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.
- FAZLERABBI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 374 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-21Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs ROSHAN DIN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 435 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ILLAHI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & S. D. M., KARACHI AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ILAHI BHATTI AND Another AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM BAJWA vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM BAJWA AND ANOTHER SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND AHOTHER1978 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two petitions for special leave to appeal concerning the transfer and entitlement to portions of an evacuee residential property under settlement law. A series of appeals, revisions, and writ proceedings had led to a High Court remand to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision. Following remand, the Settlement Commissioner passed an order transferring one portion of the property to Muhammad Aslam Bajwa and the remaining portion to the legal heirs of Sher Muhammad Bhatti. The legal heirs challenged the transfer to Bajwa on the ground that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to transfer a portion to Bajwa without notice during pending proceedings, asserting that any recorded concession before the Settlement Commissioner was incorrect. Bajwa separately claimed an additional shop room underneath his portion. The High Court dismissed both challenges, and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision. The Court held that factual findings regarding consent given before the revisional authority could not be re-agitated, and that Bajwa had no right to the additional room as he was never in possession of it.
Questions settled- Can a party re-agitate on appeal or in higher judicial proceedings a factual assertion regarding whether consent was given before a revisional Settlement authority?
- Whether an occupant of evacuee property who was never in physical possession of a specific unit or room is entitled to its transfer under settlement schemes?
- Whether a consent order passed by a Settlement Commissioner partitioning evacuee property among competing claimants can be set aside absent grounds justifying interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- FAZAL HAQ vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 290 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN ETC. vs BARKAT BIBI1978 PLD Lahore 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN ETC vs BARKAT BIBI1978 PLD Lahore 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMAD ETC. vs Rana MUHAMMAD ALI1978 PLD Lahore 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMAD ETC vs Rana MUHAMMAD ALI1978 PLD Lahore 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- FATTA Eic. vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-23Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs AHMAD SHER ETC.PLD 1978 Rev. 40 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 867 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-04Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD ETC. vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND Other1978 SCMR 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the refusal of the High Court to grant an interim order for the maintenance of status quo regarding the allotment of certain State lands in Bahawalpur District during the pendency of a constitutional writ petition. The petitioners claimed to be lessees in possession of the disputed lands, while the Collector's report indicated the lands had been re-allotted to ejected tenants who were already in possession. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing the status quo order in the absence of satisfactory documentary evidence proving the petitioners' continuous possession at the time of filing the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to discharge their duty of proving possession through relevant revenue records, and that the discretionary refusal of an interim status quo order by the High Court was justified. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking an interim status quo order regarding property possession must affirmatively establish its current possession through reliable documentary evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a party seeking an interim order for the maintenance of status quo in a writ petition is required to establish its possession through relevant revenue records?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary refusal of an interim status quo order by the High Court when the petitioner fails to prove possession?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ HAYAT QAZI vs MESSRS SPENCER & Co. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 459 · Labour Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 850 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-07Read full judgment →
- FARMAN ALI vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-19Read full judgment →
- FARIHA JABEEN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 172 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-16Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-13Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs Mst. AZIZ BIBI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 431 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs AKBAR Etc.S1978 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had suspended the sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents by an Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court granted this relief primarily because the plea of self-defence required further examination, given that the prosecution failed to explain the significant number of injuries sustained by the accused. The petitioner contended that the recovery of bloodstained earth from the deceased's land indicated the accused were the aggressors and that the trial court's conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code was sound. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the High Court's order. The Court held that it was not appropriate to conduct a detailed re-examination of the evidence at the leave-to-appeal stage, particularly when the High Court had exercised its discretion in a manner that did not appear improper given the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that appellate courts should be cautious in disturbing the exercise of judicial discretion regarding bail suspension unless clearly erroneous.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretion in suspending a sentence pending appeal?
- Is the plea of self-defence a valid ground for suspending a sentence if the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused?
- Does the recovery of bloodstained earth from the deceased's land conclusively negate a plea of self-defence at the bail stage?
- FALAK SHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
- FAKIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 520 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-17Read full judgment →
- Fakir Maulvi ABDUL HALIM vs Haji DARYA KHAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL1978 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-21Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs GUL KHAN AND Other1978 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in cancelling bail when the petitioner was directly charged in the First Information Report with causing a firearm injury, despite the petitioner's argument regarding the improbability of his participation due to alleged enmity between him and his co-accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion. The Court reasoned that the complainant directly attributed the injury to the petitioner in a broad-daylight occurrence, and there was no evidence suggesting the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly charged with a serious offence punishable by imprisonment for life, and there is no apparent reason for false implication, the court is justified in refusing bail, as the case does not warrant further inquiry at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in cancelling bail when an accused is directly charged with a serious offence in the First Information Report?
- Does the existence of enmity between co-accused parties automatically render the complainant's allegation of joint participation improbable for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is no evidence of enmity between the complainant and the accused to suggest false implication?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 833 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMAD vs MUNIR AND Another1978 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the informant Faiz Ahmad against the Lahore High Court's order allowing bail to the respondent Munir, who was accused along with another under section 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Briefly, the incident arose from a scuffle outside a mosque resulting in the death of the deceased Nawab and injuries to Sajwara P.W. and the respondent Munir, who sustained nine injuries including a grievous head injury. The High Court granted bail to the respondent holding that his vicarious liability fell within the scope of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the numerous injuries sustained by him and the statement of the mosque's Imam supporting his plea. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion lawfully based on the circumstances of the case, and consequently dismissed the petition for lack of merit, declining to interfere with the impugned bail order.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the question of vicarious liability requires further inquiry?
- Does the receipt of multiple injuries by an accused, including a grievous head injury, constitute reasonable grounds for exercising discretion to grant bail in a murder case?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court granting bail when the conclusions are based on facts and circumstances prima facie supporting further inquiry?
- EVACUEE DISTRICT TRUST COMMITTEE, HYDERABAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1978 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal concerned property in Hyderabad claimed by the Evacuee District Trust Committee to be attached to a private Hindu religious trust ('private Mandir') and thus excluded from the compensation pool under Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Single Judge had held that 'religious trust' in Section 4(2) covers only public trusts, and alternatively that the trust was extinguished when the family migrated and removed the idols. The High Court reversed, holding that the statutory phrase 'religious trust' encompasses both private and public religious trusts without distinction. Condoning a 23-day delay in filing due to bona fide mistaken advice of counsel under Rule 4, Chapter 1-A, Vol. V of the High Court Rules and Orders, the Bench held that mere migration of beneficiaries and removal of idols does not prove consensus to extinguish a private Hindu trust. The appeal was allowed, and the property was held to remain attached to a religious trust.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'religious trust' in Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 include private as well as public religious trusts?
- Can mistaken legal advice of counsel constitute good cause for extending time to file a Letters Patent Appeal under High Court Rules?
- Does the migration of beneficiaries and permanent removal of family idols automatically extinguish a private Hindu religious trust?
- ESSAR DASS AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH The SECRETARY, REVENGE1978 PLD Karachi 454 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-03-27Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION (CBA) vs MESSRS JALEEL BROTHERS LTD., LAHORE1978 PLC 64 · Labour Court · 1976-02-20Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION THROUGH COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY IRSTITUTION1978 PLC 166 · Labour Court · 1976-02-27Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSRS INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 453 · Labour Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSRS GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 576 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-13Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSRS ALPHA INSURANCE Co.LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 367 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-07Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL TROUGH ITS MANAGEMENT S1978 PLC 224 · Labour Court · 1975-09-29Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD.) vs MANAGEMENT, UNITED CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL, LAHORE1978 PLC 7 · Labour Court · 1975-04-12Read full judgment →
- ELIS BIBI vs GEORGE MASIH1978 PLD Lahore 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- ELAHI BAKHSH vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Rev. 64 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1978-03-01Read full judgment →
- Dr. SHAHINSHAH HUSSAIN ZAIDI DR. ABDUL SALEEM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.) 67 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- DR. SALAHUDDIN AND 3 Other vs REVENUE COMMISSIONER, BALUCHISTAN AND 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order of cognizance passed by an Assistant Commissioner-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Commissioner could validly take cognizance of an offence under the Ordinance when the Ordinance was not in force in the relevant area on the date of cognizance, despite being in force on the date of the alleged offence. The Court held that the order of cognizance was illegal and without jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that the relevant date for determining the applicable law and the competent forum for a criminal case is the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, not the date of the offence's commission. Furthermore, the Court established that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a tribunal by the mere submission of parties to its authority, nor can subsequent re-enactment of a law cure an initial lack of jurisdiction retrospectively unless explicitly provided by the legislature. The proceedings were directed to continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Is the date of the commission of an offence or the date of taking cognizance the relevant factor for determining the applicable law and forum?
- Can parties confer jurisdiction upon a court or tribunal by submitting to its authority when the law does not otherwise grant such jurisdiction?
