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.
- ABDUL SAMI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 820 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, SIALKOT AND 4 Other1979 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 734 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, PUNJAB1979 P Cr. L J 1014 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other1979 SCMR 292 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order granting bail to two co-accused in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondents facilitated the crime by fetching a gun and ammunition for the principal accused, who fired the fatal shots. The High Court had granted bail on the basis that the respondents were empty-handed and did not cause direct injury, leaving the question of vicarious liability for trial. The Supreme Court examined the investigation record and noted that while the High Court's reasoning was not entirely proper, the order could be sustained on additional grounds. Specifically, evidence suggested one respondent was a soldier posted in a distant location at the time, casting doubt on his presence and participation. The Court held that while the High Court's observations on the merits should not prejudice the trial, the bail order was sustainable given the circumstances. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial court must decide the case based on evidence, uninfluenced by observations made during bail proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a bail order be sustained on grounds other than those relied upon by the High Court?
- Does an observation by a superior court regarding the merits of a case during bail proceedings prejudice the trial?
- Is the presence of a co-accused at the scene of the crime a relevant factor for bail when evidence suggests they were posted elsewhere?
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs SESSIONS JUDGE, JHANG AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a dispute over the temporary custody (superdari) of a bus involved in a criminal theft case, following defaults on a hire-purchase agreement and a subsequent civil court consent decree. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge rightly set aside the Magistrate's order cancelling the respondent's superdari and granting it to the petitioner, who had become the lawful owner under a final civil court decree. The Lahore High Court held that orders under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are interim in nature, and a Magistrate is fully competent to cancel superdari if a custodian fails to produce the case property, provided a show-cause notice is issued before forfeiting any security bond. The Court ruled that the Sessions Judge acted arbitrarily by restoring custody to a defaulter who no longer held title, overlooking the special circumstance of the petitioner's ownership established by the civil court. The petition was accepted, declaring the Sessions Judge's order illegal and restoring the bus to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can an interim order of superdari under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be cancelled if the superdar fails to produce the case property in court?
- Whether a High Court can interfere with discretionary orders of lower courts regarding temporary custody passed in a capricious or arbitrary manner?
- Does a final civil court decree declaring ownership constitute a special circumstance warranting the grant of superdari to the owner over the person last in possession?
- ABDUL RASHID vs MUSHTAQ ALI AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondents on the ground of delay in the commencement of the trial, despite earlier unsuccessful bail applications on merits, including the rejection of one such petition by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused solely due to prolonged trial delay when their earlier bail pleas on merits had failed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no fundamental error of law or procedure, as the question of bail based on statutory or procedural delay is essentially a matter of judicial discretion, and the trial had not commenced with no reasonable prospect of early conclusion. The key principle laid down is that undue and unconscionable delay in the commencement and conclusion of a trial constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail, even if earlier bail applications on merits were dismissed, provided the High Court exercises its discretion without committing any fundamental error of law or procedure.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can grant bail on the ground of delay in the trial when an earlier bail petition of the accused has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
- Is undue delay in the commencement of a trial a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the grant of bail on the basis of delay involve the exercise of judicial discretion by the High Court?
- ABDUL RASHID KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MIRPUR AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC (C.S.) 466 · Service Tribunal · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID BHATTI vs Haji MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 473 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND Another vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT, ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 755 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Alias SHEEDA vs The STATE1979 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application in limine. The core legal question concerns the propriety of refusing post-arrest bail to an accused charged under sections 307 and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, where multiple grievous stab wounds were inflicted on a vital part of the victim's body. The Supreme Court held that the nature, locale, and grievousness of the injuries, prima facie falling within the scope of section 320(eighthly) of the Pakistan Penal Code, justified the refusal of bail. The Court laid down the principle that where an accused is prima facie connected with a serious crime involving injuries to vital body parts, appellate interference with concurrent orders denying bail is unwarranted, and the petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be refused when an accused is charged with inflicting multiple stab wounds to vital parts of the victim's body?
- Does the High Court's dismissal in limine of a bail application warrant interference by the Supreme Court when prima facie evidence exists under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- When can injuries be classified as dangerous to life under section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the purpose of bail adjudication?
- ABDUL RASHEED vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI BHATTI MANAGER, MILITARY1979 PLC 148 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs MESSERS COTTON TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1979PLC 513 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYUM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1979 PLD Supreme Court 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three petitions for special leave to appeal arose out of three consolidated pre-emption suits filed by the respondent against the petitioner regarding the sale of three lots of land comprised in multiple khasra numbers. While the trial court partially decreed the suits, the District Judge dismissed them in entirety. On civil revision, the Peshawar High Court reversed the appellate decision and decreed the suits in toto. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that because the pre-emptor's property was not directly contiguous to every individual khasra number within the block of land sold, the pre-emption suits should fail. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and affirmed the High Court's ruling. The Court held that where land sold forms a single parcel or block comprised of multiple khasra numbers, a pre-emptor whose property is contiguous to any part of that block possesses the right to pre-empt the entire parcel, as the sale of a contiguous block does not constitute separate sales of each field number.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor must own property contiguous to every individual khasra number in a parcel of land to pre-empt the sale of the entire parcel?
- Does contiguity to a single khasra number within a block of land sold afford a pre-emptor the right to pre-empt all contiguous khasra numbers comprising that block?
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhary, JJ. (Members ) Maulvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE1979 PLD Quetta 217 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs IBRAHIM1979 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID ETC vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 851 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 217 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND 3 Others vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS-1979 P Cr. L J 754 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AHMED BAWANY AND 7 Other vs III SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 549 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs MESSRS PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1979 PLC 168 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs JAMAL DIN1979 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal. The core legal question was whether a subsequent civil suit filed to set aside an ex parte preliminary decree on the ground of fraud and collusion was barred by the principles of res judicata, given that the earlier application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and subsequent revision had already been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had been duly served through his counsel and via substituted service, and that the earlier rejection of the application to set aside the ex parte decree implicitly and conclusively disposed of the plea of collusion. Consequently, the subsequent separate suit challenging the same decree on identical grounds was barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that where the issue of proper service and alleged collusion has been raised and adjudicated in proceedings to set aside an ex parte decree, a fresh suit on the same grounds is barred by res judicata.
Questions settled- Is a subsequent civil suit to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraud barred by res judicata if the issue of service and collusion was already raised and decided in prior proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the legal effect under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party's counsel is served with a notice but fails to file a writing showing determination of authority?
- Does substituted service constitute valid and effectual service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders?
- ABDUL KHALIQ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR vs MESSERS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.1979 PLC 18 · Labour Court · 1978-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAYEE vs Mst. RIAZ BEGUM AND 9 Other1979 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding an ejectment order against a tenant. The original landlord, Muhammad Rafique, had initiated ejectment proceedings against the petitioner on grounds of default in rent payment and the bona fide personal requirement of the shop for his son. Following the landlord's death, his legal heirs were substituted as respondents. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court, which affirmed the finding of bona fide need. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the personal requirement claim lost efficacy upon the original landlord's death and that the requirement was not bona fide. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide requirement were based on evidence and could not be re-examined. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the death of the original landlord did not invalidate the ejectment application, as the remaining joint landlords concurred in the requirement, and the tenant lacked locus standi to challenge the internal arrangements of the landlords.
Questions settled- Does the death of a landlord during pending ejectment proceedings render the application for personal requirement ineffective?
- Can a tenant challenge the internal arrangement of joint landlords regarding which specific heir requires the premises for personal use?
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of a premises by a landlord open to challenge in the Supreme Court?
- ABDUL HAQUE Others vs STATE1979 SCM R 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ vs The STATE1979 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed against the refusal of the Lahore High Court to grant bail to the petitioners during the pendency of their criminal appeals. The petitioners were convicted by a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, for corruption-related offenses and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of refusing suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal where contentions require appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal in the High Court is primarily a matter of discretion, and the apex court will not ordinarily interfere unless the discretion is exercised in a perverse or capricious manner. The Supreme Court laid down that appellate courts are not expected to undertake a detailed appraisal of evidence at the interim bail stage, especially when the questions of knowledge and shared intent require final adjudication at the hearing of the main appeal. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed with an observation that the High Court should hear the main appeals expeditiously.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal?
- Is a court required to appraise evidence at the interim bail stage during the pendency of an appeal?
- Can petitioners claim bail pending appeal on the ground of lack of mens rea when evidence requires final adjudication?
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs Tat OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1979 CLC 211 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated constitutional petitions challenge an order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, declaring certain agricultural land alienations by sale and gift as void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions involved whether the revisional authority could disregard concurrent factual findings of lower revenue authorities regarding the bona fide nature of transactions, adequacy of consideration, and validity of gifts to minor children without formal acceptance or physical transfer of possession. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary, unsustainable, and based on unfounded assumptions, as the mere inadequacy of consideration cannot be the sole basis to reject a transaction without considering other statutory factors, and gifts by a father to minor children require no separate delivery of possession or formal acceptance. The court established that concurrent findings of bona fides by the Land Commissioner cannot be overturned on subjective or extraneous grounds, thereby restoring the validity of the alienations.
Questions settled- Whether the mere inadequacy of consideration can be the sole basis for declaring an agricultural land alienation non-bona fide under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Does a gift of agricultural land by a father to his minor children require formal acceptance and physical delivery of possession under Muslim Law?
- Can a revisional authority set aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of land alienations without positive contrary evidence?
- ABDUL HAMID ETC. vs ALI AHMAD KHAN1979 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff, claiming ownership through a prior sale deed dated 7-2-1956, held superior title over the defendants, who claimed ownership through a subsequent sale deed dated 14-3-1956 from the same vendor. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the petition in limine. The Court held that since the plaintiff's purchase was prior in time and the identity of the property was established as the same plot, the plaintiff's title was superior. Furthermore, the Court noted that the defendants' attempt to argue that the properties were different was contradicted by their own evidence and prior conduct, including the plaintiff's successful ejectment of a tenant from the same property. The key principle affirmed is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, supported by evidence, regarding the priority of title in competing sale deeds, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent a violation of law or procedural error.
Questions settled- Does a prior sale deed confer superior title over a subsequent sale deed for the same property?
- Can a party challenge concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a petition for special leave to appeal without demonstrating a violation of law or procedural error?
- Does the establishment of property identity by a defendant's own evidence preclude them from later arguing that the subject matter of competing claims is different?
- ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 913 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM vs ABDUL AZIZ1979 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the execution of an eviction order regarding commercial premises in Multan Cantonment. The petitioner sought to resist eviction from a portion of the premises (Room No. 579) by arguing that the original eviction application filed by the respondent was limited only to Room No. 579/B. The executing court, affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court, rejected this contention, finding that the original eviction application, when read as a whole, clearly sought eviction from the entire demised premises. The courts below determined that the petitioner held the property under a single joint tenancy, as evidenced by the payment of a consolidated monthly rent and the lack of any lease agreement supporting separate tenancies. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, noting that the petitioner failed to produce evidence to substantiate the claim of separate tenancies and failed to challenge the site plan during the initial proceedings. The Court held that an eviction application must be construed in its entirety, and a minor misdescription or omission in a specific paragraph cannot override the clear intent and scope of the relief sought.
Questions settled- Can an eviction application be interpreted by reading only a specific paragraph, or must it be read as a whole?
- Does a minor discrepancy in the description of the demised premises in an eviction application limit the scope of the relief granted if the application as a whole clearly identifies the property?
- Is a judgment-debtor entitled to raise a plea of separate tenancies in execution proceedings if such a plea was not established or supported by evidence during the original eviction proceedings?
- ABDUL HAI BADAT vs Syed SIBTE HAIDER1979 CLC 348 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 695 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI AND 3 Other vs THB STATE1979 PLD Lahore 490 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 27 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs PAKISTAN COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL1979 PLC 305 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC. vs ADAM LTD.1979 PLC 534 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 442 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1979 P Cr. L J 766 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS-1979 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs TANVEER ISMAIL AND Another1979 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which cancelled the petitioner's pre-arrest bail in a case involving an alleged offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court, when presented with new evidence (a final medical report) not previously considered by the Sessions Court, should have decided the bail cancellation application itself or remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court held that, in accordance with the principle established in Nazir v. Amir Din and another (1971 SCMR 637), the court that originally granted bail should first be moved on the basis of new grounds for cancellation, as it is seized of the matter. Consequently, the High Court erred by not remanding the case. The Court further clarified that observations made by superior courts during bail proceedings are inherently tentative and should not prejudice the trial court's independent assessment of the case on its merits.
Questions settled- Should a High Court decide a bail cancellation application based on new evidence or remand it to the court that originally granted bail?
- Are observations made by a High Court in a bail order binding on the trial court?
- Must a court that granted bail be given the first opportunity to consider new grounds for cancellation?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR AND Another vs MUHAMMAD NAZAR ALI1979 PLD Lahore 317 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, SIND & HYDERABAD1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 47 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1977-12-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (WITH POWERS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER), SAIHWAL AND Other1979 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal by the Lahore High Court regarding the cancellation of land allotments. The petitioners, displaced persons, were allotted urban land against rural claims. Following a mukhbari application, authorities determined the petitioners were ineligible for the urban land due to a lack of verified urban units. While one parcel was retained due to long-term possession, the disputed parcel was cancelled and re-allotted to eligible parties. The petitioners challenged these administrative orders through multiple writ petitions and appeals, all of which were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to retain urban land despite lacking verified urban claims. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no right to the disputed land as their claims were not verified for urban units, a fact conceded by counsel during earlier proceedings. Furthermore, the Court declined to entertain a new argument regarding the right to purchase excess land under Martial Law Regulations, as it was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and had not been agitated before lower forums.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new contention regarding the purchase of excess land under Martial Law Regulations for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does a displaced person have a right to retain urban land allotments when their verified claims are restricted to rural units?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the lack of entitlement to urban land based on verified claims subject to interference when conceded by counsel in lower courts?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, (LANDS), HAZARA AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ABDUL SATTAR1979 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner instituted a civil suit for pre-emption, which was rejected by the Civil Judge under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to a deficient court-fee. A Regular First Appeal filed against this rejection in the High Court was also returned due to deficient court-fee. Upon refiling, the appeal was time-barred, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay was dismissed by the High Court, holding that the negligence of the counsel's clerk in affixing insufficient court-fee did not warrant condonation. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether negligence of a counsel or their clerk in paying court-fee constitutes a sufficient ground for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that each day of limitation must be explained, and negligence of a counsel's clerk when funds are already available does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether negligence of a counsel's clerk in affixing insufficient court-fee constitutes a sufficient ground for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does each day of limitation have to be explained when applying for condonation of delay?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to condone delay where no violation of law is shown?
- ABDUL AZIZ AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1979 P CR. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
- A. K. NIAZI ETC. vs Sh. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ETC.1979 PLD Supreme Court 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a residential property in Lahore, initially divided by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether a property deemed indivisible could be transferred in its entirety to a claimant who initially applied for only a portion, and whether an applicant who is an indirect claimant (claiming through a daughter-in-law) can successfully challenge the transfer of the whole property to a direct, prior-possessing claimant. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Letters Patent Bench, holding that once a property is determined to be indivisible, the fact that an applicant initially requested only a portion does not preclude the transfer of the entire property to them. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an indirect claimant, lacking the requisite relationship to an allottee, has no standing to demand the division of property or claim preference over a direct claimant with prior possession. The principle established is that in settlement matters, a finding of indivisibility overrides initial application limitations, and direct claimants with prior possession hold superior entitlement over indirect claimants.
Questions settled- Does the fact that an applicant initially applied for only a portion of a property bar the transfer of the entire property to them if the property is subsequently declared indivisible?
- Can an indirect claimant, who is not a parent, spouse, or child of an allottee, claim the division of a property or preferential transfer rights?
- Is a direct claimant with prior possession entitled to the transfer of an entire property over an indirect claimant?
- A. HAMID vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMIS SIONER, N. W. F. P.1979 PLD Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner declaring the transfer of property to the petitioner as void. The property had been previously auctioned to another party, who subsequently withdrew. The petitioner acquired the property through private negotiation, which the Commissioner later declared a nullity. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner possessed the authority to transfer the property via private negotiation after an initial public auction, and whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner could administratively set aside that transfer. The Court held that the transfer to the petitioner was void ab initio because the property, having been disposed of by public auction, could not be transferred via private negotiation without proper resumption and re-auction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s powers of superintendence under Section 9(3) of the Displaced Persons (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, did not extend to setting aside judicial decisions. However, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore the petitioner's possession, as doing so would perpetuate an illegal, void transaction.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the power to set aside a judicial decision under the guise of general superintendence and control?
- Can property previously disposed of by public auction be transferred via private negotiation without formal resumption and re-auction?
- Should a High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore a transfer of property that is void ab initio?
- A. AZIZ vs PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 222 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
- ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the constitution of the Lahore High Court and the validity of the appointment of its Acting Chief Justice, who also served as the Chief Election Commissioner. The appellant contended that the High Court was improperly constituted due to the permanent Chief Justice’s appointment as Acting Governor, and that the Acting Chief Justice’s dual role violated Article 216 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a temporary vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice does not invalidate the High Court’s constitution, as the office remains in existence. Regarding the dual appointment, the Court ruled that the appointment of the Acting Chief Justice as Chief Election Commissioner was a temporary, ad hoc measure under Post-Proclamation Orders for specific elections, rather than a permanent, substantive appointment under the Constitution. Consequently, the prohibition in Article 216 against holding dual offices did not apply. The Court affirmed that measures taken by the Chief Martial Law Administrator to restore democratic institutions are valid under the doctrine of necessity.
Questions settled- Does a temporary vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice invalidate the constitution of a High Court?
- Can a serving judge simultaneously hold the office of Chief Election Commissioner without violating Article 216 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the doctrine of necessity validate the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice under Post-Proclamation Orders?
- Is the prohibition against holding an office of profit under Article 216 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 applicable to temporary, ad hoc appointments?
- ZEBA TEXTILE MILLS vs GHULAM HAIDER AND 5 OTHERS , .1978 PLC 431 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-19Read full judgment →
- ZARINA KHATOON vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, (SOUTH). KARACHI AND 5 Other1978 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
- ZAR BAHADAR vs The STATE1978 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence for murder. The petitioner contended that the ocular evidence provided by interested witnesses was unreliable due to discrepancies and that the prosecution failed to examine all available witnesses. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation arising from an earlier quarrel, warranting a conviction for culpable homicide rather than murder, and that his youth at the time of the offense should mitigate the sentence. The Court held that minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate ocular evidence, especially when corroborated by motive and long-term abscondence. It affirmed that the prosecution is not required to examine every witness if the evidence presented is sufficient to prove guilt. The Court rejected the plea of grave and sudden provocation, noting that a quarrel occurring eight hours prior does not satisfy the legal threshold. Finally, the Court upheld the death sentence, finding no evidence to substantiate the claim of minority at the time of the offense.
Questions settled- Does a minor discrepancy in the testimony of eye-witnesses necessitate the rejection of their evidence?
- Is the prosecution legally required to examine every available eye-witness to a crime?
- Can a quarrel occurring eight hours prior to a killing constitute 'grave and sudden provocation' to reduce the offense to culpable homicide?
- Does long-term abscondence serve as valid corroboration for ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Another1978 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition seeks a review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment which had accepted the Government's appeal, set aside the Lahore High Court's Division Bench judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The original matter concerned the refusal by the Controller, Imports and Exports to issue an import licence for cinematograph films to the petitioner under the Import Policy Order 1972, following an amendment to Item 49 which restricted such imports to official agencies. The core legal question was whether merely applying for an import licence prior to a policy change creates a vested legal right to its issuance, warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court held that a licence simpliciter is a privilege and not a legal right, that policy decisions of the Federal Government regarding import control under the Exports Control Act 1950 prevail, and that no vested right accrues from a mere application before grant. The Court concluded that the grounds raised were merely an attempt to reargue the case, and dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Whether the making of an application for an import licence creates a vested legal right to its issuance prior to its actual grant?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued against the licensing authority to defeat a subsequent import policy change made by the Federal Government?
- Does the power of review permit a rehearing of the whole case on merits?
- ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, SPENCER &Co. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 105 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
- ZAINUL ABEDIN vs MESSRS SABINA LTD. PARIS SILK MILLS, KARACHI1978 PLC 114 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-17Read full judgment →
- ZAHUR AHMAD alias MAKI vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-22Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 962 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-05Read full judgment →
- ZAHEERUDDIN PATHAN AND 8 Other vs Mst. HAJIANI ZAINAB AND Another1978 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
- ZAFFAR IQBAL AND 2 Others vs NASREEN HAMEED AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 113 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-30Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS vs MANAGING DIRECTOR LAHORE HOTEL, LAHORE1978 PLC 204 · Labour Court · 1976-03-21Read full judgment →
- ZABIULLAH AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 795 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
- YUSUF vs MESSRS VALIKA TEXTILE MILLS LTD, KARACHI AHD 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 95 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-23Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF AZIZ vs Mst. AQEELA BEGUM AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from an order of a Single Judge dismissing an execution application for amendment of a writ of possession. The underlying decree was based on an arbitration award made the rule of the court with the consent of the parties. The appeal was barred by limitation, and the application for condonation of delay had already been dismissed. The appellant contended that because the initial arbitration agreement was executed by a de facto guardian on behalf of minors, the award was void ab initio and a nullity, rendering the bar of limitation inapplicable. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the executing court cannot go behind the decree to examine the validity or executability of an award that has merged into a decree. Furthermore, the appellant had consented to the decree, acted upon it, and could not approbate and reprobate. Consequently, the challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Can an executing court go behind a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to determine the validity of the underlying arbitration award?
- Can a party who consented to an arbitration award being made the rule of the court later challenge that award as a nullity in execution proceedings?
- Can an appeal barred by limitation be entertained on the ground that the underlying decree or award is void, when the executing court's order itself was within jurisdiction?
- YOUSUF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
- YOU SAF ALI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 111 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
- YAR M UHAM MAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 619 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
- YAQUB ALI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB KHAN vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB KHAN vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
- YAKHTIAR KHAN AND 2 Other vs RAHIM BUX AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-13Read full judgment →
- WORKS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, KARACHI AND Another vs THE KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1978 PLD Karachi 529 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the execution of a Supreme Court judgment directing the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) to honor government commitments regarding the allotment of land to the Works Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioner-Society sought the allotment of 350 acres of land originally reserved for Police Headquarters, which the KDA resisted by attempting to limit the acreage and impose revised, higher land prices. The core legal questions were the precise extent of the land entitlement and the applicable pricing rates for the allotment. The Court held that the KDA was bound by previous government commitments and Supreme Court directives to allot the full 350 acres originally reserved for Police Headquarters. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the price payable by the Society must be determined based on the rates prevailing on the date of the government notification (June 9, 1964), rejecting the KDA's attempt to apply subsequently revised rates. The principle established is that a statutory body cannot unilaterally depart from government policy commitments once judicially affirmed, and execution proceedings must strictly adhere to the original terms of the commitment.
Questions settled- Is a statutory body bound to honor government commitments regarding land allotment once they have been judicially affirmed?
- Can a development authority unilaterally revise land prices to defeat a prior government commitment to allot land at a specific rate?
- Does a court in execution proceedings have the authority to determine the extent of land entitlement based on historical government records and notifications?
- Can a development authority rely on subsequent policy changes to avoid implementing a Supreme Court directive regarding land allotment?
- WORKERS' UNION vs MESSRS QAYOOM TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI1978 PLC 356 · Labour Court · 1977-07-13Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES1978 PLC 230 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs MESSRS RAVI THREAD WORKS LAHORE1978 PLC 285 · Labour Court · 1975-10-31Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs CARRIER TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES, ISLAMABAD1978 PLC 177 · Labour Court · 1976-02-06Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, LAHORE AND OTHERS1978 PLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-24Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN COOPERATIVE CONSUMER SOCIETY, LAHORE vs MESSRS MIAN1978 PLD Lahore 28 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- WAZIR MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1978 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the case of Wazir Muhammad v. The State, wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered the propriety of withholding post-arrest bail from the appellant. The core legal question revolved around whether an accused charged solely with making a lalkara (instigatory call), without any attributed overt act, is entitled to bail. The Court held that the appellant deserved to be released on bail given the absence of any overt act ascribed to him. The ratio decidendi established is that where an accused is only charged with a lalkara and no specific overt act is attributed in the commission of the crime, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the appellant directed to be released on furnishing suitable sureties.
Questions settled- Is an accused charged only with lalkara entitled to post-arrest bail when no overt act is ascribed to him?
- Whether the absence of an overt act in a criminal charge warrants the release of the accused on bail?
- WAZEER AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE vs J. B. ARIF1978 PLC 30 · Labour Court · 1977-05-14Read full judgment →
- WAR1S ALI ETC. vs THE STATE ETC1978 P Cr. L J 748 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
- WALI vs SARDARA1978 PLD Lahore 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND Others vs RAJA MUHAMMAD AND Other1978 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal and an application for transposition of parties. The petitioners, refugee claimants, sought to retain land temporarily allotted to them in Rasul Nagar despite having their rural claims satisfied elsewhere. The High Court had previously dismissed their writ petition, noting that satisfaction of claims elsewhere extinguished their rights to the temporary allotments. One petitioner appealed, while others sought to join as appellants eleven years later. The Supreme Court held that the original appellant had no remaining grievance as his claim was satisfied. Regarding the other petitioners, the Court affirmed that their application for transposition was highly belated and lacked merit, as their rights to the temporary allotments had ceased upon the confirmation of land elsewhere. The Court further held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly in refusing to transpose the parties, as they were neither necessary nor proper parties. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that once a claim is satisfied elsewhere, the right to temporary allotment disappears.
Questions settled- Does the confirmation of land claims elsewhere extinguish a claimant's right to retain land previously held under temporary allotment?
- Can an appellate court refuse an application for transposition of parties filed after an inordinate delay?
- Is a party whose claim has been satisfied elsewhere a necessary or proper party to an appeal regarding temporary land allotments?
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-21Read full judgment →
- WALAYAT vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
- WAKIL KHAN vs Mst. AASIA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 793 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-06Read full judgment →
- VALI MUHAMMAD vs BAJOO AND Other1978 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The prosecution relied on ocular evidence, motive, recoveries of incriminating items, and a retracted judicial confession. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the ocular evidence, noting discrepancies between the medical evidence and the testimony of eye-witnesses, and the lack of credible motive. Regarding the respondent Bajoo, the Court found his retracted judicial confession to be voluntary and genuine, establishing his participation in the occurrence, though the plea of self-defence remained unsubstantiated. Conversely, regarding the respondent Alidino, the Court found the evidence of recoveries unreliable due to contradictions between the investigation officer and the witness, and insufficient blood-staining on his clothes. The Court held that while the prosecution failed to prove premeditated murder, the guilt of Bajoo was established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal of Alidino, convicted Bajoo for murder, and sentenced him to transportation for life, noting the absence of evidence for premeditation and the applicability of pre-Law Reforms Ordinance sentencing.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession serve as the basis for conviction if found to be voluntary and genuine?
- Does a discrepancy between the investigation officer's testimony and a recovery witness regarding the discovery of a crime weapon invalidate the recovery evidence?
- Is a conviction for premeditated murder sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the initial circumstances of the occurrence and the motive is flimsy?
- What is the appropriate sentence for murder committed before the enactment of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 when premeditation is not established?
- USMAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 593 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-04Read full judgment →
- UNITED UNION OF P. W. R. (P. R.) WORKERS vs SHAUKAT ALI MIR1978 PLC 213 · Labour Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
- UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs HAFIZ MUHAMMAD1978 PLD Supreme Court 279 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute between an insurance company and an insured party regarding a fire loss claim. The core legal question was whether an arbitration agreement that was not duly stamped is rendered invalid under the Stamp Act 1899, and whether such an objection could be entertained at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that an instrument not duly stamped is not invalid; rather, it is merely subject to the disabilities of inadmissibility in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act 1899, which can be cured by the payment of the requisite duty and penalty. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent of the Stamp Act is to protect public revenue, not to invalidate commercial instruments. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant could not raise the objection of an unstamped agreement for the first time in appeal, especially when it failed to prove the document was unstamped at the trial stage. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that unstamped instruments are defective but not void.
Questions settled- Does the failure to duly stamp an arbitration agreement render the agreement invalid?
- Can an objection regarding the admissibility of an unstamped instrument be raised for the first time in an appeal?
- Is the purpose of the Stamp Act 1899 to invalidate commercial instruments or to protect public revenue?
- Can an appellate court entertain an objection to an award on a ground not raised in the application for setting aside the award?
- UMRA vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-01Read full judgment →
- UMER DIN AND 3 OTHERS vs Ch. FAZAL DIN (REPRESENTED BY 7 HEIRS1978 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-19Read full judgment →
- UMER DIN AND 3 Other vs Ch. FAZAL DIN (REPRESENTED BY 7 BIIRS1978 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-19Read full judgment →
- UMAID ALI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 31 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1978-02-24Read full judgment →