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.
- QUAIM DIN vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB1978 PLD Lahore 842 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
- QAMARUZZAMAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 10 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
- QAMARUL ISLAM Convict vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
- QAMARUDDIN vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC [C. S. TA 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-25Read full judgment →
- QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE, ISLAMABAD1978 PLC 112 · Labour Court · 1976-11-28Read full judgment →
- QADIR BAKHSH NAUSHERWANI vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY1978 PLC IC. S. T.] 80 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB VEGETABLE GHEE & GENERAL MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs NOT1978 PLD Lahore 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-22Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB VEGETABLE GHEE & GENERAL MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No, 1 AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs GHULAM SABIR1978 PLC 54 · Labour Court · 1975-03-26Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs ATTA MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 55 · Labour Court · 1975-03-26Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1978 PLC 389 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs Ch. MUHAMMAD LATIF1978 PLC 66 · Labour Court · 1976-02-06Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE vs Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN, PROSECUTING INSPECTOR OF POLICE1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 134 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND HEALTH1978 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, a temporary employee at Chandika Medical College, Larkana, had his services terminated following allegations of misconduct involving the harboring of students during campus disturbances. The respondent challenged this termination before the Sind Service Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the respondent had not been afforded an opportunity to show cause against the termination, despite a dissenting opinion regarding the limitation period. The petitioner, the Province of Sind, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred. The Supreme Court observed that the issue of limitation had not been pressed before the Service Tribunal and was therefore deemed abandoned. Finding that substantial justice had been done between the parties, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The key principle established is that a party cannot raise a plea of limitation for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal if that point was not pressed or was abandoned before the lower forum.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of limitation for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal if it was not pressed before the lower tribunal?
- Is a service tribunal's decision to reinstate an employee due to the lack of a show-cause notice subject to interference if substantial justice has been done?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS HOME SECRETARY, AND 3 OTHERS vs GULZAR HASSAN, ADVOCATE AND 8 OTHERSPLD 1978 Lahore l298 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS HOME SECRETARY, AND 3 Other vs GULZAR HASSAN, ADVOCATE AND 8 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1298 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge's order declaring two government notifications, which banned the Freemasons Society and seized its property, as being without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, previously declared void for inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, remained void or was revived by the Proclamation of Emergency. The Court held that the notifications were void and of no legal effect. It affirmed that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not obliterated from the statute book but remain in a state of 'hibernation' or 'inoperability' while those rights are enforceable. Crucially, the Court established that the Proclamation of Emergency does not automatically revive such void laws; rather, they remain unenforceable unless specifically re-enacted. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that executive actions must be supported by valid, existing law, and that Article 4 of the Constitution provides an independent guarantee against arbitrary executive action that cannot be bypassed during an emergency, regardless of the suspension of the right to move courts for Fundamental Rights enforcement.
Questions settled- Does a law declared void for inconsistency with Fundamental Rights become automatically operative upon the issuance of a Proclamation of Emergency?
- Can executive authorities take action in the absence of a valid, operative law during a state of emergency?
- Does the suspension of the right to move a court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 233(2) of the Constitution also suspend the operation of the Fundamental Rights themselves?
- Is the guarantee provided by Article 4 of the Constitution distinct from the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1, Part II of the Constitution?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Another vs MESSRS INDUSTRIAL MACHINE POOL, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 829 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed by the Province of Punjab challenging the rejection of its application under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to revoke the authority of a sole arbitrator. The dispute arose from a tube-well installation contract. Although the original agreement stipulated a reference to two departmental Superintending Engineers, the parties' counsel subsequently made a joint statement in court agreeing to refer the matter to a sole arbitrator (an advocate). The petitioner later sought revocation, alleging that the appointment was procured through fraud and misrepresentation by a departmental employee, and that the counsel lacked authority to deviate from the original agreement. The Lahore High Court held that an arbitration agreement can be modified or substituted by mutual consent, including through statements of counsel. Under Order XXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a Government Pleader has implied authority to compromise or refer a matter to arbitration. Furthermore, because the petitioner actively participated in the arbitration proceedings without objection, it was estopped by conduct from challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Finding no evidence of misconduct or miscarriage of justice, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration agreement requiring a specific class of arbitrators be modified or substituted by a subsequent mutual agreement or statement of counsel in court?
- Does a Government Pleader or Advocate have the implied authority to compromise a suit or enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of the Government without a formal written power of attorney?
- Is a party who actively participates in arbitration proceedings without objection estopped from subsequently challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction or the validity of their appointment?
- Can the authority of an arbitrator be revoked under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act 1940 on the ground of a mere apprehension of bias or because the arbitrator gave high awards in other unrelated cases?
- PROPRIETORS, HABIB MAHAL CINEMA, KASUR vs MOHAMMAD ASLAM1978 PLC 221 · Labour Court · 1975-09-24Read full judgment →
- PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE vs ABDULLAH MALIK1978 PLC 225 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
- PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD. LAHORE vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 1, LAHORE1978 PLC 193 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
- POSTMASTER GENERAL, EASTERN CIRCLE (E P), DACCA AND Another vs MUHAMMAD HASHIM1978 PLD Supreme Court 61 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan in a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962, which challenged orders restricting the respondent's pay while he was officiating in higher Class I posts. The core legal question was whether the competent authority had the absolute discretion under Fundamental Rule 35 to entirely deny higher remuneration to a government servant officiating in a post involving greater responsibilities. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while Fundamental Rule 35 permits the fixation of a lesser amount than normally admissible, it does not empower the government to totally deprive an officiating employee of any higher pay when assuming duties of greater importance. The key principle laid down is that service rules capable of bearing a reasonable interpretation favourable to an employee should be so interpreted, and Fundamental Rule 35 does not grant an unguided or wide discretion to deny benefits altogether upon promotion to a higher responsibility.
Questions settled- Does Fundamental Rule 35 give the Government an absolute discretion to deny any higher pay to a government servant officiating in a post of greater responsibility?
- Whether an employee officiating in a higher post involving assumption of greater duties and responsibilities is entitled to higher remuneration under the Fundamental Rules?
- How are Fundamental Rule 30, 31, and 35 to be construed harmoniously regarding officiating pay?
- Can a new point regarding the validity of an appointment, requiring investigation into facts, be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- POST MASTER GENERAL, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs IZHAR-UL-HAQUE1978 PLC 288 · Labour Court · 1975-11-03Read full judgment →
- Pirzada NAZIR HASSAN vs MAJOR (RETD.) IJAZ AHMAD KHAN AND Another1978 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a review application by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had agreed to sell a residential house to the first respondent, who subsequently filed a suit for specific performance when disputes arose. During the trial, the petitioner submitted an application stating he had no objection to a decree being passed in favor of the plaintiff based on the sale agreement. The trial court decreed the suit, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that he had confessed judgment, though it slightly modified the terms. A subsequent petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed, with the Court agreeing that the petitioner had confessed judgment. The petitioner then sought a review before the High Court, which was dismissed on the ground that an erroneous judgment is not reviewable under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the prior final order of the Supreme Court upholding the High Court's view precluded the petitioner from challenging the judgment via review, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment can be reviewed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 merely on the ground that it is erroneous?
- Does a party who has confessed judgment in the trial court retain the right to challenge the resulting decree through a review application?
- Whether an order of the Supreme Court upholding a High Court judgment becomes final and precludes subsequent collateral challenges by way of review?
- PIRDINO AND 2 OTHERS vs TEE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 345 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
- Pir MUHAMMAD YASIN CHISHTI vs THE STATE--1978 PLD Rev. 26 · Board of Revenue · 1977-12-02Read full judgment →
- PIR BAKHSH vs BUDHOO1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 86 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1976-02-20Read full judgment →
- PIONEER INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No. V, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 293 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- PIERRE YVES JEAN vs THE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 633 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-16Read full judgment →
- PIAREMIAN vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 369 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction for murder and illegal possession of a weapon, alongside a reference for the confirmation of a death sentence. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, while his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained based on ocular testimony that the trial court had already rejected regarding the co-accused, and whether the recovery of the weapon constituted valid confirmatory evidence. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It reasoned that the ocular testimony, having been found unreliable for the co-accused, lacked the credibility to support a conviction against the appellant without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of the weapon was not voluntary, as it occurred after three days of continuous interrogation, raising significant doubts about the integrity of the investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that evidence rejected for co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction without strong, independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony that was previously rejected by the trial court regarding co-accused?
- Is the recovery of a weapon admissible as confirmatory evidence if it is obtained after prolonged interrogation?
- Does the lack of independent witnesses in a public place undermine the credibility of prosecution eye-witnesses?
- PHILLIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs DIRECTOR1978 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- PHEROZEALI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WEST), KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 765 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AHMAD BUTT vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AHMAD BUT vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
- PATHAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
- PARYAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 380 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-28Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs RASHID AKHTAR NADVI1978S C M R409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a contempt notice issued by the former Chief Justice of Pakistan against the respondent, Rashid Akhtar Nadvi, following the publication of a false and imaginary interview in a London-based weekly newspaper, Weekly Azad, which contained disparaging allegations regarding a conversation between the respondent and the former Chief Justice. The core legal question was whether the publication of such a fabricated and disparaging account concerning the head of the judiciary constituted gross contempt of court and how the court should deal with an unconditional apology. The Supreme Court held that the published statement per se amounted to gross contempt of the Supreme Court. However, because the respondent tendered an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity with real contriteness and published the same in the newspaper, the Court accepted the apology, discharged the contempt notice, and ordered the release of the respondent's attached property. The key principle laid down is that while the publication of false and scurrilous statements against a judge constitutes gross contempt of court, an unconditional apology tendered in good grace and accompanied by genuine remorse may be accepted to discharge the notice without imposing punishment.
Questions settled- Whether publishing a false and imaginary account of a conversation with the Chief Justice constitutes gross contempt of court?
- Can a notice for contempt of court be discharged upon the tendering of an unconditional apology showing real contriteness?
- PAKISTAN vs MESSRS AMEEJEE VALEEJEE & SONS AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 244 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 301 · Labour Court · 1976-02-04Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD., GUJRAT vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 169 · Labour Court · 1976-02-27Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD. vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1978 PLD Lahore 704 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD. vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY1978 PLD Lahore 704 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN RAWALPINDI AND Another vs Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 5 Other1978 SCMR 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the enhancement of compensation for land acquired by the Federal Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question was whether the trial court and the High Court erred in determining the market value of the acquired land by allegedly relying on post-notification sale transactions, rather than the quinquennial average price. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts correctly assessed the market value based on the land's potential and location, rather than relying solely on the unreliable quinquennial average. The Court clarified that while the quinquennial average is a relevant piece of evidence, it is not conclusive, especially when it fails to reflect the actual market conditions or when it is based on incomplete data. The ratio established is that the determination of compensation must reflect what a willing purchaser would realistically pay for the land at the time of the notification, and courts may consider surrounding circumstances and evidence beyond just the quinquennial average to ascertain this fair market value.
Questions settled- Is the quinquennial average price the sole determinant for assessing compensation in land acquisition cases?
- Can a court consider evidence of land value beyond the quinquennial average when determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does the reliance on post-notification sales invalidate a compensation award if the court's valuation is otherwise supported by the land's specific characteristics?
- PAKISTAN THROUGH DIRECTOR OF STORAGE & INSPECTION (F20MQRAIBS), MINISTRY OP AGRICULTURE & WORKS, GOVERMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs MESSRS CHAUDHRY BROTHER LTD., LAHORE1978 PLD Karachi 362 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI vs AND Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Sind which accepted a constitutional petition filed by an air-hostess dismissed from service by the petitioner corporation. The third respondent had left her base of duty without prior permission to attend to family matters after failing to join a scheduled flight. Following an inquiry, she was dismissed for misconduct. The Junior Labour Court ordered her reinstatement with lesser punishment, but the Labour Court restored her dismissal under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court, however, set aside the dismissal, holding that leaving the base without permission constituted a mere disregard of rules punishable under Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(a) rather than misconduct under Standing Order 15(3). The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view, holding that penal provisions must be construed strictly, that leaving the base without permission did not amount to insubordination or an act subversive of discipline, and that the petition lacked substance.
Questions settled- Does leaving a base of duty without prior permission amount to misconduct or a mere disregard of rules under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- How should the expression 'act subversive of discipline' under Standing Order 15(3) be construed?
- What is the distinction between the violation of a lawful order of a superior and the violation of rules under the Standing Orders?
- PAKISTAN ENGINEERING Co. LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMM AD SHARIF1978 PLC 247 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-06Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL PETROL PUMPS EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI vs PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 279 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-01Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD., KARACHI AND 3 Other vs SIND LABOUR COURT1978 PLD Karachi 109 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the initiation of proceedings before the Sindh Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.) against a petrol marketing company and its officers, initiated via a complaint under Sections 15 and 53(1-A) filed by a worker whose services were terminated by an independent contractor operating one of the company's petrol pumps. The core legal questions addressed were whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the company and the contractor's worker for the purposes of unfair labour practice charges, and whether the Labour Court retained jurisdiction when the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 applied to the industry. The Sindh High Court held that under the clear terms of the contract, the worker was employed by the independent contractor, not the company, excluding any unfair labour practice liability under Section 15 of the I.R.O. Furthermore, as the petroleum industry was covered by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, its overriding provisions under Section 7-A ousted the Labour Court's jurisdiction regarding termination of service and related threats. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Labour Court proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an employee of an independent contractor engaged to manage a petrol pump constitute a workman of the petroleum marketing company under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court regarding termination of employment?
- Can a Labour Court entertain a complaint of unfair labour practice referred by the National Industrial Relations Commission without a complaint by the Registrar of Trade Unions?
- PAKISTAN AGENCIES CORPORATION, KARACHI vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, CENTRAL DIVISION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 409 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-28Read full judgment →
- PAK ARABIAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , KARACHI vs AMANULLAH KHAN1978 PLC 353 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-29Read full judgment →
- PAINTEX vs KAZIM ALI SHAH1978 PLC 173 · Labour Court · 1976-01-21Read full judgment →
- OSMAN AND Another vs Hajiani MARIAMBAI1978 SCMR 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind which dismissed their second appeal and upheld concurrent findings of fact holding them to be servants rather than tenants of the respondent premises. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of secondary documentary evidence admitted without objection, and the entitlement to claim tenancy status under section 30(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, without pleading it in the lower courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the High Court did consider the document despite its formal defect and found it lacking in probative value, and because the statutory tenancy claim was neither pleaded nor established below, no interference was warranted. The Court affirmed that a party cannot claim the benefit of statutory tenancy provisions without establishing foundational facts or raising the plea in prior proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party claim the benefit of section 30(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, without pleading it before the lower courts?
- Whether an objection to the reception of a document in evidence can invalidate a judgment when the appellate court actually considered the document on its merits?
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the status of a person as a servant rather than a tenant open to interference in second appeal?
- OHULAM KADIR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 316 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-10Read full judgment →
- OHULAM HAIDER (WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS GHULAM SAID) AND 5 OTHERS vs BARAMAT (Minos) AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
- OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF THE HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN. KARACHI BENCH, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 28 Other1978 PLD Karachi 27 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit involves a claim for possession and mesne profits by the Official Assignee regarding an evacuee property plot, originally purchased by the deceased Dr. Muhammad Ishaque and confirmed by the Custodian. The defendants, various occupants of the plot, contested the suit by challenging the validity of the sale transaction, asserting adverse possession, and claiming protection under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The court addressed whether the suit was maintainable, whether the defendants were protected tenants, and whether the claim was barred by limitation or adverse possession. The court held that the defendants could not collaterally challenge the Custodian's confirmation order due to the statutory bar under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949. Furthermore, the court determined that the suit was based on title, making Article 144 of the Limitation Act applicable rather than Article 142. As the defendants failed to establish adverse possession for the requisite twelve-year period, and because possession of evacuee property cannot be adverse against the Custodian, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's title and right to possession.
Questions settled- Can a defendant in a suit for possession collaterally challenge the validity of a sale transaction confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- Does Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act apply to a suit for possession based on title?
- Can occupants claiming tenancy through trespassers invoke the protection of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does the occupation of evacuee property constitute adverse possession against the Custodian?
- NUSRAT ELAHI vs CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY1978 PLD Lahore 987 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
- NUR HASAN vs Mian SULTAN AHMAD AND 14 OTHERS1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 17 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
- NOWSHAD KHAN vs HASHTNAGAR INDUSTRIES1978 PLC 537 · Labour Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- NOT vs NOT1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 37 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · -Read full judgment →
- NOROZ KHAN vs KHYBER TOBACCO Co. LTD.1978 PLC 532 · Labour Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Ch. GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 819 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-07Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Ch. GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 819 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-07Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1978 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a civil revision decided by the Lahore High Court concerning the grant of a temporary injunction in a dispute over the ownership and possession of a tube-well. The core legal question addressed is whether the question of possession for issuing a temporary injunction must be evaluated based on the factual position obtaining on the date of the institution of the suit, rather than on subsequent events or alleged ousters brought about by force or deception. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the question of possession for a temporary injunction must indeed be judged from the situation existing on the date of the suit, and that lower courts erred in relying on interpolated police reports and subsequent developments. The key principle laid down is that interim relief in possessory disputes cannot be anchored on subsequent, manipulated acts of dispossession, and trial courts must assess prima facie possession as of the date the suit was filed.
Questions settled- Whether the question of possession for the purpose of issuing a temporary injunction must be decided on the basis of the position obtaining on the date of the institution of the suit?
- Can subsequent events and alleged acts of dispossession occurring after the filing of a suit form the basis for granting a temporary injunction regarding pre-suit possession?
- Does an interpolated police report regarding dispossession constitute valid evidence for establishing possession in an application for a temporary injunction?
- NOOR ALAM vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of three individuals, following a dispute over land. The core legal question was whether ocular testimony, which was admittedly tainted by enmity between the parties, could support a conviction when corroborated by forensic evidence, specifically the recovery of a licensed firearm and matching shell casings. The Supreme Court majority held that while ocular evidence from interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, the recovery of the appellant's licensed gun and the forensic expert's report matching the casings found at the crime scene provided sufficient corroboration to sustain the conviction. The Court rejected arguments regarding the delay in forwarding the weapon for analysis, noting that the absence of cross-examination on the integrity of the sealed parcels rendered the delay insufficient to discard the evidence. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were upheld, establishing that forensic ballistics reports can serve as vital corroborative evidence to validate otherwise suspect ocular testimony in cases involving blood feuds.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony from interested witnesses be accepted as the basis for a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does a delay in forwarding crime weapons and shell casings to a forensic expert automatically invalidate the forensic report?
- Is the recovery of a licensed firearm and matching shell casings sufficient to corroborate ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- NOOR AHMAD SHAH vs SAWAB SHAH1978 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
- NOOK AHMAD SHAH vs SAWAB SHAH1978 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
- NIZAM DIN vs GHOLAM NABIPLD 1978 Rev. 38 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1977-08-24Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED vs VICE-CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAY, LAHORE1978 PLC 68 · Labour Court · 1976-02-10Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. VI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 583 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-09Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 656 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs Mian MUKHTAR AHMAD SHEIKH1978 PLC 260 · Labour Court · 1975-09-09Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, FOOD & AGRICULTURE1978 PLD Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD AND Other vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, FOOD & AGRICULTURE1978 PLD Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, FOOD &1978 PLD Lahore 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD AND 2 Other vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, FOOD & AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMEMT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
- NIRMAL DAS KALYANDAS AHUJA and others vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 70 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1977-03-31Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMADAccued vs TSB STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MOHAMMAD Accused vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 614 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
- NIAZ ALI vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
- NIAZ ALI vs BASHIR AHMAD AHD 4 OTHUS1978 PLD Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 18 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-31Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 38 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED KHAN AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 647 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMED vs LT: COL. ABBAS ALI KHAN. PRESIDENT, SPECIAL MILITARY1978 PLD Karachi 777 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD ETC. vs MUHAMMAD MURAD ALI1978 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-14Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD ETC vs MUHAMMAD MURAD ALI1978 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-14Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Supreme Court 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of cancelling post-arrest bail and the applicability of constructive liability rules at the bail stage where the accused did not directly cause the fatal injury but allegedly participated in an unlawful assembly and injured a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that courts are fully justified at the bail stage in examining the question of constructive liability based on available material such as the First Information Report and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to the rule of caution. The key principle laid down is that the applicability of constructive liability provisions like section 34 or section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be examined prima facie by courts when deciding bail in non-bailable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Can courts examine the question of constructive liability at the bail stage?
- Whether bail once granted can be interfered with if the High Court finds prima facie involvement in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- Does the rule of constructive liability under the Pakistan Penal Code apply when considering bail for an accused who injured a prosecution witness rather than the deceased?
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 239 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
- NAWAZ ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 216 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada ALLAH NAWAZ KHAN AND 8 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (JUDICIAL AND LAND REFORMS), WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada ALLAH NAWAZ KHAN AND 8 Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (JUDICIAL AND LAND REFORMS), WEST PAKISTAN, LAHOREAND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI vs Syed WAQAR ABBAS1978 PLC 240 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN. KARACHI vs DAWOOD YOUSUF MITHANI AND 21978 PLD Karachi 42 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD HALEEM CHOHAN1978 PLC 369 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-30Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 16 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-11Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 16 Other1978 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-12Read full judgment →
- NASREEN AKHT A R vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 60 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-01-28Read full judgment →
- NASIRUDDIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN, ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1360 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →