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.
- AMIR KHAN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1976 PLC 808 · Labour Court · 1975-06-18Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSHConvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 431 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-05Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI vs MUHAMMAD HASHIM AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 857 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI vs MUHAMMAD HASHIM AND 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 857 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
- AMIN HAYAT CORPORATION LTD. vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1976 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner company regarding the ownership of land previously owned by evacuees. The core legal question was whether the land in dispute could be claimed by the petitioner based on a chain of sales originating from a decree holder whose underlying claim to the property had been declared coram non judice by the Supreme Court in earlier litigation. The petitioner argued that the land had never been treated as evacuee property under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court held that the land was indeed evacuee property, noting that the Custodian had previously refused permission to sue the evacuee owners, which constituted 'treating' the property as evacuee. Furthermore, the property had since been allotted to other claimants. The Court affirmed that the previous judgment declaring the initial decree coram non judice remained binding, rendering the subsequent transfers of the land invalid. The petition was dismissed, establishing that refusal of permission to sue by the Custodian constitutes treatment of property as evacuee.
Questions settled- Does the refusal by the Custodian to grant permission to sue the evacuee owners constitute 'treating' the property as evacuee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957?
- Can a purchaser of land acquire valid title if the vendor's underlying decree for specific performance was declared coram non judice by the Supreme Court?
- Is a property considered 'treated' as evacuee property if it has been allotted to claimants in satisfaction of their land claims?
- AMI R KHAN Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-10Read full judgment →
- AMERICANO DRY CLEANERS vs ABDUL KARIM1976 PLC 575 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-24Read full judgment →
- AMERICAN TYRE RE-TREATING Co. vs BARKAT SHAH1976 PLC 545 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-01-22Read full judgment →
- AMEER UMAR vs The STATE1976 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Ameer Umar, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence of one and a half years of rigorous imprisonment under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing sodomy, which were upheld by the Sessions Court and the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of chemical examination results of anal swabs was fatal to the prosecution, whether the child witness's competence was properly determined under section 118 of the Evidence Act, and whether the sentence was excessive given the petitioner's age. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that medical testimony alone can establish penetration without chemical examination, that section 118 does not prescribe any set form of questions for testing a child's competence, and that appellate courts will not normally interfere with the quantum of a legal sentence. The key principle laid down is that the sufficiency of proof regarding penetration rests on medical and ocular evidence and is not strictly dependent on chemical reports, and the assessment of a child witness's competency requires only the court's subjective satisfaction of rational understanding.
Questions settled- Is the absence of a chemical examination report of anal swabs fatal to a prosecution case under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code when positive medical testimony is available?
- Does section 118 of the Evidence Act prescribe any specific set of questions to be put to a child witness to test competency?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the quantum of a legal sentence imposed by lower courts primarily responsible for assessing punishment?
- AMEEN TAREEN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-23Read full judgment →
- AMEEN TAREEN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-23Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-08Read full judgment →
- ALUDO alias ALI BUX vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 329 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and section 13-D of the Arms Act 1965 for possession of an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question was whether the appellant acted in the right of private defence when he shot the deceased during a prolonged chase amidst strained relations and background enmity. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution version of an unprovoked initial attack followed by a mile-long chase was dubious, and that the deceased being armed with a hatchet and aggressively pursuing the appellant created a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to life. The Court established that a person exercising the right of self-defence is not required to have sustained actual injuries before entertaining such apprehension, thereby extending the benefit of section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the appellant, setting aside his murder conviction, while maintaining the conviction under the Arms Act.
Questions settled- Whether an accused claiming the right of private defence must receive actual injuries before entertaining an apprehension of danger to life?
- Does a determined pursuit of the accused by an armed complainant party in the background of enmity justify the exercise of the right of self-defence?
- What is the legal effect of the non-production of an independent material witness by the prosecution during a murder trial?
- Whether the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when the evidence establishes a valid plea of self-defence under section 100?
- ALTAF GAUHAR vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1976 SCMR 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal filed by the appellant, Mr. Altaf Gauhar, challenging an order of a Special Court that had rejected his preliminary objections regarding the Court's jurisdiction to try him. The Government of Pakistan had directed the trial of the appellant pursuant to the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Order, 1972. While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the appellant filed a miscellaneous petition informing the Court that the Special Court had subsequently acquitted him of all charges on 31st December 1973. Consequently, the appellant requested that the appeal be dismissed as having become infructuous. The Supreme Court, finding no objection to the request, held that since the underlying trial had concluded with an acquittal, the challenge to the Special Court's jurisdiction was no longer a live issue. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, establishing the principle that an appeal challenging procedural or jurisdictional orders in a criminal trial becomes infructuous upon the final acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
Questions settled- Does an appeal challenging the jurisdiction of a Special Court become infructuous if the accused is acquitted by that court during the pendency of the appeal?
- Can an appellant withdraw an appeal that has become infructuous due to subsequent developments in the trial court?
- ALLIED TEXTILE MILLS' LABOUR UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 96 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDINO vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR AND 3 OTHERS Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs SULTAN AHMED AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 502 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs Mst. KAUSAR PARVEEN1976 P Cr. L J 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-26Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA AND 3 OTHERS Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH OBAHYO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 260 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OP DEFENCE, ISLAMABAD1976 PLD Lahore 823 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenged an order issued by a Brigade Commander claiming two military personnel, subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 and accused of murder and rape of a civilian, for trial before a Court Martial. The core legal questions involved whether military personnel committing civil offences against non-military persons in a peaceful area are triable under the Army Act, the vires of the Federal Government's notification under section 7 of the Act deeming all Army personnel to be on "active service", and whether handing over the accused initially to civil police bars subsequent trial by Court Martial. The Lahore High Court held that the notification issued under section 7 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 is valid, does not suffer from excessive delegation, and legally treats all army personnel as being on "active service", thereby removing the bar under section 59(2) of the Act. The Court further held that initial mishandling or surrender of custody by an unauthorized officer does not constitute an election of forum, and the prescribed competent officer retains the discretion under section 94 of the Act to claim the accused for trial by Court Martial. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Government can validly issue a notification under section 7 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 deeming all persons subject to the Act to be on active service without specifying a particular area?
- Does section 7 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power?
- Are military personnel who commit murder against a civilian in a peaceful area triable under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 when declared to be on active service?
- Does the initial handing over of accused military personnel to civil police by an unauthorized officer bar the prescribed officer from subsequently claiming them for trial by a Court Martial under section 94 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952?
- ALLAH JIWAYA vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER Accused1976 P Cr. L J 264 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (CONSOLIDATION) AND 5 Other1976 PLD Lahore 897 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs JAN MUHAMMAD ETC.S1976 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking a clarification of its earlier order dated 25th October 1973, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil appeal regarding the transfer of an evacuee house. The petitioner, having lost his entitlement to the house, sought cash compensation in lieu of the compensation books he had purchased from other claimants and deposited with the Settlement Department. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an authorized user of compensation books belonging to other claimants, was entitled to receive cash compensation under the statutory framework. The Supreme Court, referencing its notes from the original hearing, acknowledged that it had intended to include observations on this point. The Court held that under the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, as amended by Act IV of 1973, an authorized person who utilizes compensation books is entitled to receive the payment. Consequently, the Court directed the relevant authorities to expeditiously examine and dispose of the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether a person who has utilized compensation books belonging to other claimants under their authority is entitled to receive cash compensation upon the cancellation of a property transfer?
- Can the Supreme Court clarify its previous judgment to include an omitted observation regarding a party's statutory entitlement to compensation?
- What is the effect of the proviso added to Section 15(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 by Act IV of 1973 on authorized users of compensation certificates?
- ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER vs THB STATE1976 P Cr. L J 522 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 249 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD vs KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS, RAWALPINDI1976 PLC 346 · Labour Court · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 434 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 3 Other1976 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court setting aside orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, which had permitted the appellant to file a belated N. C. H. Form and divided the disputed evacuee property into two residential units. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's orders in its constitutional jurisdiction and whether the appellant's claim form was barred or vitiated by fraud. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the findings of the Settlement authorities, as the property was legitimately divisible, the appellant's belated form was permissible under the law, and there was insufficient proof of fraud to warrant constitutional interference. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Settlement Commissioner's order was restored.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner permitting the appellant to file a N. C. H. Form?
- Can an undated and unsigned order of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner be treated as void without being challenged before the settlement authorities?
- Whether the Settlement Commissioner's finding on the divisibility of evacuee property is open to interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting several accused persons for murder and related offences arising from a fatal shooting incident outside a court premises. The core legal questions involve evaluating the evidentiary value and reliability of a dying declaration, assessing ocular testimony, and determining the complicity of accused individuals allegedly playing secondary roles. The Lahore High Court held that the dying declaration, corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, reliably established the guilt of the primary assailant who fired the fatal shot and an accomplice who inflicted a head injury. However, the court acquitted other co-accused whose alleged roles of holding the deceased were found to be improbable and exaggerated. The key principles laid down are that a dying declaration, when recorded with due safeguards and found to be voluntary and truthful, can form the basis of a conviction without extensive corroboration, and that exaggerated or unnatural ocular attributions regarding peripheral accused must be separated and discarded.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a dying declaration when it is duly recorded by a magistrate and found to be voluntary and truthful?
- Whether minor discrepancies or the absence of minute details in a dying declaration vitiate its evidentiary value?
- How should the court evaluate the testimony of an injured eyewitness whose presence is established by physical injuries?
- Whether the uncorroborated and improbable attribution of roles to empty-handed co-accused in a murder case warrants their acquittal?
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND Another vs THE STATE1976 PLD Lahore 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-17Read full judgment →
- ALL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-08Read full judgment →
- ALIMUDDIN alias ABDUL ALEEM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 485 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-03Read full judgment →
- ALI SHERConvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-08Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 529 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1397 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- ALI MURAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 520 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 43 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-26Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs HUSSAIN BAKHSH AND Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellant obtained a transfer order for an entire Haveli, despite a significant portion being occupied by refugees from Jammu & Kashmir State. The core legal questions were whether the transfer violated the statutory bar against transferring such occupied properties and whether the High Court could set aside the transfer order despite the respondents' failure to timely appeal the initial administrative decision. The Supreme Court held that the transfer order was void ab initio as it violated the statutory prohibition against transferring properties occupied by Jammu & Kashmir refugees, which were reserved under Section 16-B and Settlement Scheme No. IV. The Court affirmed that an order passed in excess of jurisdiction is a nullity in law; therefore, it does not require formal setting aside, and the aggrieved party is not precluded from challenging its legality in writ jurisdiction despite the expiration of limitation periods. The Court clarified that the deletion of Section 30(5) did not authorize the transfer of these reserved properties.
Questions settled- Does an order passed in excess of jurisdiction require formal setting aside, or is it a nullity?
- Does the failure to file a timely appeal preclude a party from challenging a void order in writ jurisdiction?
- Did the deletion of subsection (5) of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, authorize the transfer of properties occupied by refugees from Jammu & Kashmir State?
- ALI MOHAMMAD AND 3 Other vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), MULTAN1976 PLD Lahore 880 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-01Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L 7 127 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-23Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-26Read full judgment →
- ALAMBARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS vs The STATE1976 PLD Revenue 18 · Board of Revenue · 1973-06-01Read full judgment →
- ALAF (REPRESENTED BY 3 HBIRS) vs NOT1976 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
- AKRAM MOQUIM ANSARI vs Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM1976 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-07Read full judgment →
- AKBAR vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 2 Otiers1976 PLD Supreme Court 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition in limine concerning the evaluation price of a transferred shop under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner erred in law by relying on an assessment made by the Excise and Taxation Department rather than following the specific procedure under Paragraph 22-A of Settlement Scheme No. 1. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as the highest authority in the Settlement Department, was fully competent to collect necessary information and data in any appropriate manner to arrive at a fair and just decision regarding the assessment of the evaluation price, and that the rules had been substantially complied with. The Court laid down the principle that administrative heads of departments have inherent latitude to gather data and information for fair decision-making where statutory schemes do not expressly bar such inquiries.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner is competent to collect information and data through the Excise and Taxation Department for determining the evaluation price of a transferred property?
- Does Paragraph 22-A of Settlement Scheme No. 1 bar the Chief Settlement Commissioner from adopting alternative procedures to assess property values fairly?
- Can the High Court interfere in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction with an administrative assessment order that has substantially complied with settlement rules?
- AJMEER KHAN vs Haji WAHID HUSSAIN AND Other1976 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which refused to grant an interim injunction in a declaratory suit filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer of a shop to respondent No. 1, a claimant displaced person, on 23rd November 1959. The petitioner's earlier appeals, revisions, miscellaneous applications, writ petitions, and a prior petition for leave to appeal had all been dismissed, and a Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to the respondent on 20th March 1963. The core legal question concerns the propriety of refusing an interim injunction in a declaratory suit challenging a long-settled property transfer. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the trial court were justified in refusing the interim injunction given the facts and circumstances of the case, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference with the discretionary refusal of an interim injunction by lower courts will be withheld where the petitioner fails to establish a fit case.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to grant an interim injunction in a declaratory suit challenging the transfer of a shop?
- Is it a fit case to interfere with the High Court's order refusing an interim injunction?
- AJAB KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR ETC1976 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging orders regarding the transfer of a disputed house under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who claimed to be in occupation, was entitled to the transfer of the house when concurrent findings of fact established that neither the petitioner nor the contesting respondent was in possession, and that the property was actually occupied as a Patwari Khana. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was found not to be in possession, he was not entitled to the transfer of the house, regardless of any objections regarding the transfer to the Revenue Department. The Court established the principle that a party not in proven occupation of a property governed by Settlement Scheme No. VII has no locus standi to challenge its transfer, and further affirmed that new evidence or statements not placed before the forums below cannot be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Is a person not in occupation of a house covered by Settlement Scheme No. VII entitled to its transfer?
- Can new statements or evidence not presented before the lower forums or the High Court be considered for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- Does the High Court properly refuse to interfere with a competent finding of fact regarding property possession made by a Settlement Commissioner?
- AJAB KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR1976 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No. VII, which mandated that properties be transferred only to individuals in actual occupation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his Permanent Transfer Order, arguing that the property should not have been transferred to the Revenue Department (via the Tahsildar) as the Tahsildar was not an occupant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having failed to establish his own possession of the disputed property, had the standing to challenge the transfer of that property to another entity. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not succeed because the Settlement Commissioner had made a factual finding that the petitioner was not in possession of the house, rendering him ineligible for transfer. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with this finding of fact, which had been upheld by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a claimant seeking the transfer of property under a settlement scheme must first establish their own eligibility through actual occupation; failing this, they lack the standing to challenge the transfer of the property to a third party.
Questions settled- Can a claimant challenge the transfer of a property under Settlement Scheme No. VII if they have not established their own actual occupation of the premises?
- Is a finding of fact regarding possession made by a Settlement Commissioner subject to interference by the High Court or Supreme Court?
- Does the introduction of new evidence, such as a statement not previously presented to lower forums, warrant consideration by the Supreme Court?
- AJAB GUL AND ANOTHER vs MAKARWAL & GULLAKHEL EMPLOYEES UNION1976 PLC 893 · Labour Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
- AHMED RABBANI vs PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 140 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
- AHMED IBRAHIM SHAMSI vs SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 293 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs BAQAR & Co. CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, SARGODHA1976 PLC 782 · Labour Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN SIAL vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, S. & G. A. D1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 74 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- AHMAD HUSSAIN ARAIN vs PRINCE GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1976 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenges a Supreme Court judgment concerning the allotment of an urban garden in Hyderabad. The petitioner sought to re-argue that his entitlement should be calculated based on produce index units rather than acres, relying on specific paragraphs of Supplementary Scheme No. 2. The petition was filed with a delay of 261 days, which the petitioner attempted to justify through a medical certificate claiming serious illness. The respondent contested this, providing evidence that the petitioner was active in other legal proceedings and administrative offices during the alleged period of incapacity. The Court held that the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and that the petition was hopelessly time-barred. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court determined that the petitioner's arguments merely sought a rehearing of the appeal based on a disagreement with the Court's interpretation of the relevant schemes, which does not constitute a valid ground for review. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition both on the grounds of limitation and on merits.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be granted merely to provide a second chance to a litigant to have a matter re-argued?
- Is a disagreement with the Court's interpretation of statutory schemes a valid ground for review?
- Does the filing of an affidavit in other legal proceedings during a claimed period of illness undermine a plea for condonation of delay?
- AHMAD HASSAN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUN PUBLICATIONS1976 PLC 297 · Labour Court · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
- AHMAD HADI SHAH vs RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 444 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD HADI SHAH AND Other vs RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN AND Others vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND Other1976 SCMR 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee building site measuring 13.5 marlas in Gujranwala Town, which was originally in the possession of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Nizam Din. The core legal question concerned whether Nizam Din was entitled to the transfer of the entire plot under paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, or whether the Settlement authorities were justified in dividing the plot and transferring only a portion containing the major part of his constructions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that paragraph 13 does not contemplate the transfer of vacant portions of a plot where constructions only exist at extreme ends, and that the Settlement authorities acted correctly in dividing the property. The key principle laid down is that paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, applies to the plot in possession upon which a building stands and does not extend to large vacant spaces falling between structures.
Questions settled- Is a claimant entitled to the transfer of the entire vacant space of a plot under paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, when constructions exist only at extreme ends?
- Whether the Settlement authorities have the power to divide a plot and transfer only the portion containing the major part of the construction raised by the applicant?
- AHMAD BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-21Read full judgment →
- AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-12Read full judgment →
- Agha JAFFAR QULI KHAN vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 15(2) · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-11-24Read full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR, HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL vs THE REHABILITATION1976 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the entitlement of a mortgagee to compensation for land acquired by the government, which subsequently became evacuee property. The appellant, the Holy Family Hospital, held a mortgage created in 1937. Upon the land's acquisition in 1957, the Collector referred the apportionment of compensation to the District Judge due to the owners' evacuee status. The District Judge ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court set aside this order, holding that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction and should have referred the matter to the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, ruling that the District Judge was not empowered to adjudicate whether the mortgage subsisted or whether the mortgagee was entitled to the compensation amount. The Court held that under Section 41(2) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, such issues fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Consequently, the Court directed that the specific questions regarding the mortgage's validity and the charge on the land be referred to the Custodian for determination.
Questions settled- Does a District Judge have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a mortgage on land acquired by the government when the owner is an evacuee?
- Is a reference to the Custodian of Evacuee Property mandatory under Section 41(2) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 when the existence of a mortgage on evacuee property is disputed?
- Can a mortgagee claim compensation for acquired land without obtaining confirmation of the mortgage from the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- ADLOO alias ABDUL KARIM AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-23Read full judgment →
- ADKO LTD., KARACHI vs SAMIULLAH1976 PLC 665 · Labour Court · 1975-05-11Read full judgment →
- ADAM KHAN vs BAZ MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1976 PLD Quetta 90 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-05-31Read full judgment →
- ADAM KHAN vs BAZ MUHAMMAD AND Other1976 PLD Quetta 90 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
- ABUL MAHASIN vs IQBAL AHMAD QURESHI AND 4 OTHERS1976 PLC 796 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-06-11Read full judgment →
- ABRAR HASSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND S1976 PLD Supreme Court 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This certificated appeal challenged the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, contending it was an acting appointment made in violation of seniority rules and that the respondent could not hold two offices simultaneously. The core legal question was whether a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against a Judge of a superior court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointment was a permanent one under Article 193, rendering the arguments regarding seniority and acting status inapplicable. Crucially, the Court held that a writ of quo warranto does not lie against a Judge of a High Court or Supreme Court because the definition of 'person' in Article 199(5) excludes these courts, and issuing such writs would destroy the necessary comity among superior courts. The principle laid down is that while a Judge is amenable to law in a private capacity, the constitutional bar in Article 199(5) prevents the issuance of prerogative writs against Judges in their judicial capacity.
Questions settled- Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable against a Judge of a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the definition of 'person' in Article 199(5) of the Constitution exclude Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court from the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Can a Judge of the Supreme Court simultaneously hold the office of Chief Justice of a High Court?
- Is the appointment of a Chief Justice of a High Court as a permanent appointment valid if the notification erroneously mentions 'deputation' and 'lien'?
- ABID HUSSAIN vs MRS. AFSAR JEHAN SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 836 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
- ABID HUSSAIN vs MR,. AFSAR JEHAN SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 836 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN AND 5 Other vs Tub PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR OF MULTAN AND 5 Other1976 PLD Lahore 917 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAZZAQUE vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR GOJAR AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLC 883 · Labour Court · 1975-01-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAUF KHAN AND AOTHER vs FIRM BABU MUNIR GHULAM SIDDIQUE Etcs1976 SCMR 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by special leave arise from a consolidated judgment of the High Court involving a dispute over land sold in 1942. The core legal questions concern whether a prior decision in pre-emption suits operated as res judicata regarding the vendees' status as members of an agricultural tribe, and whether the vendees' subsequent suit for declaration and possession was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata was unavailable because there was no conflict of interest between co-defendants (vendors and vendees) in the earlier pre-emption suits, and the vendees' suit was within time as it was essentially for possession and filed within the limitation period. The Court established that a decision in a previous suit can only operate as res judicata between co-defendants if there was an active conflict of interest between them that was necessary to decide for granting relief in that suit.
Questions settled- Whether a decision in a previous suit can operate as res judicata between co-defendants in the absence of a conflict of interest inter se?
- Whether the Punjab Alienation of Land (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Act of 1948 applies retrospectively?
- Whether a suit for declaration and possession is barred by limitation when the primary relief is for possession and the denial of status occurred within the statutory period?
- Does mutation of land confer any right or title on a party?
- ABDUR RASHID vs KHAN OIL MILLS, SARGODHA1976 PLC 776 · Labour Court · 1975-01-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID NAWAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND OTHERS1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 153 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1976-04-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN BABAR vs FARHAT JABEEN1976 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a review petition regarding the transfer of two matrimonial suits pending before a Family Court. The petitioner, the husband, sought to transfer his wife's suit for dissolution of marriage and his own suit for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that the Family Court judge improperly allowed the respondent to withdraw witnesses, thereby prejudicing his defense. The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the review petition filed before the High Court. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any grounds for review under the relevant procedural law, specifically the absence of discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner was essentially challenging the merits of the High Court's initial dismissal order, which was time-barred by sixteen days. As no application for condonation of delay was filed, the petition was dismissed. The judgment reinforces the strict requirements for review jurisdiction and the necessity of adhering to limitation periods.
Questions settled- What are the essential grounds required to maintain an application for review of a judicial order?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained if it challenges an order that is time-barred without an application for condonation of delay?
- Does the mere dissatisfaction with the merits of a prior judicial order constitute a valid ground for review?
- ABDULLAH/Complainant vs DIN MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 4 Other Opponent1976 PLD Karachi 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-04Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs DIN MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 4 OTHERSOpponent/1976 PLD Karachi 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE AND Other1976 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a long-standing civil and criminal litigation concerning five film prints following an arbitration award. The petitioner Abdul Wahid challenged the award, leading to remand by the Supreme Court for a fresh decision on merits, while the original record was misplaced. Concurrently, a criminal case for theft under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was filed against the petitioner by respondent Agha Muhammad Yakub. Although the trial magistrate acquitted the petitioner, he ordered the disputed film prints to be handed over to the respondent, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court held that pending the final outcome of the civil proceedings regarding the award, the disputed film prints should remain deposited in safe custody. The Court accordingly confirmed its interim order directing that the prints remain deposited with the S.H.O. of Old Anarkali Police Station, Lahore, until the final disposal of the application to make the award a rule of the court. The key principle laid down is that custody of disputed property subject to pending civil litigation should be preserved neutrally until the final determination of civil rights.
Questions settled- What is the proper custody of disputed property when civil litigation regarding its ownership is still pending?
- Can film prints subject to an arbitration award be kept in police custody pending the final disposal of proceedings to make the award a rule of the court?
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 584 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOORConvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 810 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE1976 PLD Supreme Court 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and abduction. The core legal questions were whether the testimony of an accomplice (approver) received sufficient independent corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder, and whether the evidence supported the conviction for abduction. The Supreme Court held that the approver's evidence lacked the necessary independent corroboration in material particulars, rendering it insufficient to sustain the murder conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding that independent evidence established the appellant induced the deceased to accompany him under false pretenses with the intent to endanger his life. The key principle laid down is that while an accomplice is a competent witness, the rule of practice requiring independent corroboration in material particulars has acquired the rigidity of law. Additionally, the offence of abduction is complete upon proof of inducement to accompany the accused, irrespective of the victim's subsequent fate.
Questions settled- Does the rule requiring independent corroboration of an accomplice's testimony possess the rigidity of law?
- Can a conviction for abduction under Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained without proof of the victim's death?
- Does evidence of a discovery made by the police prior to the accused's statement qualify as admissible evidence under Section 27, Evidence Act 1872?
- Is the testimony of an accomplice sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration in material particulars?
- ABDUL SATTAR ASI vs HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KHANPUR1976 PLC 121 · Labour Court · 1974-10-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs Mst. RABIA BIBI AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs Mst. RABIA BIBI AND 2 Other1976 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM AKHTAR vs DR. NAJAM PARVEZ1976 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord on the grounds of default and bona fide personal use. The trial court dismissed the ejectment petition, but the District Judge reversed this decision, finding a bona fide personal need, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner-tenant contended that the landlord's claim of personal need was invalid because it included the requirement of his disabled brother, and that the landlord was already in occupation of another rented residential building in the same urban area. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the personal needs of a landlord encompass the needs of dependents residing with them. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the statutory restriction preventing a landlord from seeking eviction if they occupy another suitable residential building does not extend to rented premises, as a landlord is not disqualified from seeking possession of their own property merely because they currently reside in rented accommodation.
Questions settled- Does the term 'own occupation' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include the residential needs of a landlord's dependent family members?
- Does the statutory bar against a landlord seeking eviction if they occupy another suitable residential building in the same urban area apply when that other accommodation is merely rented premises?
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs Ch. SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 Other1976 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a composite property consisting of a shop and a residential unit under the settlement laws. The petitioner, a local occupant, challenged the transfer of the entire property to the respondent, a displaced person, arguing that the authorities failed to determine the nature of the property as a shop or a house, which is a condition precedent under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court examined the procedural history, noting that the petitioner's initial appeal against the transfer was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on both merits and limitation grounds. The petitioner failed to challenge this appellate order, instead seeking a review based on subsequent policy relaxations. The Court held that because the appellate order dismissing the petitioner's claim became final due to a lack of challenge, the petitioner was precluded from further relief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the failure to challenge the final appellate order rendered the subsequent review proceedings ineffective, regardless of the merits regarding the classification of the composite property.
Questions settled- Is the determination of whether a premises is a shop or a house a condition precedent to the transfer of a composite building under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does a failure to challenge an appellate order that is dismissed on both merits and limitation grounds render that order final?
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs MANAGEMENT OF BATA SHOE Co. (PAKISTAN), LAHORE1976 PLC 487 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs ADIL BEVERAGE COMPANY LTD., SIALKOT1976 PLC 126 · Labour Court · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN AND Another vs KHURSHID HUSSAIN AND Another1976 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses the legality of enhancing a sentence by imposing a fine without affording the accused an opportunity of being heard. The appellants were convicted by a Magistrate, and their convictions were upheld by the Sessions Judge and subsequently reviewed by the High Court in criminal revision. The High Court maintained the conviction and additionally imposed a sentence of fine under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without issuing notice to the appellants. The core legal question was whether the High Court could lawfully enhance the sentence or impose a fine to the prejudice of the accused without a hearing. The Supreme Court held that the imposition of fine without notice violated the mandatory provisions of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the fine imposed on the appellants was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can impose a fine or enhance a sentence under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without issuing notice to the accused?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate an order passed to the prejudice of the accused?
- Can a sentence of fine be sustained when it is imposed in breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ABDUL QUDUS vs TARBELA JOINT VENTURE1976 PLC 283 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1974-12-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYAM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1976 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing his revision petition and maintaining his conviction and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust. The core legal questions involved the establishment of misappropriation regarding entrusted ornaments and the raising of the issue of territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the entrustment of ornaments and the petitioner's refusal to return them or pay their price sufficiently proved misappropriation, and declined to permit the petitioner to raise the objection to territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the apex court since no such objection was taken at any previous stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether refusal to return entrusted ornaments or pay their price constitutes criminal misappropriation under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- ABDUL QADIR BHATTI AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY Of HEALTH, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADI R vs THE STATE1976 PLD Revenue 6 · Board of Revenue · 1972-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Revision petition before the Board of Revenue against an order of the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, upholding the District Land Commissioner's decision to include 33 acres 7 kanals 16 marlas of land in the petitioner's holding for purposes of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115). The petitioner contended that a private partition in 1945 had allocated the disputed land to his brothers, who had since been in possession and paying land revenue, and that a subsequent civil court consent decree dated 3 May 1972 confirmed their ownership. The core legal question was whether land transferred by a consent decree passed after the determining date of 20 December 1971 could be excluded from the declarant's holding, and whether post-determining-date loss of land affected the obligation to surrender surplus area. The Board dismissed the revision, holding that under M.L.R. 115 the determining date for ownership and possession is 20 December 1971; any consent decree or loss of land subsequent to that date cannot override the Regulation's provisions or affect the surplus land to be surrendered. The key principle laid down is that both ownership and possession as they stood on the determining date govern the calculation of a declarant's holding and any surplus liability under M.L.R. 115.