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.
- KHARAIT ILLAHI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition in limine against concurrent findings of lower courts. The petitioner had filed a suit for a declaration that the respondents were not his sons and were illegitimate, despite being born during the subsistence of his marriage to Mst. Kalsum. The trial court and the district judge both dismissed the petitioner's claim, finding the respondents to be his legitimate sons. The High Court declined to interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the dispute involved a pure question of fact without jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court addressed the core question regarding the conclusiveness of legitimacy under the law during a subsisting valid marriage. The Court held that under Section 112 of the Evidence Act 1872, birth during the continuance of a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy unless non-access is proven. The petition was dismissed as no question of law or public importance was involved.
Questions settled- Whether birth during the continuance of a valid marriage serves as conclusive proof of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where no jurisdictional defect is involved?
- Khan ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN vs Mian MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN DAULTANA1975 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, which transferred a defamation complaint filed by Mian Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana against Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan from the Court of the Assistant Commissioner to the High Court's original side. The transfer was granted based on the high political and social status of the parties involved. The appellant challenged this order, questioning whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to transfer the complaint before the issuance of summons to the accused and whether the parties' social status constituted a valid legal ground for such a transfer. However, during the pendency of the appeal, both parties assumed high-ranking government positions, rendering them disinterested in pursuing the litigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to adjudicate the legal questions raised, noting that the complaint had likely been abandoned. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with the Court determining that no useful purpose would be served by deciding the abstract questions of law under the changed circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a criminal complaint be transferred to the High Court before the issuance of summons to the accused?
- Does the high political or social status of the parties constitute a valid ground for transferring a criminal case to the High Court?
- KHALIL AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the evaluation of concurrent findings of fact relating to a murder charge, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, dying declarations, and weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly maintained the conviction based on the available evidence, reiterating that the Supreme Court does not function as a court of criminal appeal for the mere re-appraisal of evidence where no substantial question of law is involved. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a criminal petition when concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the courts below?
- Does a petition for special leave to appeal lie against the dismissal of a criminal appeal where no question of law is involved?
- KHALIL AHMAD alias KHALIL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellants, Khalil and Ashiq, and convicting them under sections 302, 323, and 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Wazir Ali and causing injuries to his son, Maqbul Ahmad, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the injured eye-witness, Maqbul Ahmad, was present at the scene and whether his testimony regarding the daylight assault, corroborated by medical evidence and blood-stained weapon recoveries, was trustworthy enough to sustain a conviction after a trial court acquittal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the trial court's rejection of the eye-witness's presence on the ground that his injuries were self-suffered was fanciful and incorrect. The Court reaffirmed that prompt lodging of the First Information Report, natural presence of witnesses, and corroborative medical and forensic evidence sufficiently establish guilt. The convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court were upheld.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be discarded on the mere conjecture that his injuries were self-suffered?
- Does prompt lodging of the First Information Report eliminate the possibility of fabrication and false implication in a murder case?
- Whether incriminating recoveries of blood-stained weapons supported by serologist reports furnish reliable corroboration to ocular testimony?
- KHALID SHARIF vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises out of a conviction and sentence under section 6(1)(a) and (c) read with section 23 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, for storing adulterated Atta containing less than the prescribed percentage of Gluton. The petitioner's conviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on appeal and subsequently maintained by the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan in revision. The petitioner challenged the findings before the Supreme Court, raising new contentions regarding the legal appointment of the Public Analyst and the potential deterioration of the sample due to the damp climate of Karachi. The Supreme Court held that since these points were never raised before the High Court, they could not be permitted to be raised for the first time before the apex court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no substance in it, and directed the petitioner to surrender to his bail bond to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Questions settled- Can a new contention not raised before the High Court be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does the storage of Atta containing less Gluton than prescribed constitute an offence under the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960?
- KHALID MAHMOOD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 772 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
- KHALID JAHANGIR vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 760 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-17Read full judgment →
- KHALID AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from the judgments of the trial court and the High Court convicting Khalid under Section 302 and Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Muhammad Hussain and Khalil Ahmad under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an altercation during an Eid-i-Milad-un-Nabi procession that resulted in the death of Muhammad Ishaque and simple injuries to others. The core legal questions pertained to whether the convictions could be maintained despite the acquittal of co-accused and rejection of part of the ocular evidence, whether the offence of the principal appellant fell under Section 302 or a lesser provision like Section 325 or Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the mandatory application of Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding compensation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a single savage blow with an iron-shod stick on a vital part of the body (head) fracturing the skull sufficiently establishes murder under clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regardless of the lack of premeditation. The Court affirmed the convictions and sentences while invoking the mandatory provisions of Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to impose a fine as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when death is caused by a single blow resulting from a sudden flare-up without premeditation?
