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.
- CHOTU vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 6 Other1978 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a challenge to an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner, a displaced person, had obtained an allotment of land in excess of his actual entitlement, purportedly due to an inadvertent error by the Central Record Office. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had secured this excess allotment through fraud and misrepresentation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had knowingly taken advantage of a departmental mistake regarding his verified claim. The Court held that the findings of the Settlement Commissioner—which were based on evidence, including testimony from revenue officials and records—were proper and that the High Court correctly upheld them. The Court affirmed the principle that a claimant who knowingly exploits an administrative error in their favor to obtain an allotment exceeding their actual entitlement acts fraudulently, and such an allotment is subject to cancellation.
Questions settled- Does a claimant act fraudulently by knowingly taking advantage of an inadvertent departmental error in the verification of their land claim?
- Can an allotment of land obtained in excess of a claimant's actual entitlement be cancelled upon proof of misrepresentation?
- Is a finding of fact by a Settlement Commissioner regarding land entitlement, when supported by evidence and upheld by the High Court, liable to be set aside by the Supreme Court?
- CHLORIDE PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs ANWAR HUSSAIN1978 PLC 149 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-09Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH DIN vs ALI MUHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 992 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
- CHINAR GUL vs CANTONMENT BOARD OF PESHAWAR THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE1978 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, and his legal representatives failed to file an application to be brought on record within the ninety-day period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, 1956. Subsequently, an application for substitution along with a request for condonation of delay was filed, which was opposed by the respondents. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause had been shown for condoning the delay in substituting the legal representatives of the deceased appellant. The Supreme Court held that the legal representatives failed to provide any explanation for their failure to timely notify their Advocate-on-Record or file the substitution application within the limitation period. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appeal had become defective and incompetent due to the absence of a timely substitution application, dismissing the appeal without an order as to costs.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings in the Supreme Court under its rules?
- What is the prescribed time limitation for filing an application to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased party in the Supreme Court?
- Does failure to provide an explanation for delay in filing a substitution application constitute sufficient cause for extending time?
- CHARSADDA SUGAR MILLS LTO., CHARSADDA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1978 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-28Read full judgment →
- CHARSADDA SUGAR MILLS LTD., CHARSADDA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISBAN1978 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-28Read full judgment →
- CHAKAR KHAN vs Mir GAZA KHAN1978 PLD Quetta 88 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE vs MOHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 781 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE vs MOHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 781 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN WAPDA AND OTHERS vs Malik MUSHTAQ AHMAD1978 PLC 46 · Labour Court · 1975-04-25Read full judgment →
- Ch. ZAHUR ILLAHI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Kar 342 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. SULTAN ALI vs APPELLATE BOARD, MINISTRY OF HEALTH ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAFQAT ALI KHAN vs Rao MUHAMMAD ABDUS SATTAR KHAN1978 SCMR 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application to recall an order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal for non-prosecution. The petitioner sought to recall the dismissal, alleging that the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) never received the show-cause notice regarding the rescission of leave. The Court examined evidence, including postal records and the AOR's own conflicting testimony, and concluded that the AOR had been duly served. The core legal question was whether service on an AOR constitutes effective service on the party and whether the Court should recall an order based on the alleged negligence of the AOR. The Court held that, under its rules, service on an AOR is legally equivalent to service on the party. Furthermore, the Court found the AOR’s denial of receipt to be dishonest and his performance a gross dereliction of duty. Consequently, the Court refused to recall the dismissal order, establishing that a party cannot avoid the consequences of their legal representative's gross negligence or dishonesty, and that service on an AOR is binding on the client.
Questions settled- Does service of notice on an Advocate-on-Record constitute effective service on the party represented?
- Can a party seek the recall of an order dismissing a petition for non-prosecution based on the alleged negligence of their Advocate-on-Record?
- Is an Advocate-on-Record responsible for the completion of the record in proceedings before the Supreme Court?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE, ADVOCATE AND 136 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 110 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN vs THS STATE1978 PLD Lahore 307 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 307 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 83 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM (I) vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 14 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-08-01Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND 22 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 270 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND 22 Other1978 PLD Lahore 270 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION COMMISSION, PUNJAB,LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION COMMISSION, PUNJAB, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 89 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. HAMID ELAHI AND AN vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, BAHAWALPUR1978 PLD Lahore 393 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. HAMID BLAHI AND Another vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 393 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALLAH DAD vs INSPECTOR-GENPRAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 1 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-05-25Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs KHYBER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND Other1978 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-25Read full judgment →
- CARRIER TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD., ISLAMABAD vs MESSRS SOHAIL1978 PLD Lahore 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
- CARRIER TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD., ISLAMABAD vs MESSRS SOHAIL BROTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
- CARLOS GRAIBEN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 209 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application arose from the conviction of the applicant by the City & A.D.M., Karachi, for the offence of smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969. Following a plea of guilt, the applicant was sentenced to detention until the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. After an unsuccessful appeal in the Sessions Court, the applicant sought revision in the High Court. The High Court initially issued a show-cause notice regarding the enhancement of the sentence. However, considering the applicant's status as a foreign national, his lack of local support, and the fact that he had already served four months in custody, the court exercised its discretion to vacate the enhancement notice. The court held that while deterrent sentences are generally appropriate for organised smuggling, the specific circumstances of the applicant’s inability to pay the fine warranted leniency. Consequently, the court ordered that the sentence in default of payment of the fine be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, directing his immediate release.
Questions settled- Can a court reduce a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine to the period already undergone?
- Does the status of a foreign national without local support constitute a ground for leniency in sentencing for smuggling?
- Under what circumstances may a High Court vacate a show-cause notice for the enhancement of a sentence?
- CAP. YOUSUF KAZI AND Another vs S. S. PHOENIX AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs, partners of a shipping agency, filed an admiralty suit in rem and in personam against a foreign-registered ship and its owners for the recovery of a balance amount claimed on a disbursement account, having acted as the ship's local agents. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was maintainable in the admiralty jurisdiction of the court for 'necessaries' and whether an agent could sue on a balance of accounts after adjusting freight receipts. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the total disbursements alleged, had suppressed essential freight earnings and accounts, and that the payments proved were less than the freight receipts already in their hands, rendering the suit liable to dismissal. The court also examined the statutory provisions regarding necessaries supplied to ships and the effect of failing to hold a proper customs licence.
Questions settled- Whether an agent can maintain an admiralty action in rem for the balance of a disbursement account after adjusting sums received on account of freight earnings?
- What constitutes 'necessaries' supplied to a ship under section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act 1861?
- Does a suit for the recovery of a balance on a disbursement account lie in the admiralty jurisdiction of the court when the proven disbursements are less than the freight earnings in the plaintiff's hands?
- What is the effect of not holding a licence under section 207 of the Customs Act 1969 on a person acting as a shipping agent?
- BUXO alias KHUDA BUX vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L 1455 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-30Read full judgment →
- BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., BUREWALA THOUGHT ITS MANAGER vs ZEENAT1978 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- BUREWALA T'ext'ile MILLS LTD, BUREWALA THOUGHT ITS MANAGER vs ZEENAT1978 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- BUNYAD ALI SHAH AND OTHERS vs Mst. BIBI KHAIRUNNISA AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Azad J & K 12 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
- BUNER KHAN, DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, MALAKAND DIVISION, SWAT vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. ,1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 135 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1977-09-07Read full judgment →
- BUDH KHAN AND 2 Others vs The STATE1978 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners were convicted by a Section 30 Magistrate under sections 307 and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Upon appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the convictions and remanded the case to the trial court to rewrite the judgment due to procedural defects. Pursuant thereto, the magistrate reheard the matter, convicted the petitioners again, and enhanced sentences. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' subsequent bail application. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether an appellate court possesses the power to remand a case solely for the rewriting of a defective judgment. The Supreme Court held that the remand order passed by the Sessions Court was indefensible and illegal, rendering the subsequent trial and enhanced convictions legally flawed. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioners pending final disposal of their appeal, laying down that appellate courts cannot remand cases merely to have trial judgments rewritten.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have the power to remand a case to the trial court merely on the ground that the trial court's judgment is defective and needs to be rewritten?
- Can a trial court lawfully pass a fresh judgment and enhance sentences pursuant to an illegal remand order by an appellate court?
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the second conviction and sentence by the trial court following an illegal remand are prima facie unsustainable?
- BRIGADIR HIS HIGHNESS NAWAB MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI, AMEER OF BAHAWALPUR vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STATES AND FRONTIER REGIONS, RAWALPINDI AND 23 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-04Read full judgment →
- BRIGADIIR His HIGHNESS NAWAB MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI, AMEER OF BAHAWALPUR- Petitioner vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STATES AND FRONTIER REGIONS, RAWALPINDI AND 23 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-04Read full judgment →
- BILQEES FATIMA vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1109 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-06Read full judgment →
- BILQEES FATIMA vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1109 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-06Read full judgment →
- BEECHAM (PAK.) LTD. KARACHI vs FOURTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 375 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
- BATA SHOE Ca. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS OF SIND AND 2 OtherPLD 1978 Karachi 56'7 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition by an employer challenged an appellate order of the Labour Court which had reversed the Registrar of Trade Unions' decision and permitted a registered trade union of store managers to amend its constitution to change its name and widen its membership scope. The core legal questions revolved around whether an employer is entitled to notice and a hearing under the law during trade union registration or amendment proceedings, and whether an employer has the necessary locus standi to challenge such administrative and appellate decisions concerning union internal changes. The Sindh High Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not contemplate notice to or participation by employers in trade union registration or amendment proceedings, as such matters exclusively concern the union and the Registrar, and an employer suffers no direct or immediate prejudice thereby since legality objections can be raised later when the union seeks Collective Bargaining Agent status. The court dismissed the petition, establishing that employers lack locus standi to challenge trade union registration or internal constitutional amendments prior to the initiation of formal industrial disputes or collective bargaining proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 contemplate notice to an employer during proceedings for the registration of a trade union or the approval of amendments to its constitution?
- Does an employer have the locus standi to challenge an order of the Labour Court or Registrar of Trade Unions registering or amending a trade union's constitution?
- At what stage can an employer raise objections regarding the legality of a trade union or the status of its members as workmen?
- BASIT ALI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND OTHERSPLD 1978 Rev. 61 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 879 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-23Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AND Another Convict vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 70 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs WAPDA, LAHORE1978 PLC 72 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-06-29Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs TAB STATE1978 P Cr. L J 368 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Mst. REHANA1978 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition concerns the custody of a minor daughter, where the petitioner sought to challenge a previous Supreme Court order upholding the High Court’s decision to grant custody to the maternal grandmother. The core legal questions were whether the minor had attained puberty at age thirteen, thereby entitling the father to custody under Muslim Law, and whether the failure to consult the minor’s wishes or the father's financial contributions for her education necessitated a review of the custody arrangement. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Hanafi Law, a girl is presumed to attain puberty at age fifteen, not thirteen, and the maternal grandmother retains the right of Hizanat until that age. The Court further ruled that the omission to consult the minor’s wishes did not warrant a review after two and a half years of stable custody, and that the father's financial support for the minor's education did not override the grandmother's right to custody. The key principle established is that the right of Hizanat for a minor girl remains with the maternal grandmother until she attains puberty, which is legally presumed at age fifteen.
Questions settled- At what age is a Muslim girl under Hanafi Law presumed to have attained puberty for the purpose of custody?
- Does the father's financial responsibility for a minor's education automatically entitle him to custody?
- Is the failure to consult a minor's wishes sufficient ground to review a long-standing custody order?
- BASHIR AHMAD Etc. vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD ETC vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND Others vs The STATE1978 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed by the Superintendent of Jail for the review of a previous order of the Supreme Court dated 29-11-1974, due to a clerical error in the narration of facts regarding the sentences of convicted persons. The core legal question concerned the correction of a clerical mistake in a court order and the correct sentencing terminology under the law applicable to the date of the offense. The Supreme Court held that it has the power to review and correct clerical errors in its orders, and further noted that for murders committed on 3-7-1969, the correct sentence is transportation for life rather than imprisonment for life, following precedent. The key principle laid down is that the court may correct clerical errors in its orders suo motu or upon application, and sentencing must strictly accord with the law applicable at the time of the commission of the offense.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court review its order to correct a clerical error?
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment for life should be converted to transportation for life for offenses committed on 3-7-1969?
- BASHIR AHMAD AND Others vs MANZOOR AHMAD AND Another1978 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of Ihata No. 21, which was initially granted to the respondent by the Collector but subsequently cancelled following allegations of fraud regarding the lack of required publicity. The respondent filed a civil suit for a declaration of ownership, which was initially dismissed by the trial court and the District Judge, who held that the Collector’s findings on fraud were binding and not subject to civil court interference. However, the High Court, in second appeal, reappraised the evidence, rejected the findings of fraud, and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in reappraising evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud, and whether the Collector possessed the jurisdiction to review the grant of the Ihata. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the issues regarding the scope of civil court jurisdiction and the finality of administrative findings on fraud are of significant legal importance requiring further consideration.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in second appeal reappraise evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud?
- Does a Collector have the jurisdiction to review an order granting land if the sale process was incomplete?
- To what extent can a civil court interfere with findings of fraud recorded by revenue authorities?
- BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-20Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND Another vs MEMBER. BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), PUNJAB,LAHORE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-20Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT HUSSAIN vs GHULAM HUSSAIN Etc.S.1978 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a bail cancellation application by the Lahore High Court. The respondent, Ghulam Hussain, was accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically for allegedly holding the deceased while his co-accused delivered a fatal blow. The Sessions Judge had initially granted bail to the respondent, and the High Court subsequently refused to cancel it, finding that the respondent's specific role in facilitating the murder required further inquiry. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to cancel the bail granted to the respondent. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the discretion was exercised properly and that the case did not warrant interference. The key principle laid down is that where the role attributed to an accused in a murder case—such as holding the deceased while another strikes the fatal blow—requires further inquiry, the grant of bail by a lower court is a proper exercise of discretion that should not be disturbed by an appellate court.
Questions settled- Does the allegation of holding a deceased person while a co-accused strikes a fatal blow warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is the refusal of a High Court to cancel bail a proper exercise of discretion when the role of the accused requires further investigation?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order refusing to cancel bail?
- BARKAT BHAI AND 2 Other vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 193 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT, BHAKKAR1978 PLD Lahore 867 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a judgment of the District Judge setting aside a perpetual injunction decree and dismissing the appellant's suit regarding land transferred under the Tube-well Scheme. The core legal question is whether the retrospective bar on civil court jurisdiction introduced by the Thal Development (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, and Thal Development (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1975, affects pending actions, decided matters, and vested rights acquired under the parent Thal Development Act, 1949. The Lahore High Court held that a statute is presumed not to have retrospective effect on vested rights or pending actions unless express language or clear implication demands it, and that the new section 74-A does not divest civil courts of jurisdiction over matters where authorities acted without jurisdiction or outside the Act. The court laid down the principle that statutes affecting jurisdiction or vested rights must be strictly construed and do not apply to pending actions or decided cases unless the legislature expressly provides so.
Questions settled- Does a retrospective amendment barring civil court jurisdiction affect pending actions and already decided cases in the absence of express language?
- Whether a statute taking away the right to sue or affecting court jurisdiction should be construed strictly or liberally?
- Does the civil court retain jurisdiction to determine if an administrative or revenue act was done without jurisdiction or not under the parent Act?
- Can a newly enacted bar of jurisdiction revive a cause of action or divest rights acquired under a decree already passed by a trial court?
- BARKAT ALI SILK FACTORY, FAISALABAD AND 79 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH FINANCE SECRETARY, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1331 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- BAQIR HUSSAIN ETC. vs Mst. YATIM BIBI ETC.S1978 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that accepted a writ petition filed by the respondent, Mst. Yatim Bibi. The dispute concerned the inheritance of land allotted to a widow, Mst. Yatim Bibi, following her migration to Pakistan. The petitioners, claiming to be reversioners of her deceased husband, had obtained a mutation of inheritance in their favor, excluding the widow. The core legal question was whether the mutation of inheritance in favor of the reversioners was valid, or if the widow, as a right-holder under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, was entitled to the allotment. The Supreme Court held that according to the special jamabandi entries, the respondent was the rightful owner of the land abandoned in India and thus entitled to the allotment under paragraph 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the mutation in favor of the petitioners was improper and that the respondent had not been negligent or guilty of laches in pursuing her rights.
Questions settled- Is a widow who is a right-holder under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme entitled to the allotment of land abandoned in India regardless of inheritance claims by reversioners?
- Does the sanctioning of a mutation of inheritance apply when a right-holder is entitled to land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if the petitioner has been vigilantly pursuing the matter?
- BANARAS vs The STATE1978 S CMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the refusal of bail to the appellant, who is facing trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly stabbing the deceased. The core legal question is whether the appellant, suffering from idiopathic epilepsy, qualifies for bail under the statutory exception for sick persons provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the appellant is indeed suffering from a serious disease and cannot receive adequate specialized treatment or care of his choice within the jail hospital setting. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Court directed that the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing appropriate security. The key principle laid down is that an accused suffering from a serious chronic illness whose treatment and management pose significant difficulties for jail authorities may be granted bail under the statutory proviso for sick persons.
Questions settled- Is an accused suffering from idiopathic epilepsy entitled to bail as a sick person under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the inability of jail authorities to provide adequate treatment and care for a serious disease justifies the release of an accused on bail?
- BAKHSHEESH AND OTHERS vs JAFFER AND OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- BAKHSHEESH AND Other vs JAFFER ADD Other1978 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- BAHAWALPUR TEXTILE MILLS MAZDOOR UNION, KHANPUR vs REGISTRAR OP1978 PLC 191 · Labour Court · 1975-05-11Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR SHER LODHI vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AND 21978 PLC [C. S. T.] 79 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- BACHAL vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 710 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Criminal appeal and death reference before the High Court of Sindh challenging the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions centered on whether ocular evidence from interested witnesses, an unproved dying declaration, and a lack of independent corroboration could sustain a capital conviction when physical evidence from the alleged crime scene was absent. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that medical officer testimony concerning non-expert matters, such as the recording or attestation of a dying declaration, cannot be brought onto the trial record under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the doctor at trial. Furthermore, where ocular testimony is exaggerated, comes from interested or inimical sources, and lacks independent corroboration or physical evidence connecting the accused to the crime, it is unsafe to form the basis of a capital conviction.
Questions settled- Can medical officer testimony regarding the recording of a dying declaration be admitted under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the doctor at trial?
- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
- What is the evidentiary value of an uncorroborated dying declaration where a background of deep-rooted enmity exists between the parties?
- BACHA SAID WSW vs STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the confirmation of the appellant's death sentence for a double murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a difference of opinion in the High Court. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, particularly distinguishing between natural and chance witnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence, and whether an accused can be legally classified as an absconder without formal proclamation proceedings under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of a natural witness, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction if found reliable and truthful, and that abscondence can be established through factual evasion of arrest independently of formal proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies or exaggerations do not discredit an otherwise natural and trustworthy eyewitness whose presence at the scene is unquestionable, and that abscondence as a corroborative circumstance is a question of fact proven by eluding law enforcement.
Questions settled- Whether the solitary testimony of a natural eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration?
- Can an accused person be legally regarded as an absconder without the issuance of a formal proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a minor discrepancy between the First Information Report and the deposition in court vitiate the entire testimony of an eyewitness?
- Whether medical evidence inconsistent with minor details of an ocular account is sufficient to discard the prosecution case entirely?
- BABU vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL, AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
- BABER PERVEZ vs The STATE1978 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a murder case. The petitioner, charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sought bail primarily on the grounds that the evidence against him was manufactured, the judicial and police record had been lost necessitating a de novo investigation, and that a parallel investigation had been ordered, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on these contentions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court had exercised its discretion properly. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide any record to substantiate his claims regarding the lost case files or the parallel investigation. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that grounds for bail must be supported by the record and should generally be raised before the appropriate forum (the High Court) in the first instance, rather than being introduced for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise new grounds for bail in a petition for leave to appeal that were not urged before the High Court?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail solely on the allegation that the judicial or police record has been lost without supporting evidence?
- Does the existence of a parallel investigation automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- BABADUR KHAN ANP 2 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R., KARACHI1978 PLC 390 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- BA Z MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Malik ABDUL HAQUE AND ANOTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 482 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
- AZMATULLAH AND Another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF WEST1978 PLD Lahore 979 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
- AZMATULLAH AND AN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN1978 PLD Lahore 979 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
- AZMAT ALI vs Mst. KHAIRUNNISA ETC.PLD 1978 Rev. 37 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
- AZMAT ALI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-25Read full judgment →
- AZMAT ALI vs MEMBER, 130ARD OF REVENUE ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-25Read full judgment →
- AZIZ FATIMA BEGUM vs OILS & GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 316 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-03Read full judgment →
- AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF THE JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 5 OTHERS vs KASHMIR TIMBER CORPORATION, MUZAFFARABAD AND 5 OTHERS1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 42 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- AWAL SHAH vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 662 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB vs The STATE1978 SCMR 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a leave to appeal petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 24-1-1978, which dismissed his appeal against conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and confirmed the death sentence awarded under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the credibility of related witnesses, and the plea of mitigation based on the petitioner's age. The Supreme Court held that minor contradictions do not discredit eye-witnesses, that related witnesses can be relied upon in the absence of serious enmity, and that a twenty-year-old offender acting independently in a cold-blooded murder does not merit leniency. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether trivial contradictions in the testimony of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard their evidence in a murder trial?
- Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration in the absence of serious enmity?
- Does a twenty-year-old offender committing a cold-blooded murder qualify for a lesser penalty based on tender age?
- ATTA MUHAMMAD AND 3 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 570 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-26Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs SHERA AND 4 Other1978 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Ata Muhammad, seeking to challenge an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his application for the cancellation of bail granted to respondents 1 to 4 in a murder and murderous assault case. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court and the Sessions Court erred in granting and maintaining bail to the accused respondents, and whether grounds existed for cancellation of bail due to cross-injuries and the determination of the aggressor. The Supreme Court held that the lower forums properly exercised their discretion considering that the accused party also sustained injuries during the incident and the question of who was the aggressor required trial determination, and further noted that allegations of abusing the concession of bail could be raised before the trial court with proper material. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted to accused persons can be cancelled when both parties sustained injuries and the question of who was the aggressor is yet to be determined at trial?
- Can allegations of suborning prosecution witnesses while on bail be urged before the trial court with proper materials?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent orders of the lower courts maintaining bail in criminal matters without compelling grounds?
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC.S1978 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioner, Ata Muhammad, challenging a 1954 gift of landed property made by his grandmother, Mst. Rehmate, who held the property as a limited owner. The petitioner sought a declaration that the gift was void and ineffective against the rights of reversioners. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the petitioner lacked a cause of action as he was not a collateral of the original owners. This dismissal was upheld by both the District Judge in appeal and the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner had the locus standi to maintain the suit. The Court held that as the son of a daughter, the petitioner was not a reversioner, and his mother, being the daughter of the original owner, was still alive, thereby precluding his standing. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's claim of being a collateral, noting the existence of a prior relative. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does the son of a daughter have locus standi to challenge a gift made by a limited owner while his mother is still alive?
- Can a person maintain a suit as a collateral when a closer relative is still alive?
- ATA MUHAMMAD AND Another vs TAJ MUHAMMAD1978 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner regarding a shop in Mianwali. The core dispute involved the petitioner's failure to pay rent since 1962, following a protracted legal battle over the property's title, which was ultimately decided in the respondent's favor. The petitioner contested the ejectment, arguing that the default was not wilful due to ongoing litigation regarding the property's ownership. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner's failure to pay rent during the pendency of title litigation constituted wilful default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court held that the petitioner was obligated to pay rent once the Settlement Commissioner upheld the respondent's title. By failing to pay rent since 1962, the petitioner committed a deliberate and wilful default. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the respondent was entitled to an ejectment order. The judgment establishes that ongoing litigation concerning property title does not absolve a tenant of the obligation to pay rent, and failure to do so constitutes wilful default.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of litigation regarding the title of a property absolve a tenant from the obligation to pay rent?
- Does a failure to pay rent during the pendency of title litigation constitute wilful default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a tenant liable for ejectment if they fail to pay rent after the title of the landlord has been upheld by the Settlement Commissioner?
- ATA MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Malik NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-07Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD AND Another vs Malik NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 6 Other1978 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-07Read full judgment →
- ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 131978 PLC 271 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-16Read full judgment →
- ASPI GUSTADJI DINSHAW vs HABIB BANK LTD. Arbitrator1978 PLD Karachi 376 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
- ASIM IQBAL vs AND 3 Other1978 PLD Quetta 97 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
- ASIF JANG AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- ASIF JANG AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-05Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-08Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMED AND 6 OTHERS vs Messrs AVALEEN SILK MILLS KARACHI1978 PLC 411 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- ASFANDYAR WALT vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-07-12Read full judgment →
- ASFANDYAR WALI vs The STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-07-12Read full judgment →