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.
- AKHTAR AHMAD vs THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE AND 21970 PLC 12 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1968-11-15Read full judgment →
- AKBAR DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 559 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-18Read full judgment →
- AKADDAS ALI vs THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND Other1970 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-17Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, a Sub-Treasurer, challenged his dismissal from service following a shortage of funds in the currency chest. Although initially acquitted in criminal proceedings and subsequently reinstated by the Additional Commissioner after an initial dismissal, the Government later directed the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss the petitioner again. The High Court upheld this second dismissal, relying on Rule 22 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, which grants the Government revisional powers over orders passed by subordinate authorities. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted under the East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, rather than the 1936 Rules, thereby rendering the Government's invocation of Rule 22 inapplicable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the question of whether the Government’s revisional power under the 1936 Rules extends to proceedings initiated under the 1960 Rules is a matter of public importance requiring judicial determination. The Court also observed that the petitioner had been granted leave preparatory to retirement, which should be honored if the Government maintains he is in service.
Questions settled- Does the Government possess the power of revision under Rule 22 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, regarding disciplinary proceedings conducted under the East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960?
- Can the Government lawfully direct the dismissal of a civil servant after an appellate authority has already ordered their reinstatement?
- AINUL HUQ vs The STATE1970 SCMR 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly retaining stolen property, specifically a German Patromax Light and a quantity of rice. The conviction, initially upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court of East Pakistan, was challenged on three grounds: the inadmissibility of a confession made to a Union Council Chairman, the failure of the prosecution to prove exclusive possession, and the omission of the alleged confession during the petitioner's examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that, irrespective of the confession's admissibility, the evidence of the petitioner leading witnesses to the location of the stolen goods in a sugar-cane field sufficiently established his possession. The Court further ruled that in the absence of the record of the Section 342 examination, it must presume the procedure was correctly followed, and any irregularity would not vitiate the trial without proof of prejudice. The petition was dismissed, affirming that Section 411 covers both receiving and retaining stolen property.
Questions settled- Does Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cover both receiving and retaining stolen property?
- Can a conviction be vitiated by an irregularity in the examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of prejudice?
- Is a conviction sustainable based on evidence of possession even if a prior confession is excluded?
- AINUL HUQ vs THE STATE-Opposite-Party1970 P Cr. L J 293 · Dacca · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
- AIN AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN1970 PLC 710 · Rajasthan High Court · 1968-03-23Read full judgment →
- AHSAN HAFEEZ KAMAL vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-20Read full judgment →
- AHMADULLAH KHAN AND Others vs FAZAL BIBI AND Other1970 SCMR 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-28Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership involving 110 kanals and 11 marlas. The petitioners, claiming ownership through a 1926 sale deed, sought a declaration of title and possession, asserting that the name of a co-sharer, Mst. Mehr Tabana, was wrongly included in revenue records. The petitioners argued they acquired title through purchase and, alternatively, through adverse possession. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court all concurrently held that the petitioners failed to prove ownership regarding Mst. Mehr Tabana's share, as she was not a party to the sale deed. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that a sale deed cannot bind a third party who was not a signatory. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed the possession of all co-sharers. Absent evidence of a definite act of ouster or denial of title, a co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against another. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Can a sale deed bind a third party who was not a signatory to the document?
- Does the possession of one co-sharer constitute possession of all co-sharers in the absence of evidence of ouster?
- Can a co-sharer claim adverse possession against another co-sharer without proving a definite act of ouster?
- AHMAD NAWAZ vs The STATE1970 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-15Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, Ahmad Nawaz, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Nusrat, despite the court accepting the defence's version that the complainant party were the initial aggressors who lay in ambush. The High Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that because the deceased was shot in the back, he was retreating and thus the appellant exceeded his right of private defence. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, focusing on whether the right of private defence was correctly applied. The Court held that once the prosecution's version of the incident was discredited and the defence's version—that the complainant party were the aggressors—was accepted, the firing by the accused occurred during a sudden, concerted assault. The Court ruled that the location of the bullet wound on the deceased's back did not invalidate the plea of self-defence, as the accused was entitled to defend his companion during the heat of the attack. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a gunshot wound on the back of a deceased necessarily negate a plea of self-defence by the accused?
- Can the right of private defence be invoked when the accused party is subjected to a sudden, concerted attack by the complainant party?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution's version of the incident's origin is rejected by the courts?
- AGHA ALI vs IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS1970 P Cr. L J 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-27Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of two respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered the deceased due to a suspicion of illicit relations with the sister of one respondent. The conviction by the trial court was based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses and the recovery of a weapon. The High Court acquitted the respondents, citing significant delays in lodging the First Information Report, inconsistencies in the timeline of the witnesses' arrival at the scene, medical evidence regarding the state of the deceased's stomach contents, and the absence of expected physical evidence like scorching or blackening on the body. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's reasoning and found that the delay in reporting the crime was not satisfactorily explained, as witnesses were present at the scene and could have easily reported the matter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusion that the crime was unwitnessed was justified based on the evidence, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is a delay in lodging the First Information Report sufficient grounds to doubt the prosecution's version of events in a murder case?
- Does the presence of witnesses at the crime scene invalidate an excuse for failing to report the crime promptly?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal based on the High Court's appreciation of evidence when the delay in reporting remains unexplained?
- AFZAL ALI vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE1970 PLC 53 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1968-11-29Read full judgment →
- AFTAB HOSSAIN vs THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1970 PLD Dacca 798 · Dacca · 1969-11-18Read full judgment →
- AFSERUDDIN CHOWKIDAR Alias AFSER ALI CHOWKIDAR vs THE STATE -1970 P Cr. L J 326 · Dacca · 1969-07-16Read full judgment →
- ADVOCATE GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OP EAST PAKISTAN vs MAJID Alias ABDUL1970 P Cr. LJ 198 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which set aside the respondent domestic servant's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentence of transportation for life for the murders of a cook and an ayah. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the treatment of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the evaluation of self-inflicted injuries in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in discarding the prosecution's evidence on speculative grounds and misreading the record, and that an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence conclusively established the respondent's guilt. The key legal principles laid down are that minor discrepancies arising from witnesses observing events at different times do not vitiate credible testimony, and that perfunctory police investigation does not automatically demolish a strong chain of circumstantial evidence otherwise proved by reliable eye-witnesses and corroborative facts.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard an otherwise reliable chain of circumstantial evidence?
- Can perfunctory investigation by police officers alone form the basis for acquitting an accused when material circumstances establish guilt?
- Whether self-inflicted injuries sustained during the commission of a crime can serve as an incriminating circumstance against the accused?
- ADVOCATE GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN vs MAJID Alias ABDUL1970 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-06-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which had set aside the respondent's conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of a cook and an ayah. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including eyewitness accounts of the respondent near the crime scene with a weapon, incriminating statements, motive, and subsequent self-inflicted injuries—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding certain lacunae and deficiencies in the police investigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had erred in discarding the prosecution's evidence based on speculative reasoning and minor discrepancies. The apex court restored the trial court's conviction, ruling that the unbroken chain of circumstances pointed unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies and investigative lapses by the police do not destroy an otherwise credible and robust chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused's guilt.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies and investigative lapses by police are sufficient to discard a chain of circumstantial evidence?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order when the trial court's findings are based on a proper reading of the evidence?
- Whether self-inflicted injuries can form a relevant circumstance pointing towards the guilt of an accused in a murder case?
- ADUL KARIM vs MESSRS THE SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATES LTD., KARACHI1970 PLC 351 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-15Read full judgment →
- ABUL LAIS AND Another vs THE STATE1970 PLD Dacca 790 · Dacca · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABUL KASHEM vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 460 · Dacca · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABU SALEH CHOUDHURY vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 612 · Dacca · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SOBHAN vs PROPRIETOR, ORIENT PRESS, DACCA1970 PLC 800 · Labour Court · 1970-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SATTAR vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND Another1970 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-24Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court confirming pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 in a murder case where he was alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while another inflicted a fatal blow. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was properly confirmed by the High Court given the petitioner's presence in the F.I.R. The Supreme Court held that since the accused has been challaned and the matter is pending before the Committing Magistrate, the appropriate remedy is for the petitioner to move the lower court for reconsideration or cancellation of bail based on the record. The Court clarified that the High Court's bail order does not bar such an application. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that trial or committing courts can independently consider bail cancellation or modification once the case reaches them, notwithstanding a prior High Court order.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner move the Committing Court for reconsideration of bail after the High Court has confirmed pre-arrest bail?
- Does the confirmation of pre-arrest bail by the High Court act as a bar to a subsequent application for bail cancellation before the Committing Magistrate or Sessions Court?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs GADAI KHAN AND 5 OTHERS1970 P Cr. L J 1282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-27Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which acquitted three respondents (Gadai Khan, Ashraf Khan, and Ajab Khan) of murder and other charges, despite finding that a fight had occurred between the parties resulting in two deaths. The High Court had concluded that because both parties sustained injuries, including firearm injuries, it was impossible to determine who initiated the firing, thereby granting the accused the benefit of the doubt. The petitioner, representing the complainant party, challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court's reasoning was legally flawed and that the accused had no justification for the killings. The Supreme Court found substance in the petitioner's contentions regarding the High Court's application of the benefit of doubt principle in the context of the established facts. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the three respondents while dismissing the petition regarding the other two respondents, whose acquittal by the trial court was upheld as reasonable. The matter is set for re-examination of the evidence.
Questions settled- Does the mere fact that both parties in a fight sustained injuries automatically entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt regarding the initiation of the conflict?
- Can a High Court's acquittal be set aside if the reasoning for granting the benefit of the doubt is found to be legally flawed?
- Is the refusal of a High Court to interfere with a trial court's acquittal of specific co-accused justified when the trial court's decision is based on valid reasons?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs GADAI KHAN AND 5 Other1970 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-27Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Abdur Rehman against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, which set aside the convictions and sentences of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for murder and other offences, and dismissed the petitioner's revision against the acquittal of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's approach in extending the benefit of doubt and acquitting the convicted accused on the ground that it was impossible to determine which party started firing first during a mutual fight over land possession, despite injuries sustained by both sides. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the incorrect approach of the High Court in acquitting the convicted respondents warranted a re-examination of the evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with non-bailable warrants issued, while the petition regarding the acquittal of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was dismissed as their acquittal was based on valid reasons.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground that it was impossible to determine which party started firing first in a mutual fight?
- Does an acquittal based on a trial court' warranting evaluation of participation and lack of injuries warrant interference by the High Court?
- Is leave to appeal properly granted when the appellate court's approach in setting aside convictions for murder in a sudden fight appears contrary to judicial principles?
- ABDUR RAUF KHAN AND Another vs FIRM BABU MUNIR GHULAM SIDDIQUE, PESHAWAR AND Other1970 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-24Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a land dispute involving a sale deed executed in November 1942, subsequent mutations, pre-emption suits, and revenue proceedings under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act. The core legal questions involve the validity of the transfer of land to non-agriculturalists, subsequent amendments to the law, and the claim of adverse possession by co-sharers. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal in two related petitions involving the core questions of title and agricultural tribe status, while refusing leave and dismissing the third petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish adverse possession, particularly as they were co-sharers in the property and the revenue authorities had recognized a usufructuary mortgage. The key principle laid down is that possession by a co-sharer does not readily mature into adverse possession against other co-sharers without clear, hostile, and open ouster, and that revenue determinations regarding mortgage status affect limitation and adverse possession claims.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer acquire title to property by adverse possession against another co-sharer?
- Whether an amendment to the Punjab Alienation of Land Act has retrospective effect on previously cancelled mutations?
- Does possession of land subject to a usufructuary mortgage ripen into adverse possession?
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1970 PLD Karachi 344 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-28Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff claiming Rs. 2,00,000 as damages for malicious prosecution against the State Bank of Pakistan and its Deputy Assistant Controller following the plaintiff's acquittal in appeal under Sections 12(1) and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1947. The core legal questions pertained to whether an initial conviction by a trial court bars an action for malicious prosecution if reversed on appeal, whether the prosecution was initiated maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, and whether acting on police investigation reports constitutes reasonable and probable cause. The Sindh High Court dismissed the suit, holding that acquittal on appeal satisfies the requirement of favorable termination and does not preclude a suit, but reasonable and probable cause must be assessed independently. The Court found that shifting explanations by the exporter, who was also a partner in the consignee firm, gave the authorities reasonable and probable cause to prosecute. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to affirmatively prove malice, want of probable cause, or actionable damages.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal in appeal, following an initial conviction by a trial court, satisfy the requirement of termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favor in an action for malicious prosecution?
- Can the presence of malice compensate for or supply the defect of a want of reasonable and probable cause in a malicious prosecution suit?
- Does acting upon expert advice or police investigation reports automatically establish the conclusive existence of reasonable and probable cause for a criminal prosecution?
- Can a claim for damages for malicious prosecution succeed where the prosecutor possessed an honest and reasonable belief in the guilt of the accused based upon prima facie evidence?
- ABDUR RASHID vs TAJ DIN AND ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 282 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID BHHIYA AND OTMRS vs PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND Other1970 PLD Dacca 633 · Dacca · 1968-08-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 722 · Dacca · 1969-12-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN vs THE CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN WESTERN RAILWAY; LAHORE1970 PLC 369 · Industrial Court · 1968-05-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN vs MOTILAL GHOSH AND Other Opposite Parties1970 PLD Dacca 394 · Dacca · 1968-03-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN BEPARY AND Other vs GULAPUDDIN BEPARY Alias1970 PLD Dacca 786 · Dacca · 1969-05-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs TAJ MUHAMMAD1970 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM AND Another vs ABDUL AZIZ1970 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arose from a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and the rendition of accounts regarding a firm known as 'London Picture House'. The appellant, a defendant in the original suit, contended that the respondent (plaintiff) had established a rival business, 'Paris Picture House', and was therefore liable to account for its profits under Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The trial court and the High Court concurrently found as a matter of fact that the 'Paris Picture House' was owned by the respondent’s sons, not the respondent himself. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the respondent was obligated to account for the profits of this rival business. The Court held that while Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act, 1932, does not require proof that a rival business was funded by partnership assets to trigger liability, the provision is only applicable if the partner actually carries on the competing business. Since the lower courts established the business belonged to third parties, the provision was inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act 1932 require proof that a rival business was funded by partnership assets to trigger liability?
- Is a partner liable to account for the profits of a business owned by third parties under Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act 1932?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership of a business in a second appeal?
- ABDUR RAB vs THE STATE AND Another1970 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-18Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under sections 416 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code for alleged fraud and forgery. After the prosecution failed to produce incriminating evidence and the complainant remained absent, the trial court discharged the accused under section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the District Magistrate set aside the discharge order in revision and ordered a further enquiry, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for filing criminal revisions in East Pakistan, the competency of the District Magistrate to hear the revision, and allegations of prosecution harassment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that although the District Magistrate mistakenly applied a Sind Chief Court rule, courts possess inherent discretion to condone delay, and technical objections regarding endorsement and delay do not warrant interference where a trial can establish guilt or innocence. The Court directed the trial magistrate to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether a revision application in criminal matters in East Pakistan is subject to a strict statutory period of limitation?
- Does a revisional court have the power to condone delay in filing a revision application beyond the period prescribed for criminal appeals?
- Whether the discharge of an accused under section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be set aside in revision for further enquiry?
- Does prolonged prosecution without immediate evidence constitute sufficient ground to quash criminal proceedings amounting to harassment?
- ABDULLAH AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 14 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL, BASHIR vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1970 PLC 359 · Industrial Court · 1968-09-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHAB vs PAKISTAN PAPER PRODUCTS LTD., CHITTAGONG1970 PLC 838 · Labour Court · 1970-05-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1970 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of composite property situated in Rawalpindi by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal questions involve whether the Settlement Authorities were bound to divide the property into separate units and whether the transferee was restricted exclusively to the specific portion mentioned in his compensation form. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a property constitutes a single indivisible unit lies within the discretion of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the relevant statutory provisions, and a competent declaration treating it as an indivisible unit cannot be interfered with, particularly when the transferee holds a superior claim as a claimant against a non-claimant. The court laid down the principle that the discretion to treat a property as a single unit or divide it vests in the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and courts will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion or procedural refusals to admit new evidence at the appellate stage without strong justification.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner is bound to divide a property capable of division?
- Does a transferee get restricted only to the portion demanded in his C.S. Form when the property is treated as a single unit?
- Whether the High Court is bound to allow new proof to be adduced at the Letters Patent Bench stage regarding the extent of a party's claim?
- ABDUL WAHID vs The STATE1970 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-07Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner, a former Sanitary Inspector for the Municipality of Thatta, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,500 for purchasing furniture, but failed to pay the full purchase price to the vendor and retained the remaining balance of Rs. 159 for several years before refunding it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's retention of the municipal funds and failure to pay the vendor constituted criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had pocketed the funds meant for the furniture purchase and delayed the refund of the balance without any supporting evidence of timely deposit. The Court affirmed that such unauthorized retention and misappropriation of public funds entrusted to a public servant constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether the retention of public funds by a public servant and delayed refund thereof constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a public servant be convicted of criminal breach of trust if they pocket funds entrusted to them for purchasing official goods and fail to pay the vendor?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs KAY KHUSRU BARMAN ARDESHEDIAR AND 6 Other1970 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a judgment of a learned Single Judge who dismissed the appellant's Second Appeal concerning rent restriction proceedings. The core legal question was whether the failure of a tenant to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate court attracts the penalty of striking off defence under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, read with section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that the appellate authority has no power to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to furnish security, as section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is excluded by necessary intendment in rent appeals, and penal provisions must be strictly construed. The key principle laid down is that since the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a special law, its provisions override the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in the absence of an express provision empowering the appellate authority to strike off a defence for non-furnishing of security, such a penalty cannot be imposed, thereby preserving the tenant's right of appeal.
Questions settled- Whether failure to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate court attracts the penalty prescribed by section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to rent appeals to empower an appellate authority to strike off a tenant's defence?
- Can an appellate authority strike off the defence of a tenant for failure to furnish security ordered during stay proceedings?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR AND 8 Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1970 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an unsuccessful writ petition before the High Court of West Pakistan, challenging the orders of the Settlement authorities who decided to transfer a disputed property in favor of the respondent, Ghulam Rasool. The core legal question centered on whether the petitioners or the respondent had reconstructed the premises after it was burnt, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities. The Supreme Court held that the question of who reconstructed the building was purely one of fact within the competent jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities, and the High Court rightly declined to interfere. Furthermore, the contention regarding an initial joint application was untenable given that both parties subsequently made statements claiming exclusive transfer. The Court affirmed that concurrent factual determinations based on evidence after remands will not be disturbed, and accordingly dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, laying down the principle that factual controversies resolved by administrative authorities fall outside the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the question of who was responsible for the reconstruction of a building is a question of fact within the jurisdiction of Settlement authorities?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities?
- Does an initial joint application for the transfer of property preclude parties from subsequently claiming exclusive transfer?
- ABDUL SALAM MEHTA vs CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT, AUTHORITYAND ANOTHER1970 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-10Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition filed by a former employee challenging the termination of his services. The petitioner, originally a temporary Diamond Driller under the Central Government, was transferred to WAPDA for the Mangla Dam Project before serving on deputation in Saudi Arabia. Upon return, the Chairman, WAPDA, terminated his services with one month's salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner contended that he remained a Central Government servant entitled to show-cause notice protections under Article 177 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that under Section 9-A of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, staff recruited exclusively for the project became WAPDA employees upon transfer. Consequently, the petitioner ceased to be a Central Government servant and was not entitled to constitutional protections guaranteed to civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary Central Government employee transferred to WAPDA for a specific project ceases to be a Central Government servant under Section 9-A of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958?
- Is an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority entitled to the safeguards and protection under Article 177 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs DISTRICT MANAGER, LAHORE OMNIBUS1970 PLC 456 · Industrial Court · 1970-04-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1966-08-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1970 PLC 469 · Industrial Court · 1968-10-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR1970 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-28Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition challenging an order of the High Court remitting a property dispute to the Settlement Commissioner to determine the divisibility of a house occupied by the rival parties since 20th December 1947. Initially, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had drawn lots won by the respondent, but the Additional Settlement Commissioner awarded the entire house to the petitioners on the ground that their verified claim was slightly higher and they occupied the ground floor, concluding the house was indivisible without assigning reasons or referring to the house layout. Higher settlement authorities upheld this view. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had already determined the house to be divisible. The Supreme Court held that the High Court made no such determination and that the core issue of divisibility remains to be decided by the Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the remand for proper determination of divisibility.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court determined the house to be divisible in the impugned proceedings?
- Does the issue of the divisibility of a house require determination by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Can settlement authorities award an indivisible property without assigning reasons or consulting the house layout?
- ABDUL RAHMAN AND Another vs The STATE1970 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, which confirmed the convictions and death sentences imposed on the two appellants for the murder of the mother of one of the appellants. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular evidence of two close relatives who witnessed the incident, the prompt lodging of the First Information Report, and the recovery of a hatchet stained with human blood from one of the appellants. The defence contended that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by enmity and attempted to introduce a new story regarding the murder in the leave petition.
The Supreme Court held that the new version presented in the petition was an afterthought and lacked credibility. The Court determined that the ocular evidence was reliable, the FIR was lodged promptly without motivation for false implication, and the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet was untainted. Finding no valid basis to interfere with the appraisement of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether an entirely new defence version raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal can be accepted when it was not raised during trial?
- Whether the testimony of a primary eyewitness can be discredited merely because a secondary witness observed her leaving and returning to the spot after the incident?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon can be relied upon when one of the recovery witnesses is connected to the complainant party, provided there is no evidence of fabrication?
- ABDUL QADOOS vs ABDUR REHMAN1970 PLD Azad J & K 21 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1969-05-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MUNAF Alias MUHARAM ALI AND Other vs Smt. GOLAP PUSPA SEN AND Other1970 PLD Dacca 668 · Dacca · 1969-07-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANNA N vs SAFURAN NESSA1970 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-18Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner challenged an order of the High Court of East Pakistan which had dismissed his criminal revision against a magistrate's order granting maintenance to his wife and child under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an alleged divorce claimed by the petitioner was legally effective to terminate the marriage and relieve him of maintenance obligations when mandatory notice had not been given to the Chairman. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a notice given to the Chairman of the Local Union Council under section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, the divorce had not become effective pursuant to subsection (3) of section 7. The Court laid down the principle that a divorce remains ineffective until the statutory requirement of notice under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 is fulfilled. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an alleged divorce become effective without giving notice to the Chairman under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Is a husband liable to pay maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the marriage has not been legally dissolved through effective divorce?
- ABDUL MANNA N vs S. M. MOMINUL ISLAM1970 PLC 808 · Labour Court · 1970-05-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALEK MIAH vs MOSLEMUDDIN (MOKLESHUDDIN) SHIEKH1970 PLD Dacca 743 · Dacca · 1970-03-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 6 OTHER1970 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-10-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a writ petition that challenged certain orders passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department. The core legal question raised in the review petition concerned the proper interpretation of the substantive part of section 2 (12) along with its two provisos. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the contention urging an alternative interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions merely amounts to a plea that another interpretation was possible, which does not furnish any valid ground for review of a judgment. The key principle laid down is that a mere possibility of an alternative interpretation of statutory provisions does not constitute a sufficient ground for granting a review of a judicial decision.
Questions settled- Does a plea that an alternative interpretation of a statutory provision was possible furnish a valid ground for review?
- Whether the interpretation of section 2(12) of the relevant statute can be reopened through a review petition on the mere ground of a preferred alternative construction?
- ABDUL MAJID KHAN vs THE EASTERN GENERAL INSURANCE Co.1970 PLD Karachi 70 · Sindh High Court · 1969-03-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID KHAN (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) vs SHAHZADA ASIF JAH1970 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-06-19Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal concerns two pre-emption suits involving the sale of agricultural land where the vendee attempted to improve his status during the pendency of the litigation to defeat the pre-emptors' claims. The core legal question was whether a vendee-defendant can defeat a pre-emption suit by acquiring property or improving their status through exchange deeds after the institution of the suit, and whether the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, 1967, applies to such pending matters. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the 1967 Amendment, which introduced a bar against improvements in a vendee's status after the institution of a pre-emption suit, effectively precluded the appellant from defeating the respondents' superior rights. The Court established that while the amendment was technically placed in Section 17, its manifest legislative intent was to resolve the controversy regarding post-suit status improvements; therefore, such improvements cannot be used to divest a pre-emptor of their subsisting right of pre-emption at the time of the decree.
Questions settled- Can a vendee improve their status after the institution of a pre-emption suit to defeat the plaintiff's claim?
- Does the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption (West Pakistan Amendment) Act 1967 apply to pre-emption suits pending at the time of its commencement?
- Does an improvement in the status of a vendee-defendant after the institution of a suit for pre-emption affect the right of the pre-emptor-plaintiff?
- ABDUL MAJID BUTT vs UNITED CHEMICALS LTD.1970 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner filed a suit in forma pauperis for damages amounting to Rs. 2,50,000 for severe personal injuries and permanent disability sustained due to an industrial accident caused by an explosion in the respondent's chemical plant. The trial court rejected the application, holding it barred by limitation under Article 22 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a one-year period for compensation for personal injury from the date of the injury. In revision, the Lahore High Court examined whether Article 22 or Article 36 of the Limitation Act applied, alongside issues of fraud and limitation under Section 18 and Section 24 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that injuries resulting from culpable negligence, misfeasance, or failure to maintain industrial plant safety fall under Article 36 of the Limitation Act, providing a two-year limitation period starting from when the specific injury results pursuant to Section 24. Furthermore, the Court ruled that where a question of limitation is complicated and intertwined with the merits, or involves potential amendment of the plaint regarding fraud, an in forma pauperis application should not be summarily rejected. The revision was allowed, the trial court's order set aside, and expedited trial directed.
Questions settled- Does Article 22 or Article 36 of the Limitation Act govern a suit for damages for personal injuries sustained in an industrial accident caused by the employer's negligence?
- When does the period of limitation begin to run under Section 24 of the Limitation Act for a suit for compensation where an act does not give rise to a cause of action until specific injury results?
- Can an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis be summarily rejected when the question of limitation is complicated and tied up with the merits of the case?
- Whether a plaintiff can invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act regarding fraud to extend limitation even if the specific facts were not originally detailed in the unamended plaint?
- ABDUL MAJEED vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1970 PLC 444 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs JAMAL DIN1970 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a petition for withdrawal filed by the Attorney for the appellant in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, citing a lack of cooperation from both the client and the engaged counsel regarding the preparation of the concise statement. The Court addressed the procedural failure to progress the case despite multiple adjournments. Consequently, the Court ordered that a notice be issued to the appellant to show cause why the leave to appeal previously granted should not be rescinded and the petition dismissed for non-prosecution. Furthermore, the Court directed the engaged counsel to appear and provide an explanation for the failure to prepare the requisite concise statement. As an immediate consequence of the lack of prosecution, the Court vacated the stay order that had been previously granted in favor of the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel fails to prepare a concise statement?
- Does the failure of a client and counsel to cooperate in case preparation justify the rescission of leave to appeal?
- Can a stay order be vacated by the Court due to the appellant's failure to prosecute the case?
- ABDUL KUDDUS AKAN DA vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 520 · Dacca · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs The STATE1970 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan confirming the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Abdul Mannan and his sentence of death, along with a conviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the incriminating evidence and circumstances available in the case constituted sufficient corroboration in material particulars of the testimony of the approver regarding the complicity of the appellant in the murder. The Supreme Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may legally form the basis of a conviction, though a rule of prudence requires independent corroboration on material points linking the accused to the crime. Finding that the approver's testimony was adequately corroborated not only by the recovery of blood-stained articles and weapons at the instance of the accused but also by corresponding cut injuries found on the hands of both the approver and the appellant, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The key principle laid down is that the corroboration of an accomplice's testimony need not cover every detail of the crime, but must provide independent support on material particulars implicating the accused, the sufficiency of which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Questions settled- Can the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice form the basis of a criminal conviction under Pakistani law?
- What is the extent and nature of corroboration required for an approver's testimony to safely sustain a conviction?
- Whether the recovery of incriminating articles and injuries on the accused's person constitute sufficient corroboration in material particulars of an accomplice's evidence?
- ABDUL KHALIQ KHAN BARKI vs MANZOOR ELAHI, C. VS. P., CHIEF SETTLEMENT1970 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's order dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal regarding a dispute over a garden. The petitioner sought to re-open the matter, arguing that his entitlement to the property remained pending before the Central Government and that, per the precedent in Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Fateh Muhammad, the requirement for proof of entitlement via special jamabandi under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme could be relaxed in favor of collateral evidence. The Court held that no error was disclosed in the impugned order to justify a review. The Court clarified that if the petitioner's claim remained pending before the Central Government, he was at liberty to pursue that remedy directly with the Government, which possessed the discretion to determine the adequacy of proof. If the petitioner secured a favorable determination from the Government, he could subsequently approach the Settlement Authorities. Finding no substance in the arguments presented, the Court dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained if no error is disclosed in the impugned order?
- Does the Central Government have the discretion to determine the adequacy of proof for property entitlement claims?
- Can a petitioner approach Settlement Authorities again after obtaining a favorable order from the Central Government?
- ABDUL KHALIQ BANGASH vs THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF WEST1970 SC M R103 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of West Pakistan, which had challenged the legality of a departmental inquiry and an order of suspension from service. The petitioner, an Inspector in the Co-operative Department, faced departmental proceedings following criminal charges of embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's initial suspension, prior to its formal validation by the competent authority, was unlawful and whether such a grievance could be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the order of suspension does not constitute a penalty and does not violate any vested legal right of the officer. The Court affirmed that even if an initial suspension order was procedurally irregular, a claim for unpaid salary arrears arising from that period cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that suspension is a temporary measure pending inquiry, and if a public servant is exonerated, they may be reinstated with full salary arrears, but the suspension itself is not a justiciable cause of action for a writ petition.
Questions settled- Can a claim for unpaid salary arrears during a period of suspension be enforced through writ jurisdiction?
- Does an order of suspension from service constitute a penalty that violates a vested legal right?
- Is a public servant entitled to reinstatement and salary arrears if exonerated in a departmental inquiry?
- ABDUL KARIM SEPOY vs MBA S. I. T. E. LTD., KARACHI-161970 PLC 365 · Industrial Court · 1969-11-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM BUTT vs THE CROWN1970 P Cr. LJ 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1955-01-17Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arose from an order of the Chief Court of Sind dismissing an application filed by the appellant, a bank sub-manager, seeking to expunge disparaging remarks made against him by an Additional City Magistrate in a discharge order. The appellant contended that these remarks, which questioned his integrity, were unjustified and had jeopardized his employment, as his employer bank demanded he vindicate his honor. The Chief Court had dismissed the application solely on the ground of inordinate delay. The Supreme Court addressed whether such an application should be dismissed on procedural grounds of delay when the applicant's livelihood is directly impacted by judicial observations. The Court held that the dismissal was improper and that the appellant was entitled to a hearing on the merits to determine if the remarks were justified. The Court emphasized that third parties, such as employers, are not bound by judicial remarks and should exercise independent judgment; however, given the professional consequences faced by the appellant, the Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an application to expunge judicial remarks be dismissed solely on the ground of delay when the applicant's professional standing is at stake?
- Are third parties, such as employers, bound by judicial remarks made against an individual in a criminal proceeding?
- Does a person have a right to be heard on the merits regarding judicial remarks that adversely affect their professional employment?
- ABDUL KADER KHAN vs THE PROVINCE OP EAST PAKISTAN AND Other Opposite1970 PLD Dacca 472 · Dacca · 1968-02-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JALIL vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1970 PLC 451 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAVIID vs THE DIRECTOR OF` PORTS AND TRAFFIC1970 PLC 794 · Labour Court · 1970-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HASHEM vs MESSRS BUX RUBBER INDUSTRIES, DACCA1970 PLC 856 · Labour Court · 1970-06-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HANAN AND 8 Others vs KAPOOR KHAN AND 16 Other1970 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether a redemption suit for a 3/5th share of land was barred by limitation. The concurrent findings of the lower courts established that the mortgage took effect on 19-2-1899 when mutation No. 44 was attested based on statements by the mortgagor's sons, making the suit filed on 19-2-1959 within the sixty-year limitation period. The appellants contended that limitation began earlier on 1-11-1897, relying on a Patwari's report regarding Girdawari. The Supreme Court held that the Patwari's report alone did not constitute evidence of a completed mortgage transaction, as the original transaction remained inchoate until the mutation was attested in 1899 following the mortgagor's death. Consequently, the suit for redemption was filed within time. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that limitation for redemption runs from the date the mortgage officially takes effect through proper attestation rather than prior inchoate entries.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for redemption of mortgaged land is barred by time if filed within sixty years from the date of attestation of mutation?
- Does a Patwari's report regarding Girdawari constitute sufficient evidence of the creation of a mortgage for the purpose of computing limitation?
- When does limitation start to run for a redemption suit where the initial mortgage transaction remained inchoate prior to formal mutation?
- ABDUL HAMID vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 Other1970 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-11Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the horizontal division of a composite property by the Settlement authorities. The property, consisting of two floors, was occupied by members of a single family. The Settlement authorities transferred the first floor jointly to the petitioner and his brother, and the ground floor to the respondent. The core legal questions involved whether a joint transfer of property to two brothers without their explicit request was legal, and whether the petitioner could raise this contention for the first time before the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the objection regarding the joint transfer was not raised before the Settlement authorities despite available opportunity, and that the division between family members was substantially just. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that pleas not raised before lower forums cannot ordinarily be entertained.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding joint transfer for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the Settlement authorities?
- Whether the horizontal division of a composite property among family members by Settlement authorities warrants interference under special leave to appeal?
- ABDUL HALEEM vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1970 PLC 28 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-01-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1970 PLC 294 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-10-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs Mst. ABIDA BEGUM1970 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN1970 SCMR 661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-22Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, a vendee in two pre-emption suits based on separate mutations, raised a plea that the sale constituted a single transaction and that the mutations were incorrect. The trial court framed an issue placing the onus regarding this plea on the petitioner, and subsequently refused the petitioner's prayer to re-frame the issue. The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order in revision, leading to the present petition for special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the issue framed by the trial court regarding the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner asserted a single transaction contrary to the two existing mutations, no legitimate exception could be taken to the issue as framed, and the matter of whether the sale was single or multiple would be determined by the trial court based on evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party asserting that multiple mutations represent a single transaction bears the burden of establishing the same through an appropriately framed issue?
- Will the High Court interfere in revision with the trial court's discretionary framing of issues where no legitimate exception arises?
- How is the question of whether a sale transaction is single or multiple determined in a pre-emption suit?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs Tie ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1970 PLC 151 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-07-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GAFOOR KHAN DURRANI vs ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER1970 PLD Quetta 14 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-07-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BASIT vs CANTT AND Another1970 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-30Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for allegedly contracting a second marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council. The core legal question was whether the criminal proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, constituted an abuse of the process of the court, given that the petitioner's second marriage occurred after his first marriage had been legally dissolved. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings were indeed an abuse of process, noting that the second marriage was contracted after the divorce became effective, as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Furthermore, the Court observed that the three-year delay in filing the second complaint, following the dismissal of the first, suggested personal vindictiveness rather than a pursuit of justice. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the pending criminal proceedings, establishing the principle that courts should exercise their inherent powers to prevent the abuse of legal process where complaints are filed without merit or for ulterior motives.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- Does a second marriage contracted after the legal dissolution of a first marriage constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Is a delay of three years in filing a criminal complaint a relevant factor in determining whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process?
- ABDUL BAREK MIA AND Another vs CONCILIATION COURT, FULKI UNION1970 PLD Dacca 336 · Dacca · 1969-01-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND 2 Others vs SADIQ MUHAMMAD AND 9 Other1970 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-29Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of 200 kanals of land originally allotted to one Muhammad Hayat under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The petitioners, claiming through their predecessor Sultan, alleged an oral agreement for the transfer of this land from Hayat, supported by a Collector's sanction obtained in 1945. However, Hayat subsequently transferred the land via a registered deed to a third party, Attaullah, who later sold it to the respondents. The respondents successfully challenged the petitioners' claim in a civil suit, which was upheld through the appellate hierarchy. The core legal question was whether an alleged oral agreement and a mere sanction for alienation, without a completed transfer of title, could supersede a subsequent registered sale deed executed with proper authority. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the oral agreement or a completed transaction. The Court ruled that the mere deposit of money and the grant of sanction did not confer title, and the subsequent registered transfer to the respondents was valid, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Does the mere grant of sanction by a Collector for land alienation under the Colonization of Government Lands Act create a valid title in the absence of a completed transfer?
- Can an alleged oral agreement for land transfer supersede a subsequent registered sale deed executed with the required statutory sanction?
- Does the deposit of sale price by a prospective transferee, without a completed transaction, confer ownership rights over government-allotted land?
- ABDUL AHAD vs THE STATE-the State1970 P Cr. L J 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-18Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, arrested on charges of theft of motor cars in five separate cases, was granted bail by the magistrate subject to a condition requiring the surety amount of Rs. 5,000.00 in each case to be deposited in cash. Upon a revision petition, the Sessions Judge reduced the cash amount to Rs. 2,000.00 per case but maintained the cash deposit condition. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether a court or magistrate has the power to demand a cash deposit as a condition for granting bail. Relying on binding precedents, the High Court held that the imposition of a cash deposit condition is illegal as the relevant statutory provisions contemplate the execution of a bond with sureties and not a cash deposit. Consequently, the revision applications were allowed, setting aside the cash deposit condition and directing the petitioner to furnish surety and P.R. bonds.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate have the power to require an accused person to deposit cash as a condition for bail?
- Whether the imposition of a cash deposit condition while granting bail is permissible under the law?
- ABDUL AB AND ANOTHER ABDUL HAMID CHOWDHURY vs THE STAT AND OTHERS1970 P Cr. L J 570 · Dacca · 1969-12-02Read full judgment →
- ABBAS ALI SHAH vs WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER1970 PLC 373 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 1970-03-25Read full judgment →
- A. Y. AHMED ALI SARDAR AND Other vs NANI BALA MONDAL AND Other1970 PLD Dacca 37 · Dacca · 1969-02-24Read full judgment →
- A. M. RAFIQUL ISLAM Versus MUSA KAZEM MIRDHA AND vs NOT1970 P Cr. L J 880 · Dacca · 1969-10-29Read full judgment →
- A. KALAM AND Another vs MESSRS GODFRAY RICHARD & COMPANY, DACCA1970 PLC 779 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- A. K. M. TOZAMMEL HOQUE vs GENERAL MANAGER, MESSRS LATIF BAWANY1970 PLC 786 · Labour Court · 1970-03-15Read full judgment →
- A. K. M. NURUL HOSSAIN 1St Party vs BEGUM SHAFIA SOLEMAN SALEH Jee2nd1970 P Cr. L J 62 · Dacca · 1968-10-30Read full judgment →
- A. H. Puri vs Book Not Found1970 PLC 21 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1968-11-20Read full judgment →
- A. H. NAZIBAR Rahmanltd, vs OMAR SONS LTD., DACCA1970 PLC 885 · Labour Court · 1970-06-17Read full judgment →
- A. H. M. KHORSHED ALAM vs PAKISTAN SHELL OIL Co. LTD., CHITTAGONG1970 PLC 835 · Labour Court · 1970-06-16Read full judgment →
- A. F. M. ABU SAYEED vs THE STATE1970 PCr. L J 255 · Dacca · 1969-07-14Read full judgment →
- A. F. M. ABDUL HAI JAMALLY vs The STATE1970 SCMR 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-15Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, a former Circle Officer, under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the dishonest misappropriation of Red Cross garments entrusted to him for free distribution in flood-affected areas. The core legal question was whether the misappropriation was established when the specific seized goods were allegedly not identified as the exact items entrusted. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded, ruling that entrustment was admitted, the defense of distribution was proven false through fabricated duplicate muster rolls and false certificates, and proof that the public servant disposed of the entrusted property in violation of directions sufficiently establishes the offence of criminal misconduct and breach of trust. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether misappropriation of entrusted property by a public servant is established when the property is disposed of in violation of directions?
- Does the creation of false duplicate muster rolls support a charge of criminal misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-distribution of relief goods?
- A vs THE MANAGER, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT1970 P LC 819 · Labour Court · 1970-05-15Read full judgment →