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.
- MAJOR (Retd.) AURANGZEB vs THE STATE1977 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Major (Retd.) Aurangzeb against the refusal of the Appellate Bench of the Lahore High Court to suspend his sentence of imprisonment after he was convicted for contempt of court by a learned Single Judge and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of suspending a sentence of imprisonment and granting interim bail pending the disposal of an appeal against a contempt conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the grant or refusal of interim bail is a matter of judicial discretion for the High Court, and the apex court will not interfere unless the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in disregard of patent facts, which was not the case here, especially when the High Court had expedited the hearing of the main appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to suspend a sentence or grant interim bail pending appeal unless clear perversity or arbitrariness is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence and grant interim bail pending appeal in a contempt matter?
- Is the grant or refusal of interim bail considered a matter within the judicial discretion of the High Court?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding interim bail?
- MAJID NIZAMI, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, NAWAI WAQT_, LAHORE vs MRS. NAFISA ABMAD, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND CO-ORDINATION PAKISTAN NATIONAL CENTRE, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER- Respondents1977 PLD Lahore 1070 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAHYAN AND Others SHERA vs THE STATE THE STATE THE STATE THE STATE1977 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arise from convictions for murder, attempted murder, and illegal possession of firearms. The appellants were convicted under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question concerned whether the evidence supported the application of common intention (Section 34) in the murder of the deceased and the attempted murder of others, particularly when medical evidence indicated only one fatal shot fired by a single accused. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution proved the occurrence and the involvement of the accused, the evidence established that the fatal shot was the individual act of appellant Mahyan, and the other appellants did not share the common intention to commit murder. Consequently, the Court acquitted the other appellants of the murder charge, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The Court maintained the conviction for attempted murder but altered the legal basis from Section 149 to Section 34, while adjusting sentences to reflect the period already served. The principle laid down is that where evidence shows an isolated act by one participant, common intention cannot be inferred solely from presence.
Questions settled- Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be inferred when the evidence shows an isolated act by a single accused?
- Does the absence of independent eye-witnesses invalidate a prosecution case when natural witnesses are present?
- Should convictions under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered when the accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 148?
- Is the recovery of live cartridges from an accused a relevant circumstance in determining their participation in a shooting?
- MAHMUD ALI KASURT, BAR-AT-LAW vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD KHAN vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 588 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-30Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ALI ARIF vs SECRETARY, COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB AND1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 209 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-07-06Read full judgment →
- MAHFOOZ ALI vs MESSRS SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL Co. LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 260 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-07Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ALI vs Mst. MUBINA KHATOON AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 558 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-08Read full judgment →
- MA TEEN JAVAID vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
- M. SIDDIQUE KHARAL vs PAKISTAN THROUGH I BB SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CABINET SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD1977 PLD Karachi 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-21Read full judgment →
- M. N. RIZVI, P. C. S. vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 55 Other1977 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This certificated appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the fixation of seniority in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) cadre. The appellant, initially appointed to a temporary post in 1947, sought to count that period towards his seniority after being inducted into the regular cadre in 1951. The core legal question was whether service in a temporary post outside the regular cadre entitles an officer to seniority from the date of that temporary appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant’s initial appointment was to a temporary post outside the regular cadre, governed by specific contractual terms rather than the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1930. The Court affirmed that seniority cannot commence until a person has formally entered the service. Since the appellant was not a member of the regular service until 1951, his seniority could not be backdated. The key principle established is that temporary service performed outside the regular cadre does not count towards seniority in the regular cadre upon subsequent appointment.
Questions settled- Does service in a temporary post outside the regular cadre count towards seniority upon subsequent induction into the permanent cadre?
- Can seniority in a government service be claimed from a date prior to formal entry into that service?
- Do the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1930 apply to temporary posts created outside the regular cadre?
- M. MAQBOOL HUSSAIN vs PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 31977 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing the petitioner's writ petition against his dismissal from service by Kohinoor Textile Mills. The petitioner, a clerk and appointed Shop Steward, addressed a letter containing serious allegations and insolent language against departmental officers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's letter was protected as being within the scope of his functions as a Shop Steward under Section 23-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the letter comprised scathing general criticism of officers rather than actions assisting in the improvement of physical working conditions, production work, or settling worker grievances. The Court laid down the principle that general criticism of the conduct of officers does not fall within the ambit of a Shop Steward's statutory duties under Section 23-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, thus justifying disciplinary action for insubordination.
Questions settled- Does general criticism of company officers by a Shop Steward fall within the statutory scope of duties under Section 23-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Whether an employee's status as a Shop Steward protects them from dismissal for using insolent and insubordinate language against management officers?
- M. M. K. A. ZAI, ADVOCATE vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 176 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-08Read full judgment →
- M. D. TAHIR, ADVOCATE vs CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD AND 21977 PLD Lahore 926 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-17Read full judgment →
- M. ASHRAFUDDIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon an application under Section 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by Mohammad Ashraf-ud-Din and Saba Ali, who sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nazir. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted in a case involving cross-versions where the accused persons sustained severe injuries during the incident. The Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners were not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and that the matter fell within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions and severe injuries sustained by the accused render the matter one requiring further inquiry into their guilt, the case is appropriately covered under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving cross-versions and severe injuries to the accused?
- Does the existence of a counter case and injuries sustained by the accused constitute reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- M. AMEEN M. BASHIR LTD. vs HAJI SOOMAR HAIL HAJJAN POTOLI1977 PLD Karachi 973 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- M UHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22Read full judgment →
- M UHAM MAD SADIQ vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 154 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-09Read full judgment →
- M UHAM MAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 82 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-11Read full judgment →
- LUTUF ALI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 627 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
- LT. GENERAL (RTD) K. M. AZHAR KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT, KOT LAKHPAT JAIL, LAHORE And 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 629 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
- LIPTON (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 714 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the reassessment of property tax for tea-blending and packing facilities, which authorities sought to reclassify from "industrial" to "commercial" to enhance the Gross Annual Rental Value (G.A.R.V.). The core legal questions concerned the Director-General's power to suo motu revise assessments, the authority to review a predecessor's orders, and the classification of tea-blending as an industrial process. The Court held that while the Director-General possesses wide suo motu revisional powers under the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, they lack the legal authority to review or revise orders passed by a predecessor. Furthermore, the Court determined that tea-blending and packing, being a manufacturing process under the Factories Act, 1934, qualifies the premises as an industrial unit, rendering the commercial classification invalid. The principle established is that administrative authorities cannot review their predecessors' decisions absent express statutory power, and property classification must align with the actual nature of the activity conducted on the premises, as defined by relevant manufacturing statutes.
Questions settled- Does the Director-General of Excise and Taxation possess the power to suo motu revise the Gross Annual Rental Value of property?
- Does the Director-General of Excise and Taxation have the legal authority to review or revise an order passed by a predecessor?
- Does the process of tea blending and packing qualify as a manufacturing process for the purpose of classifying premises as an industrial unit?
- Can an assessment of Gross Annual Rental Value be amended with retrospective effect under the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958?
- LIFE FRIENDS CORPORATION, KHEWRA vs DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 707 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT NATIONAL HOSPITAL vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 843 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions filed by non-profit charitable hospitals (Holy Family Hospital and Liaquat National Hospital) challenging notices and orders issued by the Excise and Taxation Department requiring them to pay education cess under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972. The petitioners argued that as non-profit, charitable institutions, they do not fall within the definition of 'establishment' under Section 2(b) of the Ordinance, contending that the term 'service' must be construed ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis with business, trade, and manufacture, implying an element of profit or gain. The High Court rejected the petitioners' contention, holding that the definition of 'establishment' does not require a profit motive. Applying rules of statutory interpretation, the Court observed that the terms in the definition do not form a single genus and the ejusdem generis rule does not apply. As the Ordinance is a beneficial statute, it must be construed liberally. Furthermore, the explicit exclusion of state and municipal employees from the definition of 'worker' indicates that non-profit service providers fall within the scope of the law. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a non-profit charitable hospital falls within the definition of 'establishment' under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972?
- Does the term 'service' in the definition of 'establishment' under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972 require an element of profit or gain?
- Does the ejusdem generis rule of statutory interpretation apply to the words 'business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation' in Section 2(b) of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972?
- How should beneficial social welfare statutes be interpreted when determining liability to pay a statutory levy?
- LIAQUAT AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 600 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI alias BilOORA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 966 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI AND OTHERS vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-17Read full judgment →
- LAL SHAH vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1977 PLD Lahore 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from an appeal filed against an order of the Rent Controller, which was returned by the office due to insufficient court-fee, absence of a certified copy of the order, and other objections. The core legal question concerns whether an appeal filed with deficient court-fee and refiled beyond the period of limitation without a proper application for condonation of delay is maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that since the deficiency in court-fee was made good after the period of limitation expired and no proper application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act was filed, the appeal became time-barred and liable to rejection. The court established the principle that counsel must follow prevailing binding precedents regarding court-fee rather than relying on the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court in another matter, and that a failure to remove office objections within limitation without seeking timely condonation of delay proves fatal to the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed with deficient court-fee and refiled after the period of limitation is time-barred?
- Can an appellant maintain a time-barred appeal without filing an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit?
- Does the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court on the question of court-fee justify ignoring the existing binding judgments of the High Court?
- LAL MUHAM MAD alias LALOO vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 533 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 181 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 198 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-12Read full judgment →
- LAIK AND 31 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SIN D, DISTRICT K HAIRP UR AND 2 or H. ENS- Respondents1977 PLD Karachi 874 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
- Lahore SATD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
- LAGHART CORPORATION, SADIQABAD vs ALLAH DIWAYA1977 PLC 666 · Labour Court · 1976-01-19Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs MESSRS MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD.1977 PLC 95 · Labour Court · 1975-07-08Read full judgment →
- Labore NASEER AHMADPetit loner vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 712 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
- KOHISTAN TRAVEL SERVICE AND ANOTHER vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, LYALLPUR AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- KOHINOOR CHEMICAL Co. LTD. vs WORKERS--- UNION1977 PLC 340 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-21Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD_ vs SHADA AND Other1977 SCMR 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the private complainant against the order of the High Court of Lahore which granted bail to respondents charged with murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's order granting bail in a heinous criminal case involving serious offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the High Court was erroneous and called for interference, especially as the operation of the bail order had already been suspended upon the grant of leave to appeal. Although the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal due to a compromise between the parties, the court rejected the withdrawal, directed the State to prosecute the appeal, and accepted the concession of the respondents' counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's bail order, reaffirming the principles regarding the cancellation of improperly granted bail.
Questions settled- Can an appellant withdraw an appeal after leave to appeal has been granted?
- What is the effect of the State taking over the prosecution of an appeal when a private appellant fails to proceed?
- Whether the Supreme Court can set aside a High Court bail order upon concession by the respondents' counsel?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD alias KHUSHIA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-18Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID MIR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 430 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 866 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs REVENUE OFFICER, KOTRI BARRAGE AND 3 OTHERS1977PLC[C.S.T.] 21 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-09-08Read full judgment →
- KHAWAJA OIL MILLS, RAWALPINDI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI1977 PLD Lahore 1166 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khawaja ISLAMUD DIN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) Plaintiff vs Man1977 PLD Lahore 933 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khawaja GHULAM SADIQUE vs NAJIBULLAH KH A N1977 PLD Karachi 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-29Read full judgment →
- KHANU AND ANOTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 335 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
- KHANI ZAMAN vs SHER ZAMAN AND ANOTEIER1977 P Cr. L J 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-06Read full judgment →
- KHAN WAZIR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 193 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-11Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL HAMEED AND 5 OTHERS1977 PLD Rev. 12 · Board of Revenue · 1977-02-18Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD NISAR vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION1977 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 9 OTHERS vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD SHAH AND 11 OTHERS1977 PLD Rev. 46 · Board of Revenue · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
- KHAN M UHAMMAD AND 9 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- KHALILUR REHMAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 850 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-31Read full judgment →
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH DEPUTY COMISSIONER1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 18 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHAIR DIN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs MUHAMMAD AMIN1977 PLD Lahore 817 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, JHANG ANO ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 194 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arises from a dispute regarding agricultural land where the Assistant Collector found that respondent Ahmad Bakhsh, a tenant, had been unlawfully evicted by Muhammad Bakhsh and his sons, and consequently ordered restoration of possession and initiation of prosecution proceedings under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972. The petitioner, one of the sons, challenged these orders, arguing that the protection against eviction in paragraph 25 of the Regulation applied only to tenants of big landowners holding land above the ceiling limit, that revenue authorities lacked the power to order restoration of possession, and that the order directing prosecution was issued without delegated authority. The Lahore High Court held that the protections and restoration mechanisms under the Regulation apply to all tenants in general regardless of land size, that notifications issued under the Regulation validly empower Revenue Officers to restore possession, and that Tehsildars acting as Sub-Assistant Land Commissioners possess delegated authority to lodge complaints. However, the Court partially accepted the petition by declaring the prosecution order without lawful authority regarding persons who were not landlords, while maintaining the order for restoration of possession.
Questions settled- Whether the protections against eviction afforded to tenants under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 apply to all tenants in general or are restricted only to tenants of landlords holding land in excess of the permissible ceiling?
- Does a Revenue Officer have the legal authority under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 to order the restoration of possession to a tenant who has been unlawfully evicted?
- Whether a notification empowering a Revenue Officer to order restoration of possession is vitiated by excessive delegation of powers under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Does a Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner possess the delegated power to file a complaint for the prosecution of a person who contravenes the provisions of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Kh. AHMED DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF AZAD J & K AND ANOTHER1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 86 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- KASSAM vs KASSAM AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 854 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-09Read full judgment →
- KARIM SHAH AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 356 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-28Read full judgment →
- KARIM BUX vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 108 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution's case rested on the direct testimony of five eye-witnesses, medical evidence of fatal knife injuries, and the recovery of a blood-stained knife and clothes from the appellant upon his arrest. The appellant pleaded total denial, raising no plea of self-defence despite having minor injuries. The High Court found the ocular and corroborative evidence overwhelming to sustain the conviction. However, on the question of sentence, the Court observed that the deceased and the appellant had been grappling and dragging each other for half an hour before the attack, indicating a lack of premeditation, and the genesis of the quarrel remained shrouded in mystery with no established motive. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether a death sentence can be commuted to life imprisonment if the murder was committed without premeditation during a sudden fight?
- Does the absence of an established motive and the mystery surrounding the genesis of a quarrel constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence?
- Can minor, unexplained injuries on the accused's person support a plea of self-defence in the absence of any evidence that the deceased was armed?
- KARIM BAKHSH vs JAN MUHAMMAD1977 PLD Lahore 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant concerning a plot claimed under Settlement Scheme No. VII promulgated under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the appellant's second suit was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the unconditional withdrawal of an earlier identical suit without obtaining permission from the court to file a fresh suit. The Lahore High Court held that the withdrawal of the previous suit fell under Order XXIII, Rule 1(1) rather than Rule 1(2), thereby attracting the statutory bar precluding the institution of a fresh suit on the same subject-matter. The Court further held that no fresh cause of action had accrued and that the mere withdrawal of the prior suit without formal leave of the court or proven consent under distinct legal exceptions did not save the second suit from dismissal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a suit without permission of the court to file a fresh suit preclude the plaintiff from instituting a subsequent suit in respect of the same subject-matter?
- Whether an order permitting the withdrawal of a suit without specific mention of permission to file a fresh suit can be deemed granted under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a mere statement that a suit is withdrawn with the consent of the defendant automatically exempt the plaintiff from the disability contained in Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- KARIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs Taa STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-19Read full judgment →
- KARAM HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs WALI ETC.1977 PLD Lahore 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
- Karam Elahee Chauhan, MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 OTHERS vs PROVINCE1977 PLD Lahore 399 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-13Read full judgment →
- Karachi.' MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 671 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for the alleged possession of an unlicensed single-barrel shot-gun and cartridges. The core legal question concerns the reliability of police testimony and the necessity of independent corroboration in the absence of public mashirs during recovery. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case was rendered doubtful due to the sole reliance on police witnesses without producing supporting station-diary entries or independent public mashirs, particularly when enmity with a local zamindar was alleged. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, accepted the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that uncorroborated police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses in doubtful circumstances warrants acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for possession of unlicensed arms can be sustained solely on the testimony of police officers without independent public mashirs?
- Does the failure to produce a station-diary entry proving patrol duty create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
- Is the benefit of doubt to be extended when the possibility of false implication due to personal enmity is not excluded?
- Karachi) 1 ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 620 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-31Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI AND OTHERS vs SIBGHATULLA AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs SIBGHATULLA AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLC 605 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- KARACHI OIL MILLS PIECE-RATED WORKERS' UNION vs TARIQ OIL MILLS ETC.1977 PLC 345 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-07-30Read full judgment →
- KARACHI GAS CO. LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS FANCY FOUNDATION1977 PLD Karachi 191 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application by the plaintiffs for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from transferring, alienating, or encumbering the suit property pending the decision of a suit for specific performance of an oral contract for sale. The core legal questions involve whether the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case for specific performance despite prior correspondence indicating a willingness to accept monetary compensation, whether the contract was frustrated or uncertain regarding possession free from tenant rights, and where the balance of convenience lies. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make out a clear prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, especially since the statutory doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 adequately protects the plaintiffs' interests against subsequent transfers. The key principle laid down is that temporary injunctions in specific performance suits are equitable and discretionary reliefs governed by the facts and circumstances of each case, and where adequate statutory protection exists via lis pendens, an injunction should be refused if the balance of inconvenience weighs against tying down the defendant's property, provided that equitable terms—such as depositing advance monies into court—are imposed.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the transfer of immovable property when the statutory doctrine of lis pendens already protects their interest?
- Does an initial willingness by a purchaser to accept monetary compensation as an alternative bar the grant of specific performance and equitable relief?
- Where does the balance of convenience lie when a vendor is restrained from dealing with property for which a substantial advance was paid versus the prejudice caused by tying down the property during protracted litigation?
- Whether a court can impose equitable terms requiring the deposit of advance consideration in court as a condition for vacating an ad interim injunction in a suit for specific performance?
- Karachi MUHAMMAD UMAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 735 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-17Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI Applicant vs N-43 Hells TM1977 PLD Karachi 101 · Sindh High Court · 1076-10-21Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, EXCISE & TAXATION DkPARTMENT, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERs1977 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) to challenge the levy of education cess imposed upon it under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether the KDA qualifies as a 'local authority' under the Ordinance, which would exempt its employees from the cess. The Court examined the definition of 'local authority' under the General Clauses Act, 1897, and relevant judicial precedents, noting that a local authority is an entity entrusted with the administration of a local fund and exercising powers delegated by the Province. Upon reviewing the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, the Court held that the KDA performs municipal functions, manages a local fund as defined in the Treasury Rules, and operates under government control, thus fulfilling the essential characteristics of a local authority. The Court rejected the argument that the KDA's specific inclusion as a local authority in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, implied it was not one generally. Consequently, the Court held that the KDA is a local authority and exempt from the education cess.
Questions settled- Does the Karachi Development Authority qualify as a 'local authority' under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- What are the essential characteristics of a 'local authority' in the context of statutory interpretation?
- Does the definition of 'local fund' in the Treasury Rules apply to the funds administered by the Karachi Development Authority?
- Does the specific inclusion of an entity as a 'local authority' in one statute preclude it from being considered a 'local authority' under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THB1977 PLC 251 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-02Read full judgment →
- Karachi ABDUL OHAPFAR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 119 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
- Karachi ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 991 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-17Read full judgment →
- KANAYALAL vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 675 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-05Read full judgment →
- KAMRAN COMPANY vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1977 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
- KAMRAN Co., RAWALPINDI vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1977 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
- KALA KHAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 292 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-15Read full judgment →
- KALA (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs ALLAH DAD (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL1977 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a second appeal in a pre-emption suit regarding land formerly classified as evacuee property. The core legal questions addressed were whether the sale of such property is pre-emptible, whether the time spent obtaining a trial court judgment is excludable or condonable for limitation purposes in a second appeal, and whether the death of some co-plaintiffs causes the entire appeal to abate. The Court held that the sale of rights in land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act is pre-emptible. Regarding limitation, the Court ruled that while Section 12 of the Limitation Act does not explicitly cover trial court judgments, the mandatory requirement under Lahore High Court rules to file such copies constitutes sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the entire period spent obtaining them. Finally, the Court established that the right of pre-emption is individual and independent; thus, the death of some co-plaintiffs does not cause the entire appeal to abate, but only abates the appeal concerning the deceased parties.
Questions settled- Is the sale of land rights allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act pre-emptible?
- Does the death of some co-plaintiffs in a pre-emption suit cause the entire appeal to abate?
- Can the time spent obtaining a copy of the trial court's judgment be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for a second appeal?
- Is the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment mandatory for a second appeal in the Lahore High Court?
- KAKAI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
- KAJEER DAD KHAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-22Read full judgment →
- KAFAYAT ULLAH KBAN vs DEPUNY DIRECTOR, R. VET & FARMS,1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 77 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
- K. S. B. PUMPS Co. LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1977 PLD Lahore 67 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-13Read full judgment →
- K AK AI AND ANOTHER vs TEE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 608 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
- JUNAB GUL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 328(2) · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
- JOINT EXECUTIVE, VICE-PRESIDENT, HABIB BANK LTD., LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1977 PLC 630 · Labour Court · 1976-03-20Read full judgment →
- JAVID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 475 · Lahore High Court · 1974-09-08Read full judgment →
- JANOO JAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 776 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
- JAN TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 21977 PLD Karachi 836 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- JAN MUEIAMMAD vs HASSAN AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 708 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMED vs Sayed MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 901 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-21Read full judgment →
- JAMALAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 73 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
- JAMAL vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 818 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →