration of their respective versions of the incident. The police registered a case for one party but refused the other, claiming the petitioner’s side was the aggressor. The core legal question is whether the police possess the discretion to refuse the registration of a cross-version FIR once a cognizable offence is reported. The Court held that the police function merely as an investigating agency, not as a judicial body. Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the duty to register a cognizable offence is mandatory and imperative. Consequently, the police cannot unilaterally determine the veracity of versions or identify the aggressor to justify refusing registration. The Court established that where cross-versions exist, both must be registered and investigated, with the final adjudication left to the competent Court, which evaluates the evidence submitted by the police.
Questions settled- Is the police officer in charge of a police station legally obligated to register a cross-version FIR regarding the same occurrence?
- Does the police have the authority to refuse the registration of an FIR based on their preliminary assessment of who the aggressor is?
- Is the function of the police in criminal matters limited to investigation rather than judicial adjudication?
- Can the High Court command the registration of a case under its writ jurisdiction when the police fail to perform their statutory duty?
- AKHTAR vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR,1979 PLD Karachi 680 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI vs THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB1979 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the disqualification of a medical student by the University of the Punjab for three years following allegations that he procured a forged notification declaring him successful in his final examination. The appellant challenged the disciplinary order, arguing that Regulation 13 of the University’s "Conduct of Examinations" applied only to conduct within the examination hall and that the decision was based on no evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the "conduct of examination" encompasses the entire process from the commencement of the first paper until the official notification of results. Consequently, the University was competent to penalize the appellant for his involvement in the forged notification. Furthermore, the Court rejected the "no evidence" argument, noting that the Disciplinary Committee had sufficient material, including the appellant's own contradictory explanations regarding his knowledge of the forgery and his conduct. The Court affirmed that while disciplinary bodies must act in good faith and provide a fair opportunity to be heard, they are not bound by the strict procedural formalities of a criminal trial.
Questions settled- Does the scope of examination regulations regarding unfair means extend to conduct occurring outside the examination hall?
- Is a university disciplinary committee required to follow the strict procedural formalities of a criminal trial when conducting an inquiry?
- Can a student be disqualified for procuring a forged notification of examination results under regulations governing the conduct of examinations?
- AKHTAR ALI AND Another vs Mst. UMATUL ISLAM1979 PLD Supreme Court 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the eviction of the petitioners (tenants) from a disputed shop. The landlady filed an eviction application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, alleging that the principal tenant had unlawfully sublet the shop to the sub-tenant without her written consent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that the arrangement constituted a partnership rather than subletting and that the petition was mala fide for enhancing rent. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, determining that it was a clear case of subletting for pecuniary consideration, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the tenants' second appeal. The Supreme Court examined the agreement between the parties, which revealed that the principal tenant had surrendered possession of half the shop for a substantial sum and transferred liabilities, amounting to unlawful subletting. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the factual arrangement constituted a clear subletting rather than a partnership or mere license, and affirmed the eviction order.
Questions settled- Does the creation of a partnership business in a rented premises by a tenant involving a third party amount to subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959?
- Whether the transfer of possession of a portion of rented premises for pecuniary consideration and shifting of rent liabilities constitutes an unlawful subletting?
- Can a partnership agreement be treated as a mere license when the terms reflect the transfer of exclusive possession and liability to a third party?
- AKBAR vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, HYDERABAD1979 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
- AKBAR KHAN vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PESHAWAR AND 2 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
- AKBAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ Alias ABDUR RAZZAQ1979 PLD Supreme Court 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a second appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a tenant, failed to file a certified copy of the Rent Controller's order with his second appeal, as required by Order XLII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court refused to dispense with this requirement and subsequently dismissed the appeal after the petitioner failed to explain the significant delay in filing the necessary document. The core legal questions were whether the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment is a mandatory requirement for a second appeal and whether the High Court correctly refused to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the filing of such a copy is mandatory and failure to do so renders the appeal improperly constituted. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient explanation for the delay, justifying the refusal to condone it under Section 5.
Questions settled- Is the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment a mandatory requirement for a second appeal under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a second appeal be considered properly constituted if it is not accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment of the court of first instance?
- Does the failure to explain each day's delay justify a refusal to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can the High Court's refusal to dispense with the filing of a certified copy be challenged after the petitioner has already attempted to comply with the order?
- AKBAR KHAN AND 2 Other vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, MECHANISED1979 PLC 483 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1979-02-28Read full judgment →
- AKBAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 931 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-15Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to grant bail to the appellant in a murder case. The appellant, accused of causing multiple injuries resulting in death, sought bail primarily on the basis of a plea of alibi, claiming he was in Multan for eye surgery at the time of the occurrence. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in refusing bail given the appellant's inconsistent alibi claims and the evidence presented during the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal of bail was sound and unexceptionable. The Court observed that the appellant had provided contradictory accounts of his whereabouts and failed to produce credible evidence to substantiate his alibi, relying instead on inconclusive statements. Furthermore, the Court noted that the argument regarding the applicability of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 became moot as the final challan had already been submitted to the trial court. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the submission of a final challan to the trial court render a plea for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 moot?
- Is a court justified in refusing bail when an accused provides inconsistent and unsubstantiated pleas of alibi during the investigation?
- AIJAZUD DIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 106 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
- AHSANUL HAQ ETC. vs ABDUL RAHIM1979 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The six petitioners, tenants of the respondent in Rawalpindi, challenged their eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed up to the Lahore High Court. The landlord had filed a joint eviction application against all tenants seeking vacant possession for bona fide reconstruction. The Rent Controller and appellate forums held that the landlord's requirement for reconstruction was proven in good faith and rejected the tenants' plea that the joint application was bad for mis-joinder of parties or causes of action.
On petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent factual findings on bona fide reconstruction. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court held that a Rent Controller acting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is not a regular civil court, and strict provisions or technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not apply. Furthermore, under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, procedural irregularities such as mis-joinder do not invalidate an order unless prejudice is shown on the merits.
Questions settled- Does a joint eviction application filed against multiple tenants invalidate rent proceedings on the ground of mis-joinder of causes of action?
- Is a Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 bound by the strict procedural technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an eviction order be set aside for procedural irregularities without showing that actual prejudice was caused to the merits of the case?
- AHSAN-UL-HAQ AND 5 Other vs ABDUL RAHIM AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR ETC. vs PUNJAB PROVINCE ETC.S1979 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the plaintiffs' civil revision and upheld the appellate court's order setting aside a temporary injunction. The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit challenging a canal officer's order transferring certain land to different tube-well chakbandis, and sought a temporary injunction restraining its implementation. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a temporary injunction against the administrative transfer of water supply chakbandi. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit because the petitioners failed to demonstrate any irreparable loss or adverse effect on their water supply resulting from the impugned administrative order. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that proof of irreparable loss and a prima facie case are essential prerequisites for granting a temporary injunction.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted without establishing irreparable loss?
- Does the transfer of land between tube-well chakbandis by a canal officer warrant interference through a temporary injunction when no adverse effect is shown?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction?
- AHMAD vs THE STATE-Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs SHERU AND 8 Other1979 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order by the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondents accused of murder and rioting. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision was based on valid considerations, including that the deceased's injuries were caused by blunt weapons, the case was initially registered under lesser offences before the victim's death, and the F.I.R. failed to attribute specific injuries to individual accused persons. Crucially, the Supreme Court noted that four individuals from the accused side also sustained injuries in the same transaction, supporting the High Court's finding that the case required further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious and dismissed the petition. The key principle affirmed is that where there is a cross-version or injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Does the existence of injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry to justify the grant of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail if the reasons provided are neither arbitrary nor capricious?
- Is a case for further inquiry established when the F.I.R. fails to attribute specific injuries to individual accused persons?
- AHMAD RAZA vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 525 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 879 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 9 Other'1979 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN AND 7 Other vs ABDUL KHALIK AND Other1979 PLD Lahore 898 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal arose out of a suit regarding the inheritance of property left by a deceased limited owner. A co-defendant, Mst. Sahib Bibi, died during the trial following a remand, and her legal representatives were not formally brought on record. The first appellate court and a learned Single Judge dismissed the suit in its entirety on the ground of total abatement, holding that the interest of all defendants was indivisible. The High Court analyzed the record and observed that Mst. Sahib Bibi had transferred her entire share to another defendant (Muhammad) via a registered sale deed before her death, thereby making Muhammad her successor-in-interest representing the entire estate. Furthermore, her legal representatives were already on record as co-appellants. The High Court held that where a deceased party's interest has been completely transferred and the estate is fully represented by another contesting defendant, it is unnecessary to implead the deceased's legal representatives, and total abatement does not occur. Reaffirming that total abatement is unjustified unless an insuperable practical obstacle prevents adjudication, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the appeal for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does a suit abate against a deceased defendant who had already transferred her entire interest in the suit property to a co-defendant prior to her death?
- Whether the non-impleadment of legal representatives of a deceased defendant results in the dismissal of the entire suit when the estate is otherwise fully represented?
- Can a court dismiss a suit in its entirety for abatement without an insuperable practical obstacle preventing an adjudication on the merits?
- AHMAD BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YAR AND OTHERS1979 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
- AFTAB HUSSAIN, GENERAL SECRCTARY, MCP/MPO/WAPDA WORKERS UNIDN,1979 PLC 328 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
- AFTAB HUSSAIN AND 69 Other vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, M. C. P., LAHORE AND 2 Others1979 PLC 345 · Labour Court · 1979-07-01Read full judgment →
- AFTAB ALAM Alias MATOO vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND Other1979 PLD Karachi 503 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
- AFTAB ALAM Alias MATOO vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the police authorities to open a history sheet and enter the petitioner's name in a surveillance register. The core legal question was whether the police could initiate such surveillance measures against a person based solely on pending criminal cases where no conviction had been secured. The Court held that the impugned actions were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The ratio of the decision is that the terms 'habitually addicted to crime' and 'habitual offender' under the Police Rules require a demonstrated pattern of criminal behavior, not merely the pendency of criminal cases or allegations. The Court established that 'reasonable belief' under the relevant rules cannot be based on suspicion or the mere initiation of criminal proceedings, especially when those proceedings are private complaints or have not resulted in convictions. The judgment emphasizes that such surveillance measures carry a significant stigma and prejudice, and therefore, must be supported by reliable evidence of habitual criminal conduct rather than just a history of unproven accusations.
Questions settled- Can a history sheet be opened or a name entered in a surveillance register based solely on the pendency of criminal cases where no conviction has been secured?
- Does the term 'habitually addicted to crime' under the Police Rules include the commission of multiple offences within a single transaction?
- Does the requirement of 'reasonable belief' in the Police Rules for surveillance allow for subjective satisfaction, or does it require objective material?
- Are the rules regarding the opening of a history sheet and surveillance registration ultra vires the Police Act 1861?
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND Another vs AHMAN ETC.S1979 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the imposition of special charges for the unauthorized use of canal water under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873. The respondents were penalized for making a cut in a government-maintained distributory. The High Court held that Section 33 of the Act applied exclusively to 'watercourses' and not to government-maintained canals, rendering the penalty ultra vires. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the impact of the Canal and Drainage (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance 1971, which substituted Section 33 to explicitly include unauthorized water usage from canals with retrospective effect. The Court observed that while this amendment effectively nullified the legal basis of the High Court's decision, the amendment was enacted after the High Court's judgment and was not raised in the initial leave petition. Consequently, the Court held that it could not impugn the High Court's judgment on that ground. Ultimately, the Court determined that the appeals had become infructuous due to the legislative change and dismissed them, noting that the legislative objective had been achieved.
Questions settled- Does Section 33 of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 apply to government-maintained canals or only to watercourses?
- Can an appellate court set aside a High Court judgment based on a legislative amendment that was enacted after the High Court's decision and not raised in the leave petition?
- What is the effect of a retrospective legislative amendment on pending appeals challenging a lower court judgment?
- ADAMJEE FOUNDATION AND Another vs FIRST SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI1979 PLD Karachi 510 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a brief judgment from the Sindh High Court concerning a labor dispute. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the maintainability of the grievance petition under labor laws. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order of the Labour Court was in accordance with law and did not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory remedies and findings of fact recorded by specialized tribunals unless jurisdictional errors are apparent on the face of the record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a grievance petition maintainable without fulfilling the preconditions of the relevant labor statutes?
- ABUL KHAIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 785 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
- ABRAR HASSAN vs PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1975-01-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SATTAR vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 5 Other1979 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a house in Shahdra, Lahore. The petitioner, having purchased the property at auction and obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), challenged an order by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (D.S.C.) that cancelled his transfer in favor of a respondent who claimed prior payment of the transfer price. The High Court had previously directed the D.S.C. to rehear the matter after hearing both parties, as the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the P.T.D. could be cancelled without a conclusive determination of the competing claims regarding the payment of the transfer price. The Supreme Court held that the final adjudication of rights depended entirely on the factual determination of whether the respondent had actually paid the transfer price. Consequently, the Court upheld the direction for a rehearing, clarifying that if the respondent failed to establish payment of the transfer price before the D.S.C., the petitioner's P.T.D. must stand revived.
Questions settled- Can a Permanent Transfer Deed be cancelled by a Settlement Authority without a conclusive determination of the payment of the transfer price?
- Is it mandatory for a Settlement Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to an auction purchaser before cancelling a transfer order?
- Does the failure to establish payment of the transfer price by a claimant entitle an auction purchaser to the revival of their Permanent Transfer Deed?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs ABDUL SHAKOOR1979 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal impugning an order of the Sind High Court which dismissed a revision application against an order of the Additional District Judge concerning the attachment of property before judgment. The core legal question involved whether an order of attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure is appealable and whether a party who voluntarily furnished security can challenge the adequacy proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while an order of attachment passed under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(q), the petitioner suffered no prejudice because he had voluntarily undertaken to furnish adequate security. The Court laid down the principle that an order of attachment before judgment under Rule 6 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(q), and despite procedural misconceptions by lower forums, a party who has undertaken to provide security must provide adequate security as determined by the court.
Questions settled- Whether an order of attachment passed under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(q)?
- Does Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to setting aside ex parte orders or only ex parte decrees?
- Can a party who voluntarily furnished security challenge the adequacy of such security determined through an architectural valuation report?
- ABDUR RAZAQ vs ABDUL HAMID1979 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding an evacuee shop in Kohat. The respondent, who purchased the shop from a transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, filed an eviction application against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller and the District Judge allowed the eviction, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the eviction application was not maintainable under section 30 of the Act because it was filed before the expiry of the six-year statutory protection period. The core legal question was whether an eviction application filed prematurely before the expiration of the protection period under section 30 must be dismissed, or if relief could be granted since the period expired during the pendency of the litigation. The Supreme Court held that section 30 does not bar the filing of an application during the protection period, but only prohibits actual ejectment before its expiry. Relying on the principle that courts may take notice of subsequent events to shorten litigation and do complete justice, the Court ruled that an otherwise premature application can be decreed if the cause of action matures during the proceedings. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an eviction application filed before the expiry of the six-year statutory protection period under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 is legally maintainable?
- Can a court take notice of subsequent events and decree an eviction application that was premature at the time of its institution?
- Does section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 bar a transferee landlord from filing an eviction application during the subsistence of the tenant's protection period?
- ABDUR RASHID AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM MAULA AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 481 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS1979 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH SHAIKH vs Haji AMIN SHAIKH AND 3 Others1979 P Cr. L J 753 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN KAKAR vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1979 PLD Quetta 168 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs VTH, SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC 297 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR KHAN AND Another vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND Another1979 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Regular First Appeal filed against the decree for specific performance of agreements to sell land. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant time to make up a deficient court-fee where the appellant's counsel claimed a clerical error in computation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the discretion under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure is normally exercised in favour of a litigant, it cannot be extended to cases involving contumacy, positive mala fides, or lack of a bona fide mistake where a valuable right has accrued to the opposite party. The key principle laid down is that the court's discretionary power to allow the making up of a deficient court-fee will be withheld in the presence of contumacy or absence of a bona fide explanation.
Questions settled- Whether the discretion to allow the making up of a deficient court-fee under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised in cases of contumacy?
- Does a mistaken computation by a clerk constitute a sufficient ground for extending time to pay court-fee when a valuable right has accrued to the respondent?
- ABDUL SATTAR ETC. vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 80 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AND Another vs THE STATE Opponent1979 PLD Karachi 72 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-16Read full judgment →