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.
- GULZADA AND OTHERS vs RAZA KHAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners purchased a house in Peshawar, which was subsequently subjected to a pre-emption suit by the respondent, a co-sharer. The petitioners resisted the suit claiming statutory exemption under section 5 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, asserting they purchased it for personal residence and owned no other house or vacant site in the village. The trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit against the petitioners, with the point not being pressed in the first appeal based on an earlier Peshawar High Court Full Bench ruling. Following a subsequent authoritative judgment by the Supreme Court altering the legal landscape, the High Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw their concession and re-argue the matter. Upon review of the evidence, the High Court concurred that the petitioners owned considerable landed property and multiple houses in the village, thus disqualifying them from claiming the exemption under the 1950 Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the lower courts and the High Court correctly decided the matter.
Questions settled- Whether a vendee who owns other residential property in the village can claim exemption from pre-emption under section 5 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act 1950?
- Can an appellate court permit a party to withdraw from a concession made before a lower appellate court in light of a subsequent authoritative judicial pronouncement?
- Does a fractional share in a house preclude a finding that the vendee owns a house or vacant site exceeding the statutory limit under the Pre-emption Act?
- GULZA MAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-11Read full judgment →
- GULTEX WORKERS UNION (Regd.) vs Messrs GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN & SONS, MULTAN1975 PLC 530 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-25Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Another1975 PLC 407 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1972-12-08Read full judgment →
- GOLDEN INDUSTRIES Ltd , KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 845 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAMULLAH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1100 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAMALI vs NOOR MOHAMMAD1975 PLC 32 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1975 PLC 383 · Industrial Court · 1972-12-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE,1975 PLC 392 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1356 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 295 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 31 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 687 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns eight petitions for leave to appeal against the enhancement of sentences by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioners, public servants and a private drug store owner, had pleaded guilty to submitting bogus medical reimbursement claims, for which the trial court initially imposed lenient sentences of imprisonment until the rising of the court. Upon the District Magistrate's motion, the High Court enhanced these sentences to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the sentences were excessive given the protracted trial duration and whether a Single Judge of the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to enhance sentences. The Supreme Court held that the sentences were not excessive, noting the alarming prevalence of such corruption and the resulting loss to the public exchequer. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that a Single Judge lacked the authority to enhance sentences, finding no statutory rule or provision prohibiting such an order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that the High Court's discretion in sentencing matters, when exercised reasonably, is generally not subject to interference.
Questions settled- Can a Single Judge of the High Court enhance a sentence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a sentence of imprisonment until the rising of the court appropriate for corruption offenses involving public funds?
- Does the length of a trial and the threat of job loss justify a lenient sentence for corruption-related offenses?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the High Court's order acquitting the respondent of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of evidence, particularly regarding the testimony of interested, related witnesses and the consistency of ocular evidence with medical findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified the need for corroboration of the testimony provided by the interested prosecution witnesses, especially given the lack of independent corroboration and the absence of a proven motive. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies between the prosecution’s version of the incident and the medical evidence, which indicated the shots were fired from behind, contradicting the witnesses' claims. The Court affirmed the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the decision is perverse or unreasonable. Finding the High Court’s reasoning sound and consistent with established principles of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby maintaining the acquittal of the respondent.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of interested witnesses in a murder case require independent corroboration?
- Under what circumstances should the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
- Is a conviction sustainable when ocular evidence is contradicted by medical evidence regarding the direction of the fatal shot?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Messrs JUBILEE FLOUR MILLS, KARACHI1975 PLC 241 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 11 Others1975 P Cr. L J 604 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 11 OTHERS-Opponents1975 P Cr. L J 604 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KHAN And 5 Other vs Messrs PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 697 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HYDER vs KARIM COTTON MILLS Ltd., KOTRI1975 PLC 395 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN ZAIR vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the settlement authorities. The petitioner had sought the transfer of an Ihata in Dera Ghazi Khan, but his LH form was rejected on the ground that he was a local in possession of his own house, and no appeal was initially filed against that rejection. Subsequently, the property was transferred to a claimant displaced person under the Earmarking Scheme. The petitioner's subsequent challenges through appeals, a revision, and a constitutional writ petition were all dismissed by the lower forums and the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings regarding the nature of the property as a house and its lawful transfer under the Earmarking Scheme warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were well-founded and that the petitioner failed to substantiate any claim of prior transfer by evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of settlement authorities regarding the nature of a property as a house can be interfered with without appropriate grounds?
- Does a local person whose LH form has been rejected have a preferential right over a claimant displaced person under the Earmarking Scheme?
- Is an unproven claim of property transfer sufficient to overturn concurrent adverse orders by settlement authorities?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 307 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1975 P Cr. L J 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs NAWAZ ALI AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN Alias HASNA vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 218 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN alias HASNA Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 218 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 4 OTHERS1975 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit concerning the ownership of land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. During the subsequent appeal, the parties entered into a compromise agreeing to abide by a statement made on the Holy Qur'an by a third party, Jewan. The Additional District Judge, after granting permission for the compromise regarding minor defendants, recorded Jewan's statement on special oath, which affirmed the sale of the land by the petitioner. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that Jewan had previously issued a contradictory private arbitration award that the court failed to consider. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily agreed to the special oath procedure and failed to raise the existence of the prior award during the appellate proceedings. The Court affirmed the decision, ruling that parties are bound by their agreement to a special oath when they have explicitly consented to be so bound, and a court is not obligated to consider evidence not presented or relied upon by the parties during the adjudication of such a compromise.
Questions settled- Is a party bound by a statement made on special oath if they explicitly agreed to be bound by it during appellate proceedings?
- Can a party challenge a court's decision based on a special oath by relying on a prior private award that was not presented or pressed during the hearing?
- Does a court have the discretion to ignore a prior private award when the parties have specifically requested the court to decide the appeal based on a statement made on special oath?
- GHULAM HAIDER (REPRESENTED BY 9 HEIRS) vs Mst. RAJ BHARI AND 4 OTHERS1975 SCMR 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court declaring a second appeal as abated due to the death of the petitioner, Ghulam Haider, during its pendency. The core legal questions involve whether the procedural amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance No. XII of 1972 apply retrospectively to cure abatement in pending matters, and whether a litigant possesses a vested right in procedural law. The Supreme Court held that procedural law amendments operate retrospectively and no litigant has a vested right in procedure, rendering the High Court's refusal based on accrued rights of respondents erroneous. Furthermore, the refusal to permit the deposit of the decretal amount after the alleged abatement was questioned. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these important questions of law, while maintaining the status quo as to possession and permitting respondents to withdraw deposited money upon furnishing security.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment to procedural law introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance No. XII of 1972 applies retrospectively to pending appeals?
- Does a litigant have a vested right in procedural law so as to prevent the retrospective application of procedural amendments?
- Whether the High Court was justified in declaring a second appeal abated after the lapse of ninety days from the death of the appellant before the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance?
- Is a party entitled to deposit the decretal amount determined by the lower appellate court notwithstanding the abatement of an appeal?
- GHULAM GILLANI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED CARRIAGE Co., MULTAN1975 PLC15 · Labour Court · 1973-12-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM GHOUS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 466 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID AND 2 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1975 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition challenging consolidation proceedings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960. The petitioners alleged that the consolidation resulted in an unfair reduction of their landholdings and that the scheme was illegal for lacking proper soil classification or evaluation, contrary to alleged instructions. The Supreme Court examined whether the consolidation scheme, formulated with the consensus of village landowners and the Mushawarti Committee, was legally valid despite the absence of soil classification. The Court held that the petitioners' factual claims regarding land reduction were incorrect and had not been raised before the High Court. Furthermore, the Court determined that the consolidation scheme was valid because it was based on the agreement and consent of all landowners. The Court established the principle that while rules may contemplate soil classification, neither the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960 nor the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1960 precludes parties from arriving at a mutually beneficial, consensual arrangement. Administrative instructions cannot override the statutory provisions of the Ordinance and Rules.
Questions settled- Can a consolidation of holdings scheme be validly framed based on the mutual agreement of landowners without formal soil classification?
- Do administrative instructions regarding land consolidation override the provisions of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960?
- Is a consolidation officer legally required to classify soil if all landowners have consented to a different method of distribution?
- GHULAM ALI JINNA H vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 583 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI JINNA H vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 583 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-14Read full judgment →
- GHAUS BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- GHAREEB SHAH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-30Read full judgment →
- GHANI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1112 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-31Read full judgment →
- GH U LAM NABI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 295 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-27Read full judgment →
- GENERAL SECRETARY, EMPLOYEES UNION vs UNITED DISTRIBUTORS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 884 · Labour Court · 1975-10-20Read full judgment →
- G. T. S. LABOUR UNION (Regd.) vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE1975 PLC 342 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
- G UL M UHAMMAD Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-25Read full judgment →
- FISHERMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 153 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-14Read full judgment →
- FIRDOUS TEXTILE MILLS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1975 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court at Karachi, which dismissed writ petitions concerning the assessment of central excise duty on mixed yarn containing cotton and man-made fibers. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of short-levied excise duty constituted a past and closed transaction, and whether the retrospective explanation added to the Finance Act regarding man-made yarn could be legally applied. The Supreme Court held that the recovery of short-levied duty within the statutory three-year period under the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944, did not constitute a past and closed transaction, and that the legislative amendment enacted via the Finance Act operated validly with retrospective effect as a declaratory provision. The Court laid down the principle that statutory amendments by primary legislation explicitly given retrospective effect can govern prior assessments, and short-levied duties are recoverable within the prescribed limitation period.
Questions settled- Whether the payment of central excise duty subsequently found to be short-levied constitutes a past and closed transaction?
- Can a statutory amendment introduced by the Finance Act operate retrospectively to assess mixed yarn?
- Does the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944 empower the government to recover short-levied duty within a period of three years?
- FIDA HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Aisha. The petitioner contended that the trial court failed to consider various evidentiary discrepancies, specifically the failure to recover a blood-stained sheet, the failure to seize the cot where the incident occurred, inconsistencies regarding the location where the First Information Report was recorded, and conflicting testimony regarding the date of a marriage. The Supreme Court addressed whether these omissions and discrepancies were sufficient to discredit the ocular evidence provided by the deceased's brother and an independent witness. The Court held that the petition lacked substance. It reasoned that the alleged omissions by the investigating officer and minor discrepancies in collateral facts did not undermine the credibility of the eyewitnesses, who provided valid reasons for their presence at the scene. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that such minor discrepancies do not warrant interference with the conviction based on reliable ocular testimony.
Questions settled- Do minor omissions by an investigating officer regarding the recovery of evidence necessarily invalidate ocular testimony?
- Does a discrepancy regarding the location of the recording of a First Information Report automatically discredit eyewitness accounts?
- Can a conviction be sustained despite minor discrepancies in collateral facts such as the date of a marriage?
- FEROZ vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Nooran Shah, committed within the precincts of a court. The petitioner admitted the act, which was motivated by a series of vendetta killings involving the deceased, who had allegedly murdered the petitioner’s brother, father, and two witnesses. While counsel argued that these mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction in sentence, the Supreme Court examined whether it should interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower courts. The Court held that the death sentence was legally imposed and, while acknowledging the tragic background, declined to grant leave to appeal. The Court affirmed the principle that it will not normally interfere to reduce a sentence that is otherwise legal and within the discretion of the trial and appellate courts. It observed that matters of clemency based on the peculiar circumstances of a case are more appropriately addressed by the Executive in the exercise of its prerogative of mercy rather than through judicial intervention.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a legal sentence solely because a lesser sentence might have been appropriate?
- Is the existence of a vendetta background sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against a death sentence?
- Which branch of government is appropriate for addressing clemency based on the peculiar circumstances of a criminal case?
- FEROZ SHAH (REPRESENTED BY 9 OTHERS) vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession of agricultural land in Tehsil Swabi, District Mardan. The respondents claimed ownership through successive sales originating from the original owner, whereas the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, who was in possession of the land, contested the suit by pleading title acquired through adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, rejecting the plea of adverse possession as it had not matured into ownership. On appeal, the first appellate court affirmed the findings on ownership and adverse possession while modifying the decree regarding compensation for improvements. In second appeal, the High Court re-examined the successive jamabandi entries and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that adverse possession was not established. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that any alleged conflicting entries in the revenue record did not advance the petitioners' case, as the onus of proving title by adverse possession rested heavily on the party asserting it.
Questions settled- On whom does the onus of proof lie when establishing title by adverse possession?
- Whether conflicting entries in the revenue record are sufficient to establish a claim of adverse possession by a party in possession?
- FAZIL AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 123 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-22Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, who refused to review a previous order allowing a writ petition. The petitioner challenged the refusal, contending that the High Court failed to consider certain documents favorable to his case and misread other evidence. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether a petitioner can introduce new arguments or claims of misreading evidence in a review petition that were not properly raised or substantiated before the original forum. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the overlooked documents were presented to the learned Single Judge, and because the specific instances of alleged misreading were already considered and rejected by the High Court with supporting factual reasoning, there was no ground for interference. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate or review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to raise points not previously agitated before the lower court, nor can it be used to re-litigate findings of fact that were adequately addressed by the original judge.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise new arguments in a review petition that were not presented before the original court?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere when a High Court has already considered and rejected claims of misreading evidence with supporting reasons?
- Does the failure to raise a point before the original forum preclude a party from raising it in a subsequent petition for leave to appeal?
- FAZAL KARIM AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM JILANI AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals regarding the limitation period for filing an appeal in the High Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed after the expiry of the limitation period, but during the High Court's summer vacation, was time-barred, given a notification stating the 'Office' would remain open to receive petitions during the vacation. The appellants argued that the notification rendered the Court effectively open, thereby negating the extension of time under Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was not time-barred. The Court reasoned that the statutory right conferred by Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908, which allows for the filing of an appeal on the day the Court reopens if the limitation period expires while the Court is closed, cannot be overridden by an administrative notification. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between the 'Office' remaining open for optional filings and the 'Court' being closed for judicial business, affirming that the notification did not equate to the Court being open for the purposes of limitation.
Questions settled- Does an administrative notification allowing the 'Office' to receive petitions during a court vacation override the statutory right to extend limitation under Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is the 'Office' of a court synonymous with the 'Court' for the purposes of computing limitation periods when the Court is closed for vacation?
- Can an optional facility to file petitions during a court vacation be construed to take away the statutory right to file an appeal upon the reopening of the Court?
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs RAWALPINDI ENGINEERING COMPANY Ltd.,1975 PLC 20 · Punjab Labour Court · 1973-12-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs Mst. MUSHARRAF SULTANA1975 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed against the Court's earlier judgment dated 7 November 1973, which had dismissed Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1969. The core legal questions involve whether the previous judgment failed to provide necessary directions to the first appellate court and whether it could be misconstrued as a final decree for possession in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel and Advocate-on-Record. Furthermore, on merits, the Court found no substance in the review grounds, clarifying that the judgment merely upheld the High Court's remand order concerning pre-emptibility under Act XII of 1957 and the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, without deciding the pre-emption suit on its merits. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be sustained on unfounded apprehensions when the original judgment does not interfere with a pending remand order or decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner and counsel fail to appear after due notice?
- Does a judgment upholding a remand order on the question of pre-emptibility amount to a final adjudication on the merits of the suit?
- Can a judgment of the Supreme Court be reviewed on the apprehension that it might be misconstrued by the lower court?
- FAZAL ELAHI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI Convict vs Tim STATE1975 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-05Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs Malik QADIR BAKHSH1975 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petition was barred by 41 days after accounting for the period spent obtaining a certified copy of the order. The petitioners sought exemption for the time between when the copy was ready for delivery and when they actually collected it, arguing they were not informed of the ready date. The core legal question before the Court was whether the interval between the date a certified copy is ready for delivery and the date it is received by the applicant constitutes 'time requisite' under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the overall delay could be condoned under Section 5. The Supreme Court held that 'time requisite' means only the interval between applying for the copy and when it is ready. Time lost after the copy is ready due to applicant's lack of due diligence cannot be excluded, nor was any valid explanation offered under Section 5. The petition was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does the time between the date a certified copy is ready for delivery and the date the applicant takes delivery count as 'time requisite' under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1908?
- What constitutes due diligence on the part of a litigant when applying for and obtaining certified copies of court orders?
- Can delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 without a satisfactory day-to-day explanation?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 554 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-14Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 301 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-04Read full judgment →
- FATEH MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Fateh Muhammad and Nawaz challenging an order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-2-1975, which cancelled the bail previously granted to them by the lower courts. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's exercise of discretion in cancelling bail where the petitioners were specifically charged in the F.I.R. with being armed with guns and causing injuries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court did not act in an illegal or improper manner in exercising its discretion under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and accordingly dismissed the petition while observing that the petitioners could renew their bail application before the concerned court if the trial is unduly delayed. The key principle laid down is that interference with the High Court's discretionary cancellation of bail is unwarranted absent illegality or impropriety, subject to remedies for delayed trials.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cancelling bail?
- Are petitioners entitled to renew their application for bail before the trial court if the trial is unduly delayed?
- FATEH KHAN KHAJJAK vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN SERVICES AND GENERAL1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 40 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS Convicts vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 301 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-01Read full judgment →
- FATEH ALI vs PIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from pre-emption proceedings initiated by the petitioner regarding a land sale. To defeat the petitioner's pre-emption suit, the respondent purchaser had acquired a small land parcel via exchange prior to the filing of the pre-emption suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the exchange transaction violated Martial Law Regulation No. 64. On second appeal, the High Court reversed this finding and, rather than remanding the case, exercised its power under Order XLI Rule 24 read with Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to determine the remaining issues itself, ultimately dismissing the suit. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the High Court was under no obligation to remand the matter and was fully competent to determine the unconsidered issues directly. It further affirmed that the exchange transaction was not barred by paragraph 25(4) of Martial Law Regulation No. 64.
Questions settled- Is a High Court required to remand a case to the lower appellate court when reversing a finding on an issue, or may it determine the remaining unconsidered issues itself under Order XLI Rule 24 read with Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the direct determination of unconsidered issues by the High Court under Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 improperly deprive a party of a right of appeal?
- Whether an exchange transaction conducted to improve a purchaser's status against a prospective pre-emptor was hit by paragraph 25(4) of Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
- FATEEI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 554 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-14Read full judgment →
- FARMANULLAH vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUKKUR AND 4 Others1975 P Cr. L J 472 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-30Read full judgment →
- FARMAN ULLAH vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUKKUR AND 4 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 472 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-30Read full judgment →
- FARMAN ALI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-20Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioner's application for the suspension of a seven-year sentence and a fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to suspend the petitioner's sentence, particularly given the petitioner's argument that the sentence was excessive and that a standard sentence in such cases should be three years. The Supreme Court held that the decision to suspend a sentence is a matter of judicial discretion. Finding that the High Court had exercised its discretion properly under the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the lower court's order and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the suspension of a sentence pending appeal is a discretionary exercise by the High Court, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such discretion unless it has been exercised improperly or arbitrarily.
Questions settled- Is the suspension of a sentence pending appeal a matter of right or judicial discretion?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence?
- FAKIR SHAH AND OTHERS vs MEHTAB SHAH PIR BOKHARI MASJID COMMITTEE1975 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court at Karachi, which affirmed the decisions of the trial and first appellate courts granting a perpetual injunction against the petitioners. The dispute concerned the management of a mosque and the shrine of a Muslim divine, Hazrat Mehtab Shah Bokhari, between the Sunni and Shia communities. The trial court, based on evidence and site inspection, determined the divine was of the Sunni faith and the premises were constructed by Sunni contributions, thus restraining the petitioners from interfering with Sunni management. The petitioners challenged the suit's competency, arguing that the subject matter involved a public trust (wakf) and therefore fell under the mandatory requirements of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which requires the consent of the Advocate-General for such litigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the suit was defective for failing to comply with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, while maintaining the status quo between the parties.
Questions settled- Does a suit concerning the management of a mosque and shrine, alleged to be a public trust, require compliance with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a suit for perpetual injunction regarding the management of a religious property maintainable without the consent of the Advocate-General if it involves a public trust?
- Can a suit be considered defective if it seeks relief related to the management of a wakf property without following the procedure prescribed in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, CENTRAL RECORD1975 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's entitlement certificate for agricultural land. The petitioner, a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, claimed entitlement based on land abandoned in occupied Kashmir, but authorities subsequently found the certificate to be bogus, citing a complete absence of a registered or verified claim in the Central Record Office. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the findings of fact made by statutory authorities regarding the validity of the entitlement certificate. The Supreme Court held that the entitlement certificate was invalid because it lacked a foundational verified claim, and the mere presence of an officer's signature on the certificate could not validate it in the absence of such a claim. The Court affirmed that findings of fact by statutory authorities, when supported by the record, are not subject to interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. The key principle established is that an entitlement certificate for land allotment is void ab initio if it is not supported by a duly filed and verified claim form.
Questions settled- Can an entitlement certificate for agricultural land be considered valid if there is no underlying registered or verified claim?
- Does the presence of an official's signature on an entitlement certificate validate it in the absence of a verified claim?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to interfere with findings of fact made by statutory authorities when those findings are supported by the record?
- FAIZ AHMAD KHAN vs PASKAL Alias PASA AND Anotmrs1975 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMAD KHAN vs PASKAL alias PASA AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
- FACTORY KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 198 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-21Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES WORKERS' UNION vs Messrs ATLAS AUTOS Ltd., KARACHI , .1975 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-29Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION vs NATIONAL MOTORS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 278 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1974-12-11Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs WAZIR ALT INDUSTRIES Ltd., HYDERABAD , ,1975 PLC 728 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-25Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs WAZIR ALI INDUSTRIES Ltd,, KARACHI1975 PLC 504 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-01-21Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT,1975 PLC 258 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs^CORNING GLASS (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 469 · Labour Court · 1972-10-17Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION,1975 PLC 222 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-23Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs SUNSHINE DAIRIES, KARACHI1975 PLC 486 · Labour Court · 1972-12-18Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURER1975 PLC 876 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-10-14Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs RECKITTS (PAK.) COLOURS Ltd.,1975 PLC 771 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-22Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs PAKISTAN GARAGE Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 244 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-07Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE Co. Ltd.1975 PLC 776 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-10Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs LAHORE CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL1975 PLC 831 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-10-25Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 205 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-27Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs GOLDEN ICE FACTORY & COMMERCIAL COLD1975 PLC 850 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-05Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs FISHERMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Ltd.,1975 PLC 357 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1972-12-06Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs DADA Ltd. And Another1975 PLC 276 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-24Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs BUKHARA HOTEL1975 PLC 768 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-25Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs ATLAS AUTOS Ltd , KARACHI1975 PLC 635 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-04-09Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1975 PLC 192 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-02Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON PAK. Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 208 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-08Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL, KARACHI And An Other1975 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-18Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs GHAZI DECORATION SERVICE, KARACHI1975 PLC 738 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-25Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs GESTETNER (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI , .1975 PLC 538 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-20Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, KARACHI And Anothbr1975 PLC 739 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-06Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION And Other vs PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, KARACHI1975 PLC 108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-28Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION (Regd.) vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS1975 PLC 519 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-02-05Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES FRONT vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1975 PLC 188 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-12Read full judgment →
- EJAZ QADEER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1975 P Cr. L J 471 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-20Read full judgment →