- Does the subsequent re-enforcement of a law retrospectively validate an order of cognizance passed during a period when the law was not in force?
- Can an order passed without jurisdiction be challenged through a writ petition despite the passage of time?
- DR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM HOSHIARPURI vs HAMEED ALI1978 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD ALYAS HASHMI vs MASOOD KHAN AND 5 Other1978 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the discharge of private respondents under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the concurrent orders of the lower forums discharging the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, noting that the petitioner had delayed filing his complaint by a week after his release on bail and over two months after the alleged occurrence, and that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below suffered from no illegality. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court will not be exercised to interfere with concurrent orders of discharge where no jurisdictional defect or illegality is shown in the appreciation of the circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition against an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a delay of over two months in filing a private complaint after the alleged occurrence affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Can concurrent findings regarding the discharge of accused persons be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction without showing a material illegality?
- DR. M. J. K. ANWAR, UROLOGIST vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1978 PLC [C. S. T.) 31 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- DR. M. ABDUL HAKIM AND 4 OTHERS vs LAHORE CONTONMENT BOARD, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 872 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
- DR. M. ABDUL HAKIM AND 4 Other vs LAHORE CONTONMENT BOARD, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 872 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
- Dr. IQTIDAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB1978 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
- DR. HUSSAIN ULLAH KHAN vs Haji ABDULLAH JAN1978 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a second appeal against an order of eviction. The respondent filed an eviction application against the petitioner before the Rent Controller on the ground of default in rent payment. During the proceedings, the Rent Controller adjourned the matter subject to costs. The petitioner subsequently filed a transfer application before the District Judge and failed to appear before the Rent Controller on the fixed date, resulting in an ex parte eviction order. The petitioner's applications to set aside the ex parte order, along with subsequent appeals before the District Judge and the High Court, were dismissed, largely on grounds of limitation and delay. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner had sufficiently explained the seven-day delay in filing the leave petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that the petitioner failed to explain the delay of each day satisfactorily and showed a lack of diligence throughout the proceedings. Consequently, the leave petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must explain the delay of every single day after the expiry of the prescribed period?
- Does the failure to diligently pursue proceedings at various stages disentitle a party to discretionary relief from the court?
- Whether an appeal or petition filed beyond the period of limitation without a satisfactory explanation is liable to be dismissed?
- DR. EJAZ HASSAN QURESHI AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 21978 PLD Lahore 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-22Read full judgment →
- DR. EJAZ HASSAN QURESHI AND AN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 21978 PLD Lahore 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-22Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, WORKSHOPS, P. W. R., MOUGHALPURA vs KHURSHID ALAM BHATTI1978 PLC 23 · Labour Court · 1975-05-17Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAWILWAY, RAWALPINDI DIVISION vs IRSHAD1978 PLC 404 · Labour Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs AHMAD1978 PLC 536 · Labour Court · 1978-01-03Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MOHAMMAD1978 PLC 242 · Labour Court · 1975-10-15Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1978 PLC 29 · Labour Court · 1977-05-16Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RICE MILLING CORPORATION, GUJRANWALA vs KHUSHI1978 PLC 289 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-28Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL EVACUEE TRUST COMMITTEE, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD IDRIS1978 PLD Karachi 125 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 458 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-28Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, LAHORE OMNI BUS SERVICE, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 154 · Labour Court · 1976-02-19Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, MULTAN vs GHULAM1978 PLC 259 · Labour Court · 1975-09-08Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUR vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1978 PLC 279 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-03Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1978 PLC 173 · Labour Court · 1976-02-22Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., LYALLPUR vs MOHAMMAD SHAFI1978 PLC 372 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-08-09Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs Syed MAQSOOD SHAH ETC.S1978 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for review of an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously dismissed a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had successfully deposited the full transfer price of a disputed property within the stipulated time, thereby justifying the setting aside of the cancellation of its transfer. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner failed to deposit the entire outstanding amount as calculated from the assessed rent and surcharge, the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition, and no ground for review was made out. The Court further held that a new plea regarding an additional deposit, not raised before the High Court, cannot be entertained for the first time in review proceedings, leaving the petitioner to seek relief through a review application before the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition can be entertained on a new plea not raised before the High Court?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the dismissal of a writ petition where the petitioner failed to deposit the complete transfer price of a property?
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs GENERAL MANAGER, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs GENERAL MANAGER, COMMUNICATIONS AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD AND 6 Other vs MEHAR ALI KHAN AND 2 Other/S1978 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by the lower courts, which held that the suit was barred by the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title based on an alleged private partition of land completed in 1960. The core legal question was whether such a suit constituted a claim for partition, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by isolating the prayer clause and considering the defendants' pleadings, rather than reading the plaint as a whole. The court ruled that the suit was for a declaration of title regarding a past, completed transaction, not a new claim for partition. Furthermore, the court affirmed that even in partition-related matters, the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 explicitly preserves civil court jurisdiction over questions of title. Consequently, the rejection of the plaint was set aside, and the suit was remanded for trial on merits.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by considering the defendant's pleadings?
- Does a suit for declaration of title based on a past private partition fall under the bar of jurisdiction provided by the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Does the exclusion of jurisdiction for civil courts under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 apply to questions of title?
- DILDAR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 3 Other1978 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the respondents were acquitted of murder and related charges by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the testimony of an eyewitness and discarding the dying declaration of the deceased due to delayed reporting and potential tutoring. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, noting material discrepancies and improvements in the testimony of the eyewitness as well as an unexplained inordinate delay in recording the dying declaration despite the failure of compromise talks. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where an eyewitness's presence is doubtful and a dying declaration is subject to a suspicious delay providing opportunity for tutoring, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in discarding a dying declaration recorded after a significant delay when relatives had opportunity to tutor the deceased?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose presence at the spot is found to be doubtful and fraught with material discrepancies?
- Does the failure of compromise talks between parties adequately explain a major delay in reporting a crime to the police?
- DILDAR ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 698 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- DILAWAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 64 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-01-28Read full judgment →
- DIL MUHAMMAD vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 796 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-22Read full judgment →
- DIL MUHAMMAD vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 796 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-22Read full judgment →
- DHANI PARTO vs MUNTHARAND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 371 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-28Read full judgment →
- DEWANA vs SHAH MUHAMMAD AND 3 Other1978 PLD Quetta 12 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-26Read full judgment →
- DENTOGENE LABORATORIES LTD., KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE1978 PLC 196 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
- DAULAT vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 765 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
- DARYA KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 195 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
- DAILY MUSAWAT LTD LAHORE vs HAFEEZ RAQUIB1978 PLC 201 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-24Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs ABDUL AZIZ ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1396 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY LTD.- Petitioner vs PAKISTAN AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 864 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY LTD. vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 864 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB ETC.1978 PLD Supreme Court 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the reinstatement of an employee dismissed by his employer. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court, when adjudicating a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is restricted to reviewing the procedural legality of a domestic inquiry or possesses the jurisdiction to re-examine the factual merits of the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court has the authority to go behind a dismissal order and assess the facts of the case independently. The Court affirmed that the Labour Court is not merely a reviewing authority but a tribunal of facts, empowered to determine whether a dismissal is justified on both legal and factual grounds. The key principle laid down is that the statutory mandate requiring the Labour Court to 'go into all the facts of the case' provides a necessary check against arbitrary or capricious dismissals, necessitating that employers justify their actions on merits before the Labour Court when challenged.
Questions settled- Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to examine the factual merits of a dismissal order under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Is a Labour Court restricted to reviewing only the procedural formalities of a domestic inquiry conducted by an employer?
- Can a party raise a plea regarding the absence of a 'grievance notice' for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does the statutory requirement to 'go into all the facts of the case' empower a Labour Court to act as a tribunal of facts?
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1978 PLC 280 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-14Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA vs LIAQAT ALI1978 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-04-15Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA vs ARSHAD MAHMOOD1978 PLC 374 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-12Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA vs ALLAH DITTA1978 PLC 278 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
- CR ESENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD. JARANWALA vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR1978 PLC 256 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-12Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI vs Messrs BANKERS, TRADERS AND INSURANCE Co1978 PLD Karachi 411 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSERS FORBES1978 PLD Karachi 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs MESSRS EXCIDE BATTERIES OF PAKISTAN1978 PLD Karachi 768 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER INCOMETAX, RAWALPINDI vs AZIZUR REHMANPLD 1978 Lahore 784(2) · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI vs AZIZUR REHMAN1978 PLD Lahore 784 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
- COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD , BHAKKAR vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1978 PLC 5 · Labour Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN vs UMAR DIN1978 PLC 52 · Labour Court · 1975-03-09Read full judgment →
- CLASSIQUE ENTERPRISES vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1978 PLD Lahore 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
- CHULAM HAIDER AND 2 others vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 604 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-08Read full judgment →
- Choudhry MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs STATE HEAVY ENGINEERING & MACHINE1978 PLC 147 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →