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.
- SALEEM PERVAIZ Convict vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-18Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN KHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, FRONTIER SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY1978 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-01-29Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN AND Other vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER II, LAHORE1978 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of residential property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as heirs of a non-claimant displaced person, could reopen a property transfer case finalized in 1960, based on an unaddressed NCH form filed in 1959 and a subsequent, failed attempt to claim the property upon its alleged resumption from the original transferee. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners' failure to pursue their claim for over fifteen years, until 1975, rendered the matter stale and precluded reopening. The Court further held that a previous judicial observation allowing the petitioners to approach authorities was contingent upon the property actually being resumed from the original transferee; since the property was restored to the original transferee, that contingency never materialized. The key principle laid down is that long-standing property transfers, finalized by settlement authorities, cannot be reopened at a highly belated stage due to the claimant's own lack of vigilance and failure to pursue remedies in a timely manner.
Questions settled- Can a property transfer finalized by settlement authorities be reopened after a lapse of fifteen years due to a previously unaddressed claim form?
- Does a conditional observation by a High Court regarding the potential resumption of property create a vested right for a claimant if the condition is not met?
- Is a lack of vigilance in pursuing a property claim a sufficient ground to deny the reopening of a settled transfer case?
- SALABUDDIN KHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, FRONTIER SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY1978 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-01-29Read full judgment →
- SAKHIULLAH ETC. vs Haji ZILDAR1978 PLD Rev. 20 · Board of Revenue · 1977-10-22Read full judgment →
- SAJWARA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 628 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-20Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 922 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HAIDER vs TFII3 STATE1978 P Cr. L J 728 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
- SAJAWAL KHAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 772 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-15Read full judgment →
- SAIFUR REHMAN alias CHILLI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 152 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
- SAIFUR REHMAN alia CHILLI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
- SAID UMAR SHAH vs HASHAM AND OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
- SAID AMIR vs MUHAMMAD AMIR1978 PLD Lahore 1365 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-19Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI vs ASHIQ ALI AND 2 others1978 P Cr. L J 71 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
- SAEEDUDDIN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 667 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
- SAEED MUHAMMAD KHAN vs UNIVERSITY OF BALUCHISTAN AND 4 OTHERS1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
- SAEED JAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-29Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD SHAH AND OTHERS vs COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL1978 PLD Lahore 1355 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-01Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD SHAH AND Other vs COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL1978 PLD Lahore 1355 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-01Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD MALIK vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1218 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD MALIK vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-04Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD MALIK vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ere.1978 PLD Lahore 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-04Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD CHAND vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT &1978 PLC 436 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- SAEE vs The STATE1978 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern whether a conviction can be sustained based on the ocular testimony of a sole eyewitness when other prosecution witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused based on an extra-judicial oath process necessitates the acquittal of the appellant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The court held that a delay in lodging an FIR does not per se invalidate the prosecution's case if the ocular testimony is credible and corroborated by medical evidence. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the committal court depositions of witnesses who later turn hostile can be relied upon as substantive evidence if they are deemed genuine and corroborated by other evidence. Finally, the court clarified that an unjustified acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle the main accused to an acquittal if the evidence against the latter remains sufficient and reliable.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of a sole eyewitness when other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on an extra-judicial oath process entitle the main accused to an acquittal?
- Can a court rely on the committal court depositions of witnesses who have resiled from their statements at trial?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- SADRUDDIN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-02Read full judgment →
- SADIQ SHAH vs QURBAN SHAH AND Other1978 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondents charged under sections 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rioting, unlawful assembly, and causing injuries resulting in a fatality over a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was exercised correctly, noting that the material suggested the respondents' intention was not to commit murder and their specific conduct warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that bail granted by a High Court will not be interfered with where the tentative assessment shows that the common object and murderous intent require further inquiry, and the discretion was judicially sound.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled when the accused's intention requires further inquiry?
- Does the tentative assessment of evidence regarding common object justify the grant of post-arrest bail in murder cases?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail?
- SADIQ MASIH vs BASHIR MASIH AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 108 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- SABIR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-12Read full judgment →
- SABIHA Bibis vs HASSAN DIN1978 PLD Lahore 701 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-19Read full judgment →
- SABIHA BIBI vs HASSAN DIN1978 PLD Lahore 701 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-19Read full judgment →
- SAADULLAH vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1978 PLC 445 · Labour Court · 1976-12-15Read full judgment →
- SAADAT ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND 10 Other1978 PLD Karachi 55 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-21Read full judgment →
- S. SHARIF AHMAD HASHMI vs CHAIRMAN, SCREENING COMMITTEE, LAHORE AND Another1978 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had allowed an appeal and dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement from service after a delay of twelve years. The core legal questions involved whether the petition for leave to appeal was time-barred and whether an administrative order of compulsory retirement passed without proper statutory backing was void or voidable, and consequently whether the equitable doctrine of laches barred relief. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal was filed within time based on the record of multiple applications for certified copies, and further reaffirmed that even if an order is deemed illegal or void, the discretionary relief of a writ can be validly refused on the ground of gross laches and the accrual of intervening equities. The key principle laid down is that a void administrative order does not automatically entitle a petitioner to discretionary constitutional remedies regardless of delay, and courts may dismiss petitions where gross laches or third-party equities exist.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition lies on the ground of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record regarding the limitation period of a leave to appeal petition?
- Whether an administrative order passed by a competent authority under a repealed rule is void ab initio or merely voidable?
- Can a writ petition challenging a void administrative order be dismissed on the ground of gross laches?
- Does the existence of a void order necessitate that it must always be struck down regardless of intervening equities and consequences?
- S. SHAHZAD ALI JAFRI vs S. MUHAMMAD SAJJAD ABDI AND 2 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 742 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
- S. PIN LIU vs Mrs. NAJMA KAZMI1978 PLD Supreme Court 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which struck down the tenant's defence and ordered eviction for allegedly defaulting on rent deposit conditions imposed during a stay order in a pending rent appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court could strike off a tenant's defence and order eviction for breach of an appellate stay condition, and whether a Rent Controller's pre-existing order under section 13(6) survived the final disposal by the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to strike off the defence or order eviction merely for breach of an appellate stay order granted under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908; the only consequence of such a breach could be the dismissal of the stay application itself. Furthermore, the Court held that an order under section 13(6) merges into the final judgment of the Rent Controller and loses its separate identity. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the matter remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can a High Court strike off a tenant's defence and order eviction for the breach of a condition imposed in an interim stay order passed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does an order passed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 survive the final disposal of the case by the Rent Controller or does it merge into the final judgment?
- Whether an appellate court can take into account any alleged default in rent deposit committed prior to the grant of an interim stay order during the pendency of an appeal?
- S. MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs Syed AFTAB HUSSAIN AND 8 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 629 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
- S. MOHSINADEEB vs SHAMSUDDIN AND Another1978 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order regarding the eviction of a tenant from a shop. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, acting under the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, possesses the authority to direct a landlord to reconstruct a property and subsequently restore possession to the evicted tenant. The petitioner argued that the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 are in pari materia, thereby allowing the application of the latter's provisions to the former. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 contains no provision empowering a Rent Controller to issue such a direction for restoration of possession. Consequently, the Court affirmed that provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 cannot be imported into the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The petition was dismissed as the Rent Controller's direction was found to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963 empower a Rent Controller to order a landlord to restore possession to a tenant after reconstruction?
- Can the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 be applied to proceedings under the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963?
- Is a Rent Controller authorized to issue directions to a landlord beyond those expressly provided in the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963?
- S. M. ZAHOOR vs Mst. AKHTAR ARA BEGUM1978 PLD Rev. 24 · Board of Revenue · 1977-08-24Read full judgment →
- S. M. ZAFAR vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 122 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-03-30Read full judgment →
- S. Ch. NIAZ AHMED AND Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 774 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves seven identical applications for the quashment of proceedings against applicants standing trial before the Special Judge, Customs, for allegedly attempting to smuggle charas under section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with sections 7 and 38 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. The core legal question was whether the offence of smuggling under section 156(8) of the Customs Act applies to goods whose import or exportation is prohibited under other laws, even if such goods are not notified under section 2(s) of the Customs Act. The court held that the offence of smuggling under section 156(8) is limited strictly to goods specified in or notified under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, whereas other prohibited goods fall under clause (9) of section 156. Since charas was not notified under section 2(s) at the relevant time, no offence of smuggling under clause (8) could be maintained. The court laid down the principle that clauses (8) and (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, operate in mutually exclusive categories, and an act cannot constitute smuggling under clause (8) unless the goods are specifically covered by section 2(s) or a notification issued thereunder.
Questions settled- Whether the offence of smuggling under section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 applies to goods not notified under section 2(s) of the said Act?
- Do clauses (8) and (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969 cover distinct and mutually exclusive categories of goods?
- Does the prohibition of the export or import of a substance under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 automatically constitute smuggling under section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 without a specific notification under section 2(s)?
- S. ASGHAR ALI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PACKAGES LTD., KOT LAKHPAT, LAHORE1978 PLC 61 · Labour Court · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
- S. ANWAR ALI SHAH vs S. NIAZ ALI SHAH1978 PLD Lahore 1073 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
- RUSTOM vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 182 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM ALI vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE `C' AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 736 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions challenging orders awarding sentences by Summary Military Courts for offences under various Martial Law Regulations and Martial Law Orders. The core legal questions involved the validity of the Martial Law Regulations and Orders under the doctrine of necessity, whether normal laws ousted their application, and whether alleged procedural irregularities regarding legal representation and open trials vitiated the proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned Martial Law Regulations and Orders were validly promulgated by the Chief Martial Law Administrator under the law of necessity as laid down in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case, and that the executive actions and legislative measures fell within permissible categories. The Court further held that procedural rules of Summary Military Courts did not invalidate the trials where no injustice was caused and where accused persons had spontaneously admitted guilt. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether Martial Law Regulations and Orders promulgated by the Chief Martial Law Administrator are governed and validated by the doctrine of necessity?
- Whether the superior courts retain the power of judicial review to examine legislative measures taken under Martial Law in light of Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case?
- Does the right to be defended by a legal practitioner in a Summary Military Court trial survive the suspension of fundamental rights under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977?
- Whether procedural irregularities or the absence of counsel vitiate a trial by a Summary Military Court where the accused admits guilt?
- ROSHAN DIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 10 Other1978 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of land allotment made in favor of the petitioner, Roshan Din. The petitioner had been allotted land in Sialkot as a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, but subsequent proceedings initiated by private respondents under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, led to a finding by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner had obtained the allotment through fraud, as he was not a genuine refugee. The High Court affirmed this finding. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged these concurrent findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the determination regarding the petitioner's status as a non-refugee was a finding of fact based on the evidence presented before the lower authorities. The Court affirmed the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where there is sufficient evidence on record to support the conclusions reached by the lower forums.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a person's refugee status?
- Does the Additional Settlement Commissioner have the authority to cancel land allotments obtained through fraud?
- Is a finding of fact based on evidence sufficient to sustain the dismissal of a writ petition?
- ROOH AFZA vs MUHAMMAD UMAR AND OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
- ROOH AFZA vs MUHAMMAD UMAK AND Other1978 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
- RIZWAN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND Other1978 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Civil Review Petitions filed against a Supreme Court order that had set aside a land sale by the Custodian of Evacuee Property to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the previous judgment on four grounds, primarily concerning the exclusion of specific Khasra numbers from acquisition, the validity of a compromise agreement between the Lahore Improvement Trust and the petitioner, and the interpretation of the Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Court held that the review petitions were meritless. It established that new grounds or arguments not raised before the High Court or during the original appeal cannot be entertained in review proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a compromise affecting the Trust's property rights required the concurrence of the Punjab University, which held a manifest legal interest in the land. Regarding statutory interpretation, the Court ruled that even if a court's construction of a statute is erroneous, such an error does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record sufficient to invoke the Court's review jurisdiction. The petitions were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can new grounds or arguments not raised during the original appeal be entertained in a review petition?
- Does an erroneous construction of a statute by a court constitute an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review?
- Is a compromise agreement regarding trust property valid if it lacks the concurrence of a party with a manifest legal interest in said property?
- RISGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS vs SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION EMPLOYEES1978 PLC 171(1) · Labour Court · 1976-01-21Read full judgment →
- Risaldar MIRAN BUX vs NAZAR KARIM AND OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 519 · Labour Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
- RIAZUDDIN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs AMIN BAIG ETC.1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 161 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD KHAN vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 85 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
- RIASAT KHAN vs The STATE1978 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant Riasat Khan was convicted of the murder of Mst. Noor Begum and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, which conviction and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular testimony of the deceased's daughter, Mst. Anwar Begum, and a relative, Rehmat Khan, alongside alleged recoveries and motive. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant's conviction could safely be sustained on the uncorroborated, solitary testimony of a closely related witness. By majority view, the Supreme Court held that the testimony of Mst. Anwar Begum was natural, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence regarding the time of occurrence and internal organ conditions, despite minor delays in the First Information Report and the abandonment of another witness. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction for murder be safely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary witness who is closely related to the deceased?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report per se lead to the inference that an accused person has been falsely substituted for the real culprit?
- Whether the absence of independent corroboration for ocular testimony in a murder case warrants the acquittal of the accused on the benefit of doubt?
- RESIDENT DIRECTOR, DAILY ".JANG", RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL BUTT1978 PLC 214 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH AND 19 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, THROUGH COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH AND 19 Other vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, THROUGH COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION , LAHORE AND 2 OTHSRS1978 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs JUMMO AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-17Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs HUSSAIN AND 8 Other1978 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order granting bail to the respondents in a cross-case scenario involving two FIRs registered at the same police station. The petitioner and respondents were involved in a violent altercation at the respondents' residence during a marriage-related ceremony. The petitioner alleged the respondents were the aggressors, while the High Court noted that the petitioner's FIR failed to explain the injuries sustained by the respondents, who were attacked at their own home. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's grant of bail was an arbitrary exercise of discretion. The Court held that because the incident occurred at the respondents' house and the petitioner's party was armed, the question of which party acted as the aggressor required further inquiry. Finding that the High Court's decision was not perverse or arbitrary, particularly since the petitioner's party had already been granted bail, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the determination of the aggressor remained a matter for trial.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a complainant to explain injuries sustained by the opposite party in a cross-case justify further inquiry into the question of aggression?
- Is the grant of bail by a High Court considered arbitrary when the petitioner's own party has already been released on bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretion in granting bail if the order is not perverse?
- REHMAT ALI ETC. vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1978 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the cancellation of evacuee land allotments. The petitioners, claiming to be bona fide purchasers of land originally allotted to Mst. Ramzan Begum, contested the Settlement Commissioner's order withdrawing a portion of the land due to excess allotment. The petitioners argued that their previous writ petition had been withdrawn without authorization by a counsel who was not their engaged advocate. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioners' original power of attorney contained a clause permitting the engaged counsel to depute another advocate. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners had subsequently filed a review petition through the same counsel, which was also not pressed, and failed to provide any affidavit evidence to substantiate their claim of unauthorized representation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to allow the petitioners to re-agitate the matter. Additionally, the Court found that the Settlement Commissioner's order was based on available evidence, rendering the petition meritless. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a client challenge the withdrawal of a petition by a counsel when the power of attorney explicitly authorizes the engaged counsel to depute another advocate?
- Does the failure to provide affidavit evidence regarding a counsel's lack of authority preclude a party from claiming unauthorized representation?
- Is a party permitted to re-agitate a matter in a subsequent writ petition after a previous petition on the same subject has been dismissed as not pressed?
- REHMAT ALI alias REHMAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 828 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-19Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE vs ASSOCIATION OF OFFICERS OF POPULATION PLANNING COUNCIL ,1978 PLC 160 · Labour Court · 1976-02-27Read full judgment →
- RAZA KHAN vs KARACHI PORT TRUST1978 PLC 399 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
- RASUL BUX vs Mst. GUL BIBI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Quetta 162 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-13Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BUX AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 190 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
- RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 183 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
- RASHID RAYON MILLS. KARACHI vs AMIN YUSUF NIZAMI (THROUGH HIS HEIRS)1978 PLD Karachi 82 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-09Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD SADDOZAI vs MEMBER-I, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND ANOTHERs1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 103 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1978-03-24Read full judgment →
- Rap MALOOK HUSSAIN vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 378 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-30Read full judgment →
- Rao ABDUL LATIF KHAN vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Rev. 75 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1977-07-20Read full judgment →
- Rana ZAFARULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND Other.1978 PLD Lahore 901 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
- Rana ZAFARULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 901 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMMAD AMIN vs The STATE1978 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the refusal of bail by the Lahore High Court to a petitioner accused of participating in a conspiracy to defraud the Government Treasury of Rs. 2.76 crores by establishing a fake Federal Development Authority. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the recovered funds were extorted from him by investigating authorities. During the proceedings, the State raised a jurisdictional objection, asserting that the case had been formally transferred to a Special Military Court by the Martial Law Administrator under Martial Law Orders Nos. 36 and 37. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that because the case was competently withdrawn from the ordinary courts of law for trial by a Special Military Court, the ordinary courts, including the Supreme Court, lacked jurisdiction to grant bail. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to approach the relevant Military Court for bail.
Questions settled- Do ordinary courts retain jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused once a case has been competently transferred to a Special Military Court under Martial Law Orders?
- Can the Supreme Court entertain a bail petition on merits if the trial of the underlying offense has been lawfully withdrawn from the ordinary criminal courts?
- Rana MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Kanwar SAEED AHMED KHAN1978 PLD Lahore 299 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD AMIN Alias MUHAMMAD ANWAR- Petitioner vs The STATE1978 PLD Lahore 78 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-26Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD AMIN alia MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs TEE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 78 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-26Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ROTI CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE1978 PLC 540 · Labour Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
- Rana ASHFAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs WAPDA1978 PLC 162 · Labour Court · 1976-02-29Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), MULTAN AND OTHER1978 SC` M R 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave arising from the summary dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged the cancellation of excess land allotted to a displaced person. The appellant originally contested the jurisdiction of the officer who cancelled the land, but later shifted his stance upon obtaining leave to appeal, arguing that an order passed by a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was not subject to appeal or revision. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent retrospective statutory amendment introduced by subsection (3) to section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, via the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Amendment) Ordinance I of 1972, explicitly made orders passed under delegated powers subject to appeal and revision under Chapter VI. The Court consequently ruled that the appellate and revisional orders were competently passed, dismissed concurrent findings regarding excess land, and affirmed the dismissal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner or delegatee under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 is immune from appeal and revision?
- Does subsection (3) of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 apply retrospectively to orders passed under delegated powers?
- Can a party be permitted to challenge concurrent findings of fact regarding excess land entitlement in the Supreme Court when conceded before the High Court?
- Whether an objection regarding the locus standi of informants can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when not urged before the lower forums?
- RAMZAN AND ANOTHER vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-04Read full judgment →
- RAJO vs MUHAMMAD QASSIM AND ANDTHER1978 P Cr. L J 706 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which upheld an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a land dispute. The petitioner challenged the S.D.M.'s order, which had allocated the Zamindari share of the produce to the respondent pending a civil court decision. The core legal question was whether a second revision application is maintainable in the High Court after a revision petition has already been decided by the Court of Session under the Law Reforms Ordinance. The Court held that, following the Law Reforms, a second revision application is not maintainable against an order passed by a Sessions Judge under Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could not be invoked to quash proceedings that had already concluded. The principle laid down is that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second revision petition against an order of the Sessions Court passed in its revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a second revision application maintainable in the High Court against an order passed by a Sessions Judge under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to quash proceedings that have already concluded?
- Does the use of incorrect phraseology by a Magistrate in an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the jurisdiction of the court if the material on record justifies the action?
- Raja MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1978 PLD Lahore 738 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-02Read full judgment →
- Raja JAVED AKHTAR vs EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED BANK LTD. AND Other1978 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a bank employee, challenged his dismissal for misconduct, specifically unauthorized absence and the illegal retention of customer funds. Following a domestic enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed, leading him to file an application for reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. While the Junior Labour Court upheld the dismissal, the Second Punjab Labour Court set it aside, citing a failure to explicitly ask the petitioner if he wished to produce defense evidence. The Lahore High Court subsequently reversed this decision, finding the enquiry fair and compliant with the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the law, as the petitioner had actively participated, cross-examined witnesses, and signed a statement confirming he had no further evidence to present. The Court affirmed that the principles of natural justice were not violated, noting the petitioner's failure to justify his retention of bank funds. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does a domestic enquiry violate the principles of natural justice if the accused employee participates in the proceedings and signs a statement that they have no further evidence to produce?
- Is a domestic enquiry conducted in accordance with Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, sufficient to justify the dismissal of an employee for misconduct?
- Can an appellate labour court set aside a domestic enquiry finding solely on the technical ground that the Enquiry Officer did not explicitly ask the accused if they wanted to produce defense, despite the accused having signed a statement to the contrary?
- Raja JAVAID AKHTAR vs EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT1978 PLC 176 · Labour Court · 1976-03-22Read full judgment →
- RAISUDDIN SHAMSI vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE _C_, KARACHI AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-29Read full judgment →
- RAHMAT ALI vs ISMAIL AND Anothers1978 P Cr. L J 504 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-25Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH PIRACHA vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1978 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a commercial dispute concerning a contract for the sale of rayon yarn. The core legal question was whether the appellant-seller or the respondent-buyer committed a breach of contract, specifically regarding the buyer's right to inspect the goods and the seller's obligation to facilitate such inspection. The respondent had failed to take delivery, citing a lack of inspection opportunity and disputes over expenses, while the appellant contended that the respondent avoided delivery due to falling market prices. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was in breach of contract. The Court determined that the appellant had provided sufficient notice and reasonable opportunities for inspection, which the respondent failed to utilize. The Court emphasized that under Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, while a buyer is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to examine goods, this does not imply an unlimited period. The principle laid down is that where a seller provides a reasonable window for inspection in a commercial transaction, the buyer's failure to act constitutes a breach.
Questions settled- What constitutes a reasonable opportunity for a buyer to inspect goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1930?
- Can a buyer who fails to inspect goods within a reasonable time after being offered the opportunity claim a breach of contract by the seller?
- Is a buyer entitled to a refund of an advance deposit if they are found to be in breach of the contract for the sale of goods?
- RAHDAR KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR AHD 3 Other1978 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a Supreme Court judgment that had previously dismissed a petition for special leave to appeal regarding the transfer of an evacuee shop. The petitioner sought to challenge the earlier dismissal, which was based on the petitioner's seven-year delay in submitting an L.S. Form, failure to clear rent arrears, and inability to establish possession of the property before the target date of 20-12-1958. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed under the relevant procedural law to justify a review of the previous order. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of fresh evidence, or other sufficient cause as required for a review. The Court reaffirmed that the petitioner lacked the necessary qualifications for the transfer of the shop, specifically noting the failure to pay rent and the inability to prove possession by the target date. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, maintaining that the original decision upholding the transfer to the respondent was legally justified.
Questions settled- What are the permissible grounds for seeking a review of a judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the condonation of delay in submitting an L.S. Form automatically satisfy the qualificatory requirements for the transfer of an evacuee shop?
- Is the failure to pay rent a valid ground for denying the transfer of an evacuee property?
- RAHAT MASOOD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 841 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-13Read full judgment →
- RAHAM ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 822 · Sindh High Court · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
- RAH MAT ALI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 612 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-28Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 214 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-19Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE AHMED SHEIKH, ADVOCATE vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAHORE1978 P Cr. L J 770 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- RAFI MASIH vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 849 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
- RABIA BIBI ETC. vs GHULAM RASOOL1978 PLD Lahore 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- RABIA BIBI ETC vs GHULAM RASOOL1978 PLD Lahore 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN1978 PLC 334 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-07-10Read full judgment →
- RA13 NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD aliaMAMMAN ETC.1978 P Cr. L J 803(1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
- R Eli MAT MASE EH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 651 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-27Read full judgment →
- QURBAN SHAH ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →