Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,813 judgments in total.
- Mushtaq Masih And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Hussain Zakir vs Ministry of Defence through Muhammad1999 PLC (C.S.) 736 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Hussain vs Muhammad' Ismail and another1999 YLR 1695 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Hussain and others vs Mukhtar Ahmad and others1999 MLD 3384 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land allotted under the Gujranawala Oustee Scheme. The primary legal questions concerned the enforceability of the agreement under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, the applicability of res judicata regarding a previously withdrawn suit, and the status of the appellant as a bona fide purchaser. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, ruling that agreements to sell such land are enforceable and not barred by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The Court further held that the principle of res judicata was inapplicable because the previous suit was withdrawn with the intent to file a fresh one, as evidenced by the counsel's statement. Additionally, the Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent evidence of misreading or procedural defect. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the decree for specific performance.
Questions settled- Is an agreement to sell land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 enforceable despite the restrictions in Section 19?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to a suit withdrawn by the plaintiff where the court order did not explicitly grant permission to file a fresh suit but the counsel's statement requested it?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
- Is a decree for specific performance maintainable if the subsequent sale deed in favour of a third party was not explicitly cancelled in the suit?
- Mushtaq Ali and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 506 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs The State1999 SCMR 2581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a criminal appeal by leave regarding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a mason over a dispute involving an unreturned electric iron. Counsel for the appellant restricted his submissions solely to the quantum of sentence, arguing that there was no history of background enmity and that the immediate cause of the attack was shrouded in mystery. The State conceded that no prior deep-rooted hostility existed between the parties. The Supreme Court held that since the immediate friction precipitating the crime remained unclear and unexplained on the record, the appellant was entitled to mitigation in punishment. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, converting the death penalty into imprisonment for life, while enhancing the fine and statutory compensation payable to the deceased's legal heirs, alongside granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the death penalty for murder can be reduced to imprisonment for life when the immediate cause of the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery?
- Does the absence of previous enmity and a sudden unexplained escalation justify the reduction of a capital sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can compensation and fine amounts be enhanced by an appellate court while reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Akram, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 582 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad through his Special Attorney Gulzar Ahmad vs Shahid1999 YLR 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhry and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1999 SCMR 2659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals and petitions filed by government employees from the Geological Survey of Pakistan and the National Savings Organization, seeking entitlement to a 20% Secretariat Allowance effective from 1-7-1988. The core legal question was whether these employees, performing duties similar to those in the Secretariat, were entitled to the allowance and how the subsequent abolition of this allowance by the government affected their claims. The Supreme Court held that the appellants and petitioners were entitled to the Secretariat Allowance from 1-7-1988 until 31-5-1994. Relying on the precedent in Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Nasir v. Secretary Finance Division, the Court further held that the allowance ceased to be payable after 31-5-1994, as it was merged into revised pay scales. The Court established that while discriminatory pay practices are impermissible, government allowances are not statutorily protected and may be withdrawn or merged into salary revisions, provided the employee has opted for the revised pay scales which adequately compensate for the loss of the specific allowance.
Questions settled- Are government employees entitled to the Secretariat Allowance retrospectively from 1-7-1988?
- Can the government abolish the Secretariat Allowance by merging it into revised pay scales?
- Does the choice of revised pay scales under a government Office Memorandum preclude an employee from claiming a discontinued Secretariat Allowance?
- Mushtaq Ahmad and 4 others vs Muhammad Ismail1999 SCMR 2372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the courts below in favor of the respondent, decreeing his suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptor had successfully established his superior right of pre-emption and his relationship with the vendor based on the documentary and oral evidence produced on record, including the pedigree-table and Misl-e-Haqiat. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the relationship and superior right of pre-emption were supported by a preponderance of evidence and admissions made by the opposing witnesses, and no grounds existed to interfere with them. The court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper evaluation of evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court in petition for leave to appeal where no question of law of public importance is raised.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a pre-emptor's relationship with the vendor can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
- Does a failure to cross-examine a witness on material aspects of a claimed relationship weaken the contesting party's case?
- What constitutes a question of law of public importance for the grant of leave to appeal in pre-emption matters?
- Mushtaq Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 445 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Musharaf Khan vs Collector, Land Acquisition1999 MLD 2668 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mursalin alias Denni vs The State1999 SCMR 2683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant Mursalin alias Denni was tried and convicted under section 302 and section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of a police constable and a conductor, and for using criminal force against a police patrol party, and was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court, and leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court limited to the question of sentence. The core legal question was whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant the substitution of the death penalty with imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony was trustworthy, corroborated by Waj Takkar evidence and an extra-judicial confession, and that the appellant acted in a desperate manner attacking police officers on official duty. The court laid down that the cold-blooded murder of law enforcement personnel on duty calls for a deterrent punishment and the normal penalty of death must follow in the absence of mitigating circumstances. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the unblemished ocular testimony corroborated by Waj Takkar evidence and an extra-judicial confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Whether the murder of law enforcement officials on official duty constitutes a ground for awarding the death penalty without mitigating circumstances?
- Whether the absence of mitigating circumstances justifies the imposition of the normal penalty of death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Mureed Hussain And Others vs Province of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 87 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
- Murad Khan through his widow and 13 others vs Land Acquisition1999 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two cross-appeals concerning the determination of compensation for compulsorily acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question revolved around the criteria for assessing "market value" under Section 23 of the Act, specifically whether land classification and one-year average sale prices were the sole determinants, or if the land's potentiality should also be considered. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by relying solely on land classification and mutation entries/one-year average prices. It emphasized that "market value" is not exhaustively defined by these factors but must also account for the land's potentiality, location, neighbourhood, and instances of sales of adjacent lands shortly before and after the acquisition notification. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per Marla, asserting that potentiality is a crucial consideration for fair compensation.
Questions settled- What factors must be considered when determining the "market value" of land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Can land classification or one-year average sale prices be the sole criterion for determining compensation in land acquisition cases?
- Should the potentiality of acquired land be taken into account when assessing fair compensation?
- Is it permissible to rely on oral testimony from local property dealers or other persons to determine the market value of acquired property?
- What is the best method for determining the market price of land under acquisition?
- Murad Ali alias Pappu vs The State and another1999 YLR 2497 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
- Munsib Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1264 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
- Munir Mushtaq vs Collector of Customs (Exports), Customs House, Karachi and anothers1999 PLD Supreme Court 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by the High Court, which had upheld orders of the Central Board of Revenue confirming penalties and recovery orders against the appellant for fraudulent export rebate claims. The appellant, a clearing agent, was implicated in schemes involving the export of second-hand clothing misdeclared as high-value garments to illicitly obtain duty drawbacks and compensatory rebates. The core legal question was whether the Collector of Customs, in quasi-judicial proceedings, was legally justified in relying on confessional statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and investigative reports without affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the makers of those statements. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant failed to specifically rebut the detailed allegations in the show-cause notices or request the cross-examination of witnesses during the adjudication process. The Court affirmed that in quasi-judicial customs proceedings, while natural justice requires a fair hearing, an accused cannot complain of procedural unfairness when they fail to file a substantive defense or challenge evidence at the appropriate stage.
Questions settled- Is a party in quasi-judicial customs proceedings entitled to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the authorities?
- Does the failure of an accused to file a substantive reply to a show-cause notice preclude them from later challenging the procedure on appeal?
- What is the evidentiary value of confessional statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in quasi-judicial customs adjudication?
- Can a party claim a violation of natural justice if they did not request the production or cross-examination of witnesses during the initial adjudication stage?
- Munir Hussain Qadri Gillani and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed vs Chairman, Pakistan Railways Board and another1999 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's appeal against his removal from service under the Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, a Chief Inspector of Production in the Loco Shop, Mughalpura, qualified as a civil servant or a workman, and consequently, whether the Tribunal's adjudication process was procedurally sound. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the Chairman of the Tribunal had recorded an opinion in support of one of the two members of the original bench without providing notice or a hearing to the parties involved. Relying on the precedent set in Qazi Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Court held that the failure to grant a hearing before recording such an opinion vitiates the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Federal Service Tribunal for a fresh decision after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard. The principle established is that a Tribunal Chairman cannot record an opinion on a matter without first affording the parties a fair hearing.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal record an opinion in a case without providing notice or a hearing to the parties involved?
- Does the failure of a Tribunal member to hear the parties before recording an opinion necessitate the setting aside of the judgment?
- Is a case remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal if the decision-making process lacked procedural fairness?
- Munir Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad And Others vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad & 3 Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 105 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad And Others vs Federation of Pakistan And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 76 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Sahiwal through Administrator and anothers vs Pakistan Burma Shell Limited and another1999 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an interim order of the Lahore High Court extending a stay order granted in a writ petition regarding the withdrawal of a warehouse facility and subsequent octroi fee exemption. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically whether a stay order issued by a High Court regarding the assessment or collection of public revenue automatically ceases to have effect after six months, as established in Federation of Pakistan v. United Sugar Mills Ltd. (PLD 1977 SC 397). The Supreme Court, noting the respondent's absence and the complexity of the constitutional issue, declined to render a definitive finding on the merits of the stay order's validity at that stage. Instead, the Court exercised its discretion to suspend the impugned order extending the stay and directed the High Court to expedite the final disposal of the long-pending writ petition within two months. The principle reinforced is the judicial preference for the expeditious resolution of constitutional petitions over prolonged interim relief, particularly when statutory limitations on stay orders are implicated.
Questions settled- Does a stay order issued by a High Court regarding the assessment or collection of public revenue cease to have effect after the expiration of six months under Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a High Court extend a stay order indefinitely in matters involving the assessment or collection of public revenue?
- Municipal Committee, Bannu through Administrator vs Nazar Jan and 31999 YLR 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-26Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmad Naz vs Divisional Superintendent, Railways and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 214 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
- Muneer Hussain Shah And 4 Others vs Kazim Hussain Shah And 15 Other1999 CLC 828 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership and the validity of Mutation No. 288, dated December 9, 1981. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a declaratory suit challenging the mutation, alleging it was sanctioned based on a decree that did not pertain to the suit land. The trial court, affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court, found that the mutation was the result of connivance between Revenue Officers and the appellants and that the decree relied upon by the appellants did not cover the disputed survey numbers. The core legal question was whether the mutation was legally sustainable given the discrepancies in the survey numbers and the lack of a supporting decree. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the mutation was illegal and inoperative against the respondents' rights. The Court affirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with in appeal unless there is gross illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence, or substantial injustice.
Questions settled- Can a mutation be sustained if it is based on a decree that does not pertain to the land in question?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts?
- Does the exchange of land survey numbers affect the validity of a declaratory suit regarding ownership?
- Munawar Khan and others vs Naseer Ahmad and others1999 YLR 524 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain and others vs State1999 MLD 3022 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
- Munawar alias Shabboo vs The State1999 MLD 76 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-19Read full judgment →
- Munawar Ali. Sherazi vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired professor, challenged the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Federal Government, which prevented him from traveling abroad to visit his ailing daughter. Respondents justified the action on the grounds that the petitioner, as a former administrator of a housing society, was allegedly responsible for huge financial losses currently under inquiry, and claimed the restriction was in the public interest. The Lahore High Court examined the provisions of the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, and held that although section 2(2) excludes the right of prior hearing, and section 2(3) permits withholding reasons in the public interest, the Federal Government is implicitly obligated to communicate the reasons for placing a person on the ECL as soon as the action is taken. The court ruled that non-communication of reasons renders the statutory right of review under section 3 nugatory and violates fundamental rights of liberty and free movement. Consequently, the court declared the placement of the petitioner's name on the ECL illegal and without lawful authority, while clarifying that fresh action in accordance with law is not barred.
Questions settled- Does the exclusion of prior hearing under the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, absolve the Federal Government from communicating reasons after placing a person on the Exit Control List?
- Is the Federal Government obligated to disclose the grounds for placing a person on the Exit Control List to enable the exercise of the statutory right of review?
- Does the failure to communicate reasons for placing a citizen's name on the Exit Control List render the action illegal and without lawful authority?
- Munawar A. Shaikh and 51 others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mun Awar Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Shah vs The State1999 YLR 1625 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Khan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 335 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain vs Yasmeen AkhtarK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 32 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1999 SCMR 2248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's pre-trial bail application by the High Court in a criminal case involving charges of murder and attempt to murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of being declared innocent in successive police investigations. The Supreme Court held that the opinions of police agencies declaring the petitioner innocent were not binding as they were not based on proper investigation in accordance with law, and that prima facie evidence including an injured eye-witness account and the dying declaration of the deceased implicated the petitioner. The court established the principle that conflicting police investigation reports cannot override direct incriminating evidence such as dying declarations and injured witness testimony when determining a prima facie case for bail, and that the case did not fall within the restrictive provisions of further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether opinions of police agencies declaring an accused innocent during successive investigations are binding on the court in bail matters?
- Does a dying declaration naming the accused constitute a prima facie case disentitling the accused to bail?
- Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness provides sufficient ground to refuse bail?
- When does a criminal case fail to fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs Mst. Zaibun Nisa And Another1999 CLC 594 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain Ghori vs The State1999 MLD 2376 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali vs Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 634 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali vs Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur and 13 others1999 YLR 1032 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali and others vs Government of Sindh and others1999 CLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ahmad vs S.H.O,, Police Station Saddar, Rahimyar Khan and.1999 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil petitions arose from a consolidated judgment of the High Court where the petitioner sought the expunction of adverse remarks made against him by a learned Single Judge in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. The petitioner contended that the observations, which characterized him as a "clever person" with a "long criminal history" and a "black-sheep" who disregarded Islamic injunctions and national laws, were prejudicial and unwarranted. The Supreme Court, with the concession of the learned Additional Advocate-General, examined whether the adverse remarks were relevant to the determination of the actual controversy. The Court held that the observations made against the petitioner were uncalled for and irrelevant to the resolution of the core dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, and ordered the expunction of the impugned remarks from the record, setting aside the High Court's judgment to that extent.
Questions settled- Whether adverse personal observations made by a judge against a party that are irrelevant to the actual controversy can be expunged by an appellate court?
- What is the effect of an Intra-Court Appeal on the observations made by a Single Judge in Chambers when the order merges into the appeal?
- Mumt Az Hussain vs Faizullah and 5 others1999 YLR 981 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mumt Az Ahmed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1079 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mumt Az Ahmad vs Zila Council, Sahiwal through Administrator and others1999 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, leaseholders for the collection of goods exit tax, challenged demands by Zila Councils for payments covering periods prior to the issuance of their respective work orders. They filed constitutional petitions in the High Court, which were dismissed on the grounds that the disputes were contractual, involved factual inquiries, and were subject to an arbitration clause under the relevant rules. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the writ petitions were competent due to violations of statutory rules and natural justice. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the petitioners had voluntarily entered into agreements containing an arbitration clause and had failed to exhaust alternative statutory remedies, such as the appeal process under the Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is not invocable for contractual disputes requiring detailed factual inquiry when alternative remedies are available. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, though the Court criticized the Local Councils for delaying lease awards, which frequently leads to unnecessary litigation.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to resolve a contractual dispute when an alternative remedy, such as arbitration, is available?
- Is a writ petition maintainable for a dispute involving factual inquiries that require a detailed investigation?
- Are parties bound by an arbitration clause contained in a lease agreement they voluntarily executed without duress?
- Muljimal N. Raghuvanshi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 637 · Bombay High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mulazim Hussain, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Waris Khan,1999 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenged an order of the learned Single Judge directing the S.H.O. of Police Station Waris Khan to record the statement of the writ petitioner under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and register a criminal case regarding a police-involved shooting incident during a political protest. The core legal question was whether a second First Information Report can be registered for the same occurrence when a prior F.I.R. has already been lodged by the police reflecting a one-sided version of facts. The Lahore High Court held that in circumstances involving allegations against public functionaries where the initial police report presents a distorted or one-sided version favourable to authorities, the rule against multiple F.I.Rs. yields to a counter-version, and the victim's complaint disclosing true facts must be entertained and registered accordingly. The court laid down the principle that a complaint by citizens against illegal state violence and actions of government functionaries cannot be treated as an ordinary complaint, and the police cannot refuse to register a case to shield authorities.
Questions settled- Can a second First Information Report be registered for the same occurrence when it presents a counter-version against public functionaries?
- Whether the police are under a legal obligation to entertain a citizen's complaint regarding police violence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is refusal by the police to register a case reflecting mala fide to protect authorities permissible under the law?
- Mulazim Hussain And Another vs Maulana Abdul JalilK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mukunchand Baid vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1577 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ali vs Messrs Adnan Auto Coro Mills and 2 others1999 PLC 423 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed and others vs The Additional Commissioner1999 SCMR 1824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants regarding the transfer of a composite property in Faisalabad. The appellants sought to challenge the property's transfer to the respondents, relying on an alleged 1962 order by a Settlement Commissioner that suggested the property was divisible and should be auctioned. The core legal questions were whether the appellants had any pending, valid claim for the property's transfer and whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere with the Settlement authorities' findings. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish a pending, valid claim, noting that the Settlement hierarchy had already examined and rejected their forms. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellants had previously acquiesced to the respondents' title through compromises and by attorning as tenants, and had failed to disclose material facts to the Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellants were not entitled to discretionary relief, particularly as they had not approached the Court with clean hands.
Questions settled- Whether a party who has previously acquiesced to a property transfer and attorned as a tenant is entitled to challenge the title of the transferee in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to disclose material facts, such as the rejection of application forms by administrative authorities, disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary relief from the High Court?
- Can a court in constitutional jurisdiction interfere with the findings of a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction that has already examined the scope and effect of a disputed administrative order?
- Mukhtar Ahmed alias Muhammad Mukhtar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 222 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge Court No. II Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions were whether the search and recovery of the unlicensed weapon complied with mandatory statutory safeguards, and whether procedural lapses rendered the conviction unsustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, finding that the recovery was conducted at 4:00 p.m. in a thickly populated residential area without associating any independent private witnesses or occupants of the house, in direct violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further noted that the recovered weapon was never sealed at the spot, sent for ballistic examination, or properly exhibited in evidence. Additionally, the recovered weapon was not shown or put to the appellant during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that such mandatory failures created serious doubt in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to acquittal.
Questions settled- Does recovery of an unlicensed weapon from a populated residential area without associating independent private witnesses violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a conviction under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance sustainable where the recovered weapon was neither sealed at the spot, sent for ballistic examination, nor properly exhibited in evidence?
- What is the effect of failing to confront the accused with the alleged recovered crime weapon during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mukhtar Ahmed alias Mokha and another vs The State1999 MLD 1542 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 426 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 463 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose from a case registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, where the petitioners sought post-arrest bail on the ground of an out-of-court compromise. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties could be considered as a valid ground for granting bail in offences that are statutory non-compoundable under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that although the offences under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 are not compoundable, the court can take judicial notice of a voluntary compromise in the interest of justice and equity. The Court reasoned that if the complainant party is unwilling to prosecute, the court should not compel them. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, establishing the principle that a compromise can serve as a mitigating factor for bail even in non-compoundable offences.
Questions settled- Can a court take judicial notice of an out-of-court compromise as a ground for granting bail in non-compoundable offences?
- Are offences under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 compoundable under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a court compel the prosecution of a matter if the complainant party has voluntarily entered into an outside-court settlement?
- Mukhtar Ahmad alias Mokha and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mukammil Shah vs The State1999 YLR 2225 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
- Mujahid Hussain Naqvi vs Azad Government and 4 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 237 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
- Muhummad Anwar vs (Dr.) Ghulam Murtaza Civil Hopital Bhai PheruK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 318 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammd Aslam and others vs Muhammad Hayat1999 SCMR 1346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the nature of a land transaction, which the petitioners claimed was an exchange but the respondent alleged was a disguised sale subject to pre-emption. The trial court initially dismissed the pre-emption suit, but the District Judge reversed this, finding the transaction to be a sale. The High Court affirmed this finding, noting the petitioners' refusal to resolve the matter via special oath and the lack of evidence supporting the exchange. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) lacked a specific provision empowering courts to reclassify an ostensible exchange as a sale, unlike the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the absence of such a specific statutory provision does not preclude a court from determining the true nature of a transaction based on evidence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to raise this specific legal plea in their written statement or earlier appeals, rendering it impermissible to raise at the final appellate stage.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a specific provision in the Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) prevent a court from determining the true nature of an ostensible exchange?
- Can a party raise a new legal plea for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Is a court empowered to look behind the form of a transaction to determine if it is a sale for pre-emption purposes?
- Muhammai) Arif Khan vs Mst. Shakoor Akhtar1999 YLR 985 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair vs Mrs. Arshad Begum And 2 Other1999 CLC 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenges an order passed by a Civil Judge allowing a third party (respondent No. 3) to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the property owner (respondent No. 1). The core legal question is whether a third party, who claims an independent agreement of sale with the plaintiff (rather than the defendant-owner), is a necessary or proper party to the original suit under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the third party is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It reasoned that the questions involved in a suit must be between the plaintiff and the defendant; disputes between a plaintiff and a third party constitute a separate cause of action. The Court established the principle that impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 is restricted to persons whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the questions between the existing plaintiff and defendant. Allowing such impleadment would cause unnecessary multifariousness, as the third party can independently pursue their own separate suit.
Questions settled- Is a third party who claims an agreement of sale with the plaintiff a necessary or proper party in a suit for specific performance between the plaintiff and the original owner?
- Does the term 'questions involved in the suit' under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to disputes between a plaintiff and a third party?
- Can a person who holds an agreement of sale but has not yet obtained a registered sale-deed convey a valid interest in the property to a third party?
- Muhammad Zubair Qureshi vs Munir Hussain Shirazi and 3 others1999 YLR 955 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair And 4 Others vs Muhammad Zamir And 11 Other1999 CLC 2045 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners challenged the orders dated 03-11-1996 and 24-10-1997 passed by the lower courts, whereby their evidence was closed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and their revision petition was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the petitioners' evidence and rejecting their application to summon a witness due to repeated adjournments and failure to produce evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners exhibited a lack of interest and employed delaying tactics, and therefore the trial court rightly invoked the penal provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court laid down the principle that in its writ jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with orders competently passed by courts of competent jurisdiction where the conduct of the party shows deliberate delay.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is justified in closing evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party fails to produce evidence despite opportunities?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with orders competently passed by subordinate courts regarding the closure of evidence?
- Muhammad Ziarat vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1922 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaroof and 3 others vs The State1999 SCMR 1951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Court against a Lahore High Court judgment confirming a death sentence and dismissing appeals in a murder case. The appellants were tried for murder and murderous assault. The trial court and High Court concluded it was a sudden fight, leading to the grant of leave to consider if conviction should have been under Section 304, Part I, PPC, instead of Section 302, PPC. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence including injuries on the accused side and inconsistencies in the prosecution's account, affirmed that it was an open and sudden fight, negating premeditation and the argument of self-defence. The Court held that in such a fight, each individual is responsible for their own act. While dismissing the appeals, the Court altered the death sentence of appellant Muhammad Zaroof on two counts to imprisonment for life on two concurrent counts, finding the circumstances distinguishable from cases warranting Section 304, Part I, PPC.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, be sustained in a case involving a sudden and open fight?
- Does the concept of self-defence apply in cases where both parties engage in an open fight?
- What is the appropriate sentencing for murder in circumstances of a sudden and open fight without premeditation?
- How should evidence be appreciated in cases involving multiple participants in a sudden fight?
- Can a death sentence be altered to life imprisonment in a sudden fight scenario where premeditation is absent?
- Muhammad Zaman vs The State1999 YLR 591 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 797 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs Ghulam Shabbir and another1999 SCMR 2456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to the respondent in a case involving robbery and lurking house trespass registered under FIR No. 28 at Police Station Paroa. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in entertaining a bail petition directly when the Additional Sessions Judge had rejected an earlier application for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the objection regarding jurisdiction was purely technical and inconsequential since the High Court's Division Bench heard the matter under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Furthermore, noting that the trial had already commenced, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail grant, leaving the petitioner at liberty to move the trial court for bail cancellation if substantial evidence emerged during the trial, while also highlighting serious investigative lapses in the police record.
Questions settled- Whether a bail petition before the High Court is incompetent if the initial bail application was rejected by an Additional Sessions Judge for lack of jurisdiction?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order granting bail when the trial has already commenced?
- What recourse is available to a petitioner seeking bail cancellation after the commencement of trial?
- Muhammad Zaman vs Ghulam Haider Khan and anothers1999 MLD 1266 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman Khan vs District Magistrate, Bhakkar and anothers1999 MLD 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zakaria vs The State1999 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, convicted of murdering a police officer under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged his conviction and death sentence. The core legal question was whether the police officer’s attempt to check the appellant, who was armed in a public place, constituted an unlawful act that would justify the appellant’s use of force under the principle of private defense, as established in the precedent of Mashal Khan's case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the police officer was performing a lawful duty under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the appellant's criminal history and possession of a weapon. The Court distinguished the present case from Mashal Khan, noting that the police in the precedent acted with malice and without legal authority, whereas here, the officer's actions were justified. The Court affirmed that the performance of a lawful duty by a public officer does not constitute aggression, and thus, no right of private defense was available to the appellant. Consequently, the conviction for murder was upheld, and the death sentence was confirmed.
Questions settled- Does a police officer have the authority to check an armed individual with a criminal record without a warrant?
- Is the performance of a lawful duty by a public officer considered an act of aggression justifying private defense?
- Does the precedent of Mashal Khan's case apply to situations where police officers are acting within their legal authority?
- Can abscondence be considered a factor in determining guilt in a murder case?
- Muhammad Zahoor vs Muhammad Yonus and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1050 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yunus vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 501 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Yousuf, who was detained in connection with a narcotics case under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicant sought bail on the ground of statutory delay, which had been previously refused by the Sessions Court due to the perceived likelihood of the applicant absconding, citing the conduct of co-accused who had jumped bail. The core legal question was whether the mandatory language of the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding statutory delay, overrides judicial discretion based on the apprehension of abscondence. The High Court held that once the statutory requirements for bail are satisfied and the accused is not responsible for the delay, the court is obligated to grant bail. The court affirmed that the word 'shall' in the statute is mandatory, not discretionary. The principle laid down is that where the legislature has prescribed specific conditions for bail, courts must exercise discretion in accordance with the legislative will, and apprehension of abscondence cannot defeat the statutory right to bail once conditions are met.
Questions settled- Does the word 'shall' in the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, impose a mandatory obligation on the court to grant bail upon the fulfillment of statutory conditions?
- Can a court refuse bail on the ground of apprehended abscondence when the statutory requirements for bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are otherwise met?
- Should an accused be penalized for delays in trial caused by the illness of their counsel?
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Member (Judiciali), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1999 MLD 2727 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi and others vs Government of Sindh and others1999 YLR 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf Bangali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1718 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1999 MLD 698 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad Ramzan and 6 others1999 P Cr. L J 968 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the custody (Superdari) of a disputed tractor was handed over to respondent No. 1. The core legal question revolves around the proper custody and Superdari of a vehicle seized under section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where rival claims of ownership are raised and no criminal case has been registered. The Lahore High Court held that since no offence appears to have been committed or reported regarding the tractor and the ingredients of section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are lacking, the vehicle must be returned to the person from whom it was seized, consistent with established legal principles. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the impugned order granting Superdari to respondent No. 1.
Questions settled- Whether the custody of a vehicle seized under section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted on Superdari when no criminal case has been registered?
- To whom should property seized by the police be returned when the ingredients of section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are lacking?
- Does the failure to report the seizure of property to the Area Magistrate under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the return of the property to the person from whom it was taken?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Allah Yar Khan And 2 Other1999 CLC 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali vs The State1999 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge, Narowal and another1999 SCMR 1999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that set aside a revisional order granting an extension of time to deposit pre-emption money. The core legal question was whether a trial court, having set aside an ex parte decree, retains the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money, or whether it becomes functus officio. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the revisional court's order. The Court reasoned that once an ex parte decree is set aside, the suit becomes pending again, and the court remains seized of the matter. Consequently, the court possesses the inherent power to extend the time for the performance of acts, such as the deposit of pre-emption money, provided it has not lost jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that where a court fixes a time for doing an act, it may grant extensions from time to time as long as it retains seisin of the matter, unless a specific statute prohibits such extension or the court has ceased to have jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a trial court become functus officio regarding the deposit of pre-emption money once an ex parte decree is set aside?
- Can a court grant an extension of time for the deposit of pre-emption money if the original time limit has expired?
- Does an appellate or revisional court have the authority to fix a new date for the deposit of pre-emption money?
- Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs and 6 others vs Moor Din and 261999 YLR 2720 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Ahmed Saeed and others1999 MLD 3354 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf And 3 Others vs Mst. Zohran Bibi1999 CLC 1365 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus Khan vs Managing Director, Pakistan Television1999 PLC (C.S.) 1518 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus and others vs Federal Service Tribunal and others1999 SCMR 2670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several petitions filed by employees of various federal entities (P.I.A., Pakistan Steel Mills, K.E.S.C., etc.) challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's refusal to entertain their appeals. The Tribunal had declined jurisdiction on the basis that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, introduced by the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997, which deems employees of federal authorities as civil servants, was not applicable to causes of action that accrued prior to the amendment's enactment on 10-6-1997. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over these matters based on the retrospective or prospective application of Section 2-A. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the Tribunal's interpretation regarding the temporal application of this statutory provision. The Court also addressed a procedural limitation issue regarding a petition filed after an unsuccessful constitutional petition in the High Court, granting leave subject to the question of limitation.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply to causes of action that accrued prior to its enactment on 10-6-1997?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal justified in declining to entertain appeals where the cause of action arose before the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Muhammad Younispatwari and anothers vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and 3 others1999 MLD 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1640 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis vs Muhammad Khan and 3 others1999 YLR 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis vs Atta Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis vs Atta Muhamamd and 2 others1999 SCMR 2574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of two civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition regarding the cancellation of a power of attorney and sale deed, as well as a writ petition arising from ejectment proceedings. The petitioner had executed a power of attorney to secure a debt, authorizing an attorney to sell his house upon default, which the attorney subsequently did. The core legal questions involved whether the power of attorney was misused due to the absence of a prior notice for payment, and whether the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship established default in rent. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were valid, as the power of attorney contained no limitation requiring prior notice and the debtor was legally bound to seek out the creditor. The Court laid down the principle that a debtor must follow the creditor, and that evidence cannot be led on factual pleas not raised in the pleadings.
Questions settled- Can a party lead evidence on a factual plea not raised in the pleadings?
- Whether a power of attorney executed as security for a debt can be exercised without prior notice of demand when no such limitation is expressed in the instrument?
- Does the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant by an occupant establish default in the payment of rent?
- Muhammad Younis and 9 others vs Government of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner Badin and 3 others1999 MLD 2790 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 702 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas vs Chairman/Administrator, Municipal1999 YLR 601 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-06-09Read full judgment →