- Does the use of an iron-shod stick on the head of a victim bringing about a fractured skull attract clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are the provisions of Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the imposition of fine and compensation to the heirs of the deceased mandatory upon conviction?
- KHALAS KHAN AND' ANOTHER Convicts vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-07Read full judgment →
- KHALAS KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-07Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 616 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-11Read full judgment →
- KHADIM H USSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs Tun STATE1975 P Cr. L J 616 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-11Read full judgment →
- Kh. MUHAMMAD SAFDAR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 407 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-04Read full judgment →
- KAZI & KAZI Ltd. vs FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI And 3 Others1975 PLC 822 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-08Read full judgment →
- KASHMIR vs BAKHT ZAMIR AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave arising from a civil suit for possession of land instituted by the respondent Bakht Zamir in December 1959, based on a 1959 partition mutation. The trial court decreed the suit, and after partial modification by the Additional District Judge, a Division Bench of the High Court accepted a second appeal and restored the trial court's decree in its entirety. The core legal question was whether the High Court rightly held the respondent to be the exclusive owner of a disputed khasra number despite being a co-owner only to the extent of a half share and ignoring decades of adverse possession and transfers dating back to 1905. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal with costs, holding that the High Court erred in overlooking the respondent's prolonged inaction, the law of limitation, and the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957, thereby improperly upsetting long-standing property transactions. The key principle laid down is that courts must consider long-standing revenue entries, limitation periods, and prior transfers when evaluating co-ownership claims and partition mutations.
Questions settled- Whether a co-owner can challenge long-standing property transfers and secure exclusive possession after prolonged inaction and in disregard of the law of limitation?
- Can a partition mutation subsequently cancelled by the Custodian serve as a valid basis for decreeing a suit for possession?
- Did the High Court err in restoring a trial court decree that upset property transactions spanning several decades without lawful grounds?
- KARAM KHAN AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ISSA AND 12 OTHERS1975 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which set aside an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, passed under section 25 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether a direction given by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar to investigate an apprehended armed clash amounted to taking cognizance of the offence, thereby rendering the authority functus officio regarding a subsequent complaint implicating additional petitioners. The Supreme Court held that directing a preliminary investigation is not equivalent to taking cognizance, and that the Deputy Commissioner has a statutory duty under section 5 of the Ordinance to refer the question of guilt or innocence to a tribunal. The Court laid down that cognizance is taken of an offence rather than specific persons, and an erroneous revisional order suffering from an error patent on the face of the record is amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a direction given to a Tehsildar to investigate an incident amount to taking cognizance of an offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
- Whether cognizance is taken of an offence or against a particular person or set of persons?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution against a revisional order that suffers from an error patent on the face of the record?
- KARAM ELAHI vs THE STATE AND OTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 902 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
- KARAM DIN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's refusal to cancel the bail granted to the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to cancel bail where the complainant alleged fresh grounds, despite prior investigating agencies having found the respondents innocent and placed them in column 2 of the police report. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the complainant had failed to establish sufficient grounds for cancellation, particularly as a previous order refusing to cancel bail for one of the respondents remained unchallenged and the alleged new grounds had already been considered. The Court emphasized that in the absence of compelling new evidence or circumstances, the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to cancel bail would not be interfered with. The petition was dismissed, with a directive for the expeditious conclusion of the pending inquiry proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the finding of innocence by investigating agencies constitute a valid ground for maintaining bail?
- Can a court cancel bail based on grounds that were previously considered and rejected in an earlier, unchallenged order?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court order refusing to cancel bail when no fresh grounds are established?
- KARACHI WAREHOUSE & CARRIERS WORKERS' UNIONS vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1975 PLC 582 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-28Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PETROLEUM WORKERS UNION vs Messrs PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL, KARACHI1975 PLC 666 · Central Labour Commission · 1974-06-29Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PARSI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs KARACHT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1975 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit filed by a Cooperative Housing Society seeking a refund of expenses incurred for street lighting and cleaning services, which the Karachi Municipal Corporation was legally obligated to provide after the society's area was incorporated into municipal limits. The core legal question was determining the accrual of the cause of action for a refund claim under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908: whether the limitation period commenced from the date of each payment or the date the Corporation refused the refund. The Supreme Court held that the right to claim a refund arose as and when each payment was made, as the appellant was essentially seeking reimbursement for expenses paid on behalf of the defendant. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the claim was time-barred for payments made more than six years prior to the institution of the suit. The key principle established is that in suits for the refund of money paid on behalf of a defendant, the cause of action accrues at the time of each payment.
Questions settled- Does the right to sue for a refund of money paid on behalf of a defendant accrue at the time of payment or at the time of refusal to refund?
- Is a suit for the refund of money paid for services that a municipal corporation was legally obligated to provide governed by Article 62 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a party recover expenses incurred for services that a statutory body was legally required to perform if those expenses were paid more than six years before the suit?
- KARACHI M. E. S. EMPLOYEES UNION vs IMDAD ALI1975 PLC 628 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-04-23Read full judgment →
- KARACHI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the transfer of their income-tax assessment case from one Income-tax Officer to another by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner was required under the principles of natural justice to issue a notice to the assessees before transferring their case under subsection (7-A) of section 5 of the Income-tax Act, when the statute itself prescribed no such notice. The Supreme Court held that the transfer order merely enabled the same officer to continue processing the assessment and resulted in no inherent prejudice to the assessees, thereby not attracting the rule of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that an administrative transfer of a tax case to allow ongoing processing by a specific officer does not cause per se prejudice and does not necessitate a prior notice or hearing under principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax is required to issue a notice to assessees before transferring an assessment case under subsection (7-A) of section 5 of the Income-tax Act?
- Does an administrative order transferring an income-tax case from one officer to another result in per se prejudice to the assessee requiring a prior hearing?
- KARACHI HOSIERY MILLS WORKERS' UNION vs SHAFIQUE HOSIERY FACTORY,1975 PLC 885 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- KAMRAN HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1975 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the maintainability of an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The dispute arose when the Kamran Hotel terminated six kitchen employees, leading to a Memorandum of Settlement where the parties agreed to seek a decision from the Labour Court regarding the discharge. The Labour Court ruled the termination illegal, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal subsequently allowed the employer's appeal. The petitioner-Union contended that the Labour Court acted as an arbitrator under the settlement, rendering its decision final and non-appealable. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the Labour Court's adjudication was an exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, rather than private arbitration. Consequently, the decision was subject to the appellate process provided by law. The Court affirmed that when parties agree to submit a dispute to a Labour Court, the resulting adjudication remains a judicial act subject to statutory appeal, unless specifically excluded by law, thereby ensuring the appellate mechanism under the Ordinance remains intact.
Questions settled- Does a decision by a Labour Court, reached pursuant to a Memorandum of Settlement between parties, constitute an arbitration award that is immune from appeal?
- Is an adjudication by a Labour Court regarding the termination of employees subject to appeal under Section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Can a Labour Court's decision be considered an award under Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance if it arises from a settlement agreement?
- KAMAL HUSSAIN vs AZIM GUL AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
- KALA vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-26Read full judgment →
- KAIKOBAD PESTANJEE KAKALIA EMPLOYEES* UNION vs HOSHANG R. KAKALIA,1975 PLC 243 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-21Read full judgment →
- K.A MR AN COMPANY (Regd.), RAWALPINDI And Another vs EMPLOYEES'1975 PLC 142 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- K. M. ASAF vs ABDULLAH MALIK And Another1975 PLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-14Read full judgment →
- JUMMO vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 248 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-30Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD Alias JANAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 673 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
- JAMSHORO vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN, IRRIGATION AND POWER1975PLC 412 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-11-24Read full judgment →
- JAMSHED AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed under Clause 22 of the Letters Patent read with Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking a direction to the Station House Officer for the registration of a criminal case and preliminary investigation by a higher police officer. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that a case regarding the same transaction had already been registered wherein the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the police are obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register a second FIR reflecting a counter-version of the same transaction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the High Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction properly and that the petitioner was not left remediless as he could initiate criminal proceedings through a private complaint. The Court laid down that extraordinary interference is unwarranted where discretionary orders of the High Court do not occasion grave injustice and alternative remedies such as direct complaints remain available.
Questions settled- Whether the police are under an absolute obligation to register a second case reflecting a counter-version of the same transaction under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court dismiss in limine a petition seeking a direction for the registration of a criminal case?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for the registration of a case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the aggrieved party from initiating criminal proceedings through a private complaint?
- JAMIL HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs AZIZULLAH KHAN AND 7 OTHERS1975 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a second appeal by the High Court, which upheld the ejectment of the tenant-petitioners for default in payment of rent. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord's continuous acceptance of a lesser rent amount negated the default or excused the non-payment, and whether the benefit of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Act of 1972 applied. The Supreme Court held that the landlord's acceptance of a lesser amount due to the adjustment of a previous advance did not constitute a waiver or contribute to a wilful default, and that the statutory benefit under the amendment could not be claimed as the tenants had failed to admit their liability and deposit the arrears on the first date of hearing. The Court established that a landlord's acceptance of reduced rent pursuant to a bona fide adjustment does not prejudice their right to seek ejectment for non-payment of the actual stipulated rent.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's continuous acceptance of a lesser rent amount on account of an advance adjustment preclude a claim of default?
- Can a tenant claim the benefit of the second proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 without admitting liability and depositing arrears on the first date of hearing?
- JAMAT ALI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-29Read full judgment →
- JAMAT ALI vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-29Read full judgment →
- JAMALUDDIN vs Messrs SHALIMAR SILK MILLS Ltd., KARACHI , .1975 PLC 239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-14Read full judgment →
- JAMAL WALI MUHAMMAD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADAM Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-13Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 650 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
- JAFFIR vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 582 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
- JAFFIR vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of a common passage in a composite property in Karachi under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether a common passage could be transferred as an independent residential unit to a person who had not filed a settlement form. The Supreme Court held that a common passage does not constitute a separate unit or house capable of independent transfer under the relevant statute, and therefore the purported transfer in favour of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by the settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that common passages of composite properties do not qualify as independent residential units for transfer on evaluation basis.
Questions settled- Does a common passage of a composite property constitute a separate unit for the purpose of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Can a transfer of a property made without filing a settlement form and not constituting an independent unit be set aside?
- JAFFAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 893 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-26Read full judgment →
- IZZAT BAKHSH vs NAZEER AHMAD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing a previous petition for special leave to appeal, which had upheld the High Court's finding that the registration of the sale in a pre-emption suit was not fraudulently concealed, thereby disentitling the petitioner from invoking section 18 of the Limitation Act. The core legal question is whether additional evidence, specifically a certified copy of a sale-deed and a fresh affidavit, can be permitted at the review stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to alter admissions made at trial regarding the date of knowledge of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the additional evidence cannot be allowed as it was within the petitioner's knowledge during the trial and fails to meet the criteria for additional evidence on appeal or review. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot introduce new evidence at the review stage to overcome admissions made during the trial when such evidence was already accessible.
Questions settled- Can additional evidence be produced at the review stage to override an admission made at the trial?
- Does the failure to exercise due diligence in presenting evidence during the trial preclude its admission under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the invocation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 is permissible when fraudulent concealment of a sale-deed is not established?
- ISMAIL KHAN vs Messrs AZIZ BIDI WORKS, HYDERABAD1975 PL C 161 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-25Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL) vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-31Read full judgment →
- ISLAM ALI vs Messrs PAKISTAN CABLES Ltd.1975 PLC 835 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-23Read full judgment →
- ISHRAT HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs SUBEDAR alias SUBA1975 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order remanding an ejectment case to the Rent Controller. The dispute involved an evacuee shop, where the transferee-landlord sought ejectment of the tenant for default in rent payment and other grounds, after serving notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of the Section 30 notice, the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, and the Rent Controller's power to order deposit of rent arrears under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's remand order. It held that a provisional transfer order entitled the transferee to claim rent and seek ejectment, and the validity of the Section 30 notice was not affected by claims of excessive rent or pending settlement appeals. The Court restored the Rent Controller's order, modifying it to limit the demand for rent arrears to three years from the ejectment application date.
Questions settled- Is a provisional transfer order sufficient to establish a landlord-tenant relationship and entitle the transferee to claim rent and seek ejectment?
- Does a demand for excessive rent or the pendency of settlement appeals affect the validity of a statutory notice served under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- What is the maximum period for which a Rent Controller can order the deposit of rent arrears under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a High Court remand a case for fresh decision on points it has already decided against the tenant?
- IRSHAD-UL-HAQ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AGRICULTURE1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 138 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-23Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs THIS STATEs1975 P Cr. L J 327 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-08Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATEs1975 P Cr. L J 327 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-08Read full judgment →
- INTERNATIONAL PRESS THROUGH ITS MANAGER vs PRESIDING OFFICER, JUNIOR1975 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the reinstatement of an employee by the Junior Labour Court. The petitioner, an employer, terminated the respondent's services, claiming redundancy due to technological conversion of their printing press and asserting that the establishment employed fewer than twenty workers, thus excluding the respondent from invoking the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court found the establishment employed over twenty workers and that the termination was motivated by the respondent's trade union activities. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised a new legal contention: that the respondent failed to serve a grievance notice as mandated by Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which constitutes a condition precedent to invoking the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the absence of such notice bars the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court, while ordering the continued employment of the respondent and payment of costs by the petitioner.
Questions settled- Is the service of a grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of a Junior Labour Court?
- Does the failure to provide a grievance notice to an employer bar an employee from seeking redress under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISEMENT Ltd., KARACHI , „ vs MOHAMMAD YOUSUF And Another ,1975 PLC 611 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-04-25Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment deals with two civil appeals arising from declaratory suits filed by the plaintiffs challenging various mutations relating to the sale and mortgage of land executed through a general power of attorney. The core legal questions involved the extent of authority conferred by the general power of attorney regarding the disposition of property, whether the presumption of correctness attached to revenue entries in jamabandis was displaced, and issues regarding the maintainability of the appeal and the doctrine of merger of the equity of redemption. The Supreme Court held that the power of attorney merely authorized the attorneys to sign and authenticate instruments rather than alienate property, that the presumption of correctness of the jamabandi entries stood rebutted on the facts, and that the failure of one appellant to appeal did not automatically bar the other's appeal as mortgagee. The Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court.
Questions settled- Does a general power of attorney authorizing an agent to sign and authenticate documents necessarily include the power to alienate or dispose of the principal's property?
- Can the presumption of correctness attaching to entries in the jamabandi be displaced by the evidence on record in a declaratory suit?
- Does the doctrine of merger of the equity of redemption apply automatically when legal and equitable estates are held by different persons under distinct transactions?
- INAYAT AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 392, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of murdering one person and robbing another during an incident on 27th November 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given their absence from the first information report and their belated implication based on suspicion after a significant delay. The Lahore High Court held that the lack of initial naming in the first information report, the subsequent delay in implication, and questions surrounding the test identification parade and recovery of common articles brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in implication coupled with debatable identification evidence warrants further inquiry favoring the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of the accused's name in the first information report makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a belated implication of accused persons on suspicion after a considerable delay entitle them to post-arrest bail?
- Whether questionable test identification parade and recoveries of common articles justify the release of accused persons on bail pending trial?
- INAMULLAH HASHMI vs IRFAN QURESHI1975 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of an application for ejectment filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal need. The trial court allowed the ejectment application, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Upon a second appeal, the High Court restored the trial court's order for ejectment, concurring with the finding of bona fide personal use. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether findings of fact regarding bona fide personal need and the validity of the landlord's title could be challenged in the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal need cannot be reopened, and that the tenant was precluded from challenging the sale of the property after explicitly acknowledging the change of ownership and agreeing to pay rent to the new landlord through counsel. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on personal need are final, and a tenant who acknowledges a new landlord and undertakes to pay rent cannot subsequently contest the validity of the landlord's title in ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal need can be challenged in a petition before the Supreme Court?
- Is a tenant permitted to challenge the sale and ownership of a house after acknowledging the change of ownership and agreeing to pay rent to the new landlord?
- Does a petition for ejectment raise a question of law when the contentions are solely based on concluded questions of fact?
- IMTIAZ ULLAH vs RAM AHMAD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents who were charged under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether bail granted by the High Court should be set aside in light of the subsequent recovery of the petitioner's son, who allegedly corroborated the abduction and forced labour. The Supreme Court held that the grounds upon which the High Court granted bail continued to hold good despite the appearance of the complainant's son, and that the grant of bail does not reflect on the innocence or guilt of the accused, which must be determined on the merits of the prosecution evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the interlocutory grant of bail does not prejudice the ultimate trial.
Questions settled- Whether the subsequent recovery of an abducted person warrants the cancellation of bail previously granted to the accused?
- Does the grant of bail by a superior court reflect upon the innocence or guilt of the accused?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion of the High Court in granting bail?
- IMDAD HUSSAIN vs NOOR HASSAN AND 2 OTEHRS1975 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing an application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought the production of a woman, Mst. Kamal Khatoon, alleging she was wrongfully confined. The High Court dismissed the petition on two grounds: first, that the petitioner lacked standing as he was neither a relative nor a friend of the alleged detenu; and second, that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case involving the alleged abduction of the same woman, making it inappropriate for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 491. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner failed to challenge the standing objection before the High Court and that the petition lacked bona fides given the petitioner's status as an accused in a related criminal proceeding. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to entertain the petition, emphasizing that such extraordinary remedies should not be invoked by parties with conflicting interests in related criminal trials.
Questions settled- Can a person who is an accused in a criminal case regarding the abduction of an alleged detenu maintain a habeas corpus petition for her production?
- Is a High Court's refusal to exercise discretion under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justified when the petitioner fails to establish standing?
- Should a High Court entertain a habeas corpus petition when the underlying matter is already subject to trial in an ordinary criminal court?
- IMDAD ALI vs SHAHABUDDIN AND 3 OTHERS-Opponents1975 P Cr. L J 1145 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-07Read full judgment →
- IMAMUDDIN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 948 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-13Read full judgment →
- IMAMALI AND 3 OTHERS vs ME STATE1975 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-07Read full judgment →
- ILYAS And 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1040 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-18Read full judgment →
- I. C. P. EMPLOYEES FRONT vs INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1975 PLC 584 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
- HYDER AND 14 Other vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT And1975 PLC 188 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD And 3 Other vs MASOOD SETHI1975 PLC 676 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN MASIH vs Messrs SOCIBTA ANONIMA ELECTRIFICAZIONE1975 PLC 138 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-12-19Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN KHAN vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, Farhad. The core legal question is whether the conviction can be sustained based on a dying declaration and circumstantial evidence, particularly when the trial court had previously acquitted the appellant of a related murder charge and the defense questioned the procedural integrity of the dying declaration's recording. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the dying declaration was reliable, as it was free from external prompting and contained intrinsic indicators of truthfulness, such as its brevity and omission of details regarding a separate incident. The Court ruled that when a dying declaration is corroborated by circumstantial evidence—such as the victim being found mortally wounded in a location where he was forcibly taken by the accused—it is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The principle laid down is that a dying declaration, even if recorded without independent witnesses, remains admissible and credible if the circumstances eliminate the possibility of fabrication and the defense fails to provide a motive for false implication.
Questions settled- Is a dying declaration admissible and reliable if recorded by an investigating officer without independent witnesses present?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on a dying declaration when corroborated by circumstantial evidence?
- Does the acquittal of an accused on one charge necessarily invalidate evidence used to support a conviction on a separate charge in the same trial?
- HILAL TRADING Co., KARACHI vs RASOOL BUX AND ANOTHER1975 PLC 709 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-24Read full judgment →
- HIDAYAT ULLAH vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT1975 PLC [C.S.T,] 91 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-31Read full judgment →
- HELUM vs BARKAT ALI1975 PLC 8 · Labour Court · 1973-12-28Read full judgment →
- HAZOOR BAKHSH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 233 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
- HAZOOR BAKHSH Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 233 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
- HASSAN GUL vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 437 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two criminal revision applications challenging the legality of a joint trial conducted by the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Harbour. The applicant was convicted under section 43(3) of the Abkari Act and section 13(D) of the Arms Act. The core legal question was whether a trial court acts illegally by recording prosecution witness statements in only one case and subsequently using those same statements as evidence in a separate case under a different statute. The High Court held that the procedure adopted by the trial court was patently illegal, as it violated established rules of evidence by failing to record separate evidence for distinct cases. The court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the matters for fresh trials. The key principle laid down is that a trial court must apply its mind independently to the facts and circumstances of each case, and recording evidence in one case while merely copying or transposing it into another case constitutes a fundamental procedural illegality that vitiates the trial.
Questions settled- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to record witness statements in one case and use those same statements as evidence in a separate case under a different statute?
- Does the practice of copying depositions from one case file into another violate the provisions of the Evidence Act?
- What is the consequence of a trial court failing to apply its mind independently to the facts and circumstances of each case?
- HASNUZZAMAN vs Messrs INDUS JUTE MILLS Ltd., DHABEJI Application No. 1071975 PLC 393 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-09Read full judgment →
- HASHMAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs FAIZAN ALI AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from a long-standing dispute over agricultural land allotments under rehabilitation laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were bound by a compromise entered into by their counsel before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner during remand proceedings, despite prior claims that the original allotment had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were indeed bound by the compromise as recorded by the counsel and that there was no denial of the factum of compromise in the revision petitions filed before the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The key principle laid down is that where a party's counsel enters into a lawful compromise during remand proceedings and the compromise is acted upon without an initial denial of authority in the revision stage, the resulting order cannot be subsequently challenged or varied at the instance of the aggrieved party.
Questions settled- Whether a party is bound by a compromise entered into by their counsel during remand proceedings before a rehabilitation authority?
- Can an order based on a compromise be varied at the instance of a party who failed to deny the factum of compromise in revision petitions?
- HAROON RASHID vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-29Read full judgment →
- HAROON RASHID vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-29Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 209 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
- HAMZA ALLY vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-07Read full judgment →
- HAMID ULLAH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-20Read full judgment →
- HAMAS ALI vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, SIND And OTHER1975 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition. The dispute concerned whether specific land in Badah Town constituted "evacuee property" under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act XII of 1957. The core legal questions were whether the issuance of a permanent transfer deed by the Settlement Department could convert non-evacuee property into evacuee property, whether such issuance ousted the Custodian's jurisdiction to determine the property's nature, and whether the High Court could re-examine the Custodian's findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a permanent transfer deed does not transform non-evacuee property into evacuee property, nor does it oust the Custodian's jurisdiction to determine the property's status. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that findings of fact by the Custodian, when supported by evidence such as oral testimony and documentary records, are not subject to re-evaluation by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Custodian's determination that the property was not evacuee.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a permanent transfer deed in respect of property convert it into evacuee property if it was not previously so?
- Does the issuance of a permanent transfer deed oust the jurisdiction of the Custodian of Evacuee Property to determine the nature of the property?
- Can a High Court in a constitutional petition re-evaluate findings of fact made by the Custodian of Evacuee Property when such findings are supported by evidence?
- HAKIMULLAH KHAN vs SECRETARY, PAKISTAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, KARACHI1975 PLC 99 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-11Read full judgment →
- HAKIM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the petitioners' sentences were enhanced from transportation for life to death by the High Court. The core legal questions involved whether an accused person represented by State-appointed counsel is denied a fair trial if the counsel does not interview them in jail or file a vakalatnama, and whether an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court against the enhancement of sentence by the High Court under the relevant constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not maintainable as an appeal of right, finding that State-appointed counsel are not required to file a vakalatnama or mandatorily interview the accused in jail unless necessary, and that an appeal as of right does not lie in cases of sentence enhancement unless specific statutory criteria (such as setting aside an acquittal) are met. The court established that a prisoner adequately represented by competent counsel at State expense cannot claim constitutional prejudice merely because counsel relied on the record without a jail interview, and reaffirmed the restrictive interpretation of appeals as of right from High Court sentencing decisions.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person has a right to an appeal as of right when the High Court enhances a sentence from transportation for life to death?
- Is a counsel engaged at State expense legally required to obtain a vakalatnama and interview the accused in jail?
- Does the Supreme Court grant special leave to appeal solely on a question of sentence when the sentence is legal?
- Haji SULTAN YOUSAF vs Haji SHER AFZAL KHAN AND 4 OTHERS1975 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the redemption of mortgaged land. The core legal question was whether a mortgage agreement, which extended a redemption period to 1987, precluded the subsequent redemption of the land by a new purchaser, and whether the lower courts erred in allowing such redemption. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mortgage arrangement imposed an absolute prohibition on redemption before the agreed date. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's reliance on the local Riwaj-e-Aam, which prohibits land mortgages exceeding four years. Since the subject mortgage exceeded twenty years, it was legally invalid under local custom. Consequently, the Court found no error in the lower courts' exercise of jurisdiction in permitting the redemption. The petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that contractual terms regarding mortgage duration are subject to, and cannot override, established local customary laws (Riwaj-e-Aam) governing land tenure and redemption rights.
Questions settled- Does a private agreement extending a mortgage period override local customary law (Riwaj-e-Aam) regarding maximum mortgage duration?
- Can a mortgage exceeding the duration permitted by local custom be enforced to prevent redemption?
- Is a High Court order dismissing a writ petition in limine sustainable if the underlying decision is based on valid local custom?
- Haji SULEMAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 637 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-29Read full judgment →
- Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs Syed MUHAMMAD NAQVI AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the Settlement Commissioner's order rejecting the petitioners' N. C. H. Forms for transfer of an evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question concerned the validity of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dismissing the forms for default of appearance and the effect of an alleged lack of intimation of said order. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order was legally correct and that the failure to send intimation of the order did not impact its validity, particularly since third-party rights had accrued to the auction-purchaser in the meantime due to the petitioners' default. Consequently, the Court laid down that a legally valid order of dismissal for default is not vitiated by a failure to formally intimate the defaulting party, and a bona fide auction-purchaser's vested property rights cannot be disturbed to accommodate a negligent party. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does the failure to send intimation of an order dismissing a transfer application for default affect the legal validity of that order?
- Can property rights acquired by a bona fide auction-purchaser be disturbed due to subsequent indulgence shown to a defaulting applicant?
- Whether an appellate authority can set aside a legally correct order of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner merely on the ground of lack of formal intimation of the order to the applicant?
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a miscellaneous application for the restoration of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 319 of 1973, which had been dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the learned counsel and the learned Advocate-on-Record. The core legal question is whether sufficient cause has been shown for the restoration of a dismissed leave petition where the Advocate-on-Record fell ill but no explanation was provided for the absence of the engaged counsel or office staff, and where the matter was called only after being passed over and notice was sent. The Supreme Court held that no justification exists for restoration, noting that the applicant's counsel and Advocate-on-Record failed to exercise due diligence or have the proceedings watched. The key principle laid down is that negligence and lack of diligence in attending court proceedings or ensuring representation do not warrant the indulgence of restoring a petition dismissed in default.
Questions settled- Whether a petition dismissed for default can be restored when the Advocate-on-Record falls ill but no explanation is provided for the absence of the engaged counsel?
- Does failure to have court proceedings watched constitute sufficient ground for the restoration of a dismissed leave petition?
- Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 638 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-29Read full judgment →
- Haji HASHMATULLAH AND OTHERS vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the order of the Commissioner, Karachi, acting as the Controlling Authority under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. The Commissioner had quashed a resolution of the Karachi Municipal Corporation that proposed leasing a plot of land to the appellants, on the grounds that the transaction was against public interest. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner’s determination of public interest was reviewable in writ jurisdiction and whether the appellants possessed a vested right to the property. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner acted within his statutory jurisdiction under Section 111 of the Ordinance. The Court affirmed that it is not the function of the High Court in writ proceedings to substitute its own opinion for that of the administrative authority regarding public interest, provided the decision was not mala fide or patently erroneous. Furthermore, the Court established that a prospective lessee acquires no vested right in municipal property until the lease is formally confirmed by the competent authority. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Controlling Authority's determination of 'public interest' under Section 111 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 is subject to judicial review?
- Does a prospective lessee of municipal property acquire a vested right before the lease is confirmed by the relevant authority?
- Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction substitute its own opinion for that of the Controlling Authority regarding what constitutes public interest?
- Haji GHULAM SARWAR vs DAYA RAM1975 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, which refused to re-admit an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns the computation of the limitation period for filing an application to restore an appeal dismissed in default, and whether a counsel's engagement in the Senate constitutes a privilege extending to professional work to excuse non-appearance, as well as whether limitation runs from the date of knowledge or the date of dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the privilege of a Senator cannot be extended to professional work, that no proper intimation of unavailability was given, and that limitation under Article 168 of the Limitation Act begins to run from the date of dismissal, not from the date of knowledge. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that statutory limitation periods and rules of procedure must be strictly adhered to.
Questions settled- Does a counsel's pre-occupation or participation in a session of the Senate extend as a privilege to professional court work?
- Does the limitation period for applying to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution run from the date of the dismissal or the date of knowledge?
- Can time under Article 168 of the Limitation Act be computed from the date the petitioner came to know about the dismissal?
- HAJI AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-20Read full judgment →
- HADE RAZA KHAN vs DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, PUNJAB And Others Of 1974,1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 97 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-09Read full judgment →
- HAJI AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing rape on his stepdaughter, which was upheld by both the Sessions Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal question addressed by the courts was whether the absence of external marks of injury or violence on the person of the prosecutrix falsifies the charge of rape. The Supreme Court held that the lack of external violence does not negate the occurrence of rape, particularly where medical evidence confirms internal trauma and the presence of semen, and the victim was overpowered and rendered helpless through threats. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a young prosecutrix, when corroborated by medical findings such as vaginal tears and chemical examiner reports confirming semen stains, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape even in the absence of bodily injuries.
Questions settled- Does the absence of external marks of injury or violence on the person of the prosecutrix falsify a charge of rape?
- Is the testimony of a prosecutrix sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape when supported by medical evidence of internal trauma and semen stains?
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs PAKISTAN Through Ministry Of Defence, Rawalpindi1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 135 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-03-22Read full judgment →
- HABIB TEXTILE MILLS LABOUR UNION vs Messrs ARAG INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 742 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-27Read full judgment →
- GULZAR HUSSAIN DAR vs WALI MUHAMMAD MAMDANI1975 PLC 867 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-23Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-25Read full judgment →
- GULZAMAN vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-11Read full judgment →