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. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Naveed vs The State1999 MLD 2043 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Vicechancellor, University of the Punjab and others1999 MLD 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Vice Chancellor, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 480 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 3 others1999 MLD 1204 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs The State1999 MLD 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir Khan, Director Physical Education vs Secretary of Education, Goverment of the Punjab and 3 others1999 SCMR 2155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-06
  service lawtransfer of civil servantdepartmental representationjurisdiction of service tribunalexigencies of servicevested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the transfer of a civil servant, the Director of Physical Education. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the statutory requirement of exhausting departmental remedies had not been met, and whether the petitioner had a vested right to remain at a specific posting. The Supreme Court held that while the Tribunal erred in failing to ensure compliance with the mandatory requirement of filing a departmental representation before invoking its jurisdiction under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, no interference was warranted in this specific instance. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had held the post for over six years and possessed no vested right to continue in a particular position, as civil servants are liable to transfer under the exigencies of service. Furthermore, the Court found no question of law of public importance to justify interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, ultimately dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the filing of a departmental representation a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to continue holding a particular post at a particular place?
  • Can a civil servant be transferred anywhere in the exigencies of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir Khan vs Secretary of Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-06
  transfer of civil servantservice appealdepartmental representationvested rightexigencies of serviceSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the transfer of a civil servant, specifically a Director of Physical Education. The core legal questions involved whether a service appeal was maintainable before the expiry of the statutory period for departmental representation under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and whether a civil servant has a vested right to a particular posting. The Supreme Court held that while making a departmental representation is a condition precedent under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, a civil servant has no vested right to hold a particular post indefinitely and is liable to transfer under section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Furthermore, the Court held that individual transfer grievances without public importance do not warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is filing a departmental representation a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to continue holding a particular post at a particular place?
  • Can a civil servant be transferred anywhere in the exigencies of service under section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does an individual transfer grievance involving no question of law of public importance warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer Ahmad vs Additional District Judge and others1999 CLC 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-05
  election petitionrecount of votesinterim orderwrit jurisdictionsuppression of factsmaintainabilityelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order dated 16th December 1998, passed by an Election Tribunal, which directed a recount of votes in an election petition filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, a returned candidate. The petitioner sought a recount encompassing all candidates, not merely specific ones. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the petitioner's prior unsuccessful writ petition and the suppression of material facts. Upon review, the Court observed that the impugned order was merely an interim procedural step scheduling the matter for arguments on objections, rather than a final adjudication. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable against such an interim order. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind election laws does not provide for appeals against interim orders, and allowing constitutional petitions against such interlocutory proceedings would frustrate the expeditious resolution of election disputes. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the spirit of the law discourages judicial interference in pending interim election tribunal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interim order passed by an Election Tribunal?
  • Does the suppression of facts in a prior writ petition bar the maintainability of a subsequent petition?
  • Can a court interfere with an interim procedural order of an Election Tribunal under its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Syed Manzoor Ali and 2 others1999 MLD 3450 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd .1999 YLR 1287 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem and another vs Majeed1999 MLD 2861 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax &1999 PTD 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Abdul Wahid and others1999 MLD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12
  constitutional petitionlandlord and tenant relationshipejectment petitionburden of proofdisputed titlerent controller jurisdictionexcise records
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the Rent Controller’s dismissal of an ejectment petition. The core legal question was whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, given the tenant's denial of such status and their competing claim of ownership over the disputed premises. The High Court held that the Appellate Court erred in finding a tenancy relationship solely based on the landlord's prima facie ownership. The Court determined that the landlord failed to produce a tenancy agreement or evidence of rent payment, rendering the relationship unproven. The Court emphasized that while the landlord established prima facie ownership, this does not automatically create a landlord-tenant relationship. Furthermore, the Court noted that when a genuine dispute regarding title exists, the Rent Controller should not adjudicate the title, but rather the parties should seek resolution in a court of general jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, clarifying that its findings do not prejudice the ongoing civil litigation regarding the property's title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere establishment of prima facie ownership by a landlord automatically prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Is the Rent Controller the appropriate forum to adjudicate a genuine dispute regarding the title of the property?
  • Can a landlord succeed in an ejectment petition without producing a tenancy agreement or evidence of rent payment when the relationship is denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Khan vs Cap. (Retd.) Muhammad Yousaf, Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Peshawar and 4 others1999 YLR 2064 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 463 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29
  post-arrest bailillegal house searchabsconderzina by consentprohibitory clauseconfession before policebail for female accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal miscellaneous applications seeking post-arrest bail by three petitioners accused under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the police had legal justification to enter a private house under the pretext of arresting an absconder and whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and procedural violations. The Lahore High Court held that the police entry into the house without a warrant, without independent efforts to arrest the absconder, and without following procedural mandates under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was illegal and a transgression of authority. The Court further noted that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, that a confession made to police is inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that the female petitioner's case fell within the exception under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The bail applications were accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police can enter a private residence without a warrant under the pretext of searching for an absconder?
  • Does an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 relating to an attempt fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a confession made by an accused person before the police admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether a female accused is entitled to the benefit of the statutory proviso under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 1942 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Ahmed vs Mian Abdul Qayyum And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Ahmed And Others vs Mian Abdul Qayyum And Other1999 CLC 710 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs Muhammad Ayyub, City Magistrate. Burewala1999 P Cr. L J 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Anwar Etc. vs Islamic University Bahawalpur Etc.k.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and 17 others vs University of Engineering &1999 MLD 587 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nabi Through Legal Heirs vs Ghulam Yahya Through Legal1999 CLC 1771 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar Abbas vs Secretary, Kana Division and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-22
  service tribunalseniority disputecivil servantregularizationwork-charged employeebelated representationlachesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding the determination of his seniority in Grade-17 as an engineer. The petitioner contended that his regular appointment date should be reckoned from 1-4-1973 instead of 1-1-1974, as originally notified under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and sought seniority over the private respondents who had been promoted earlier in 1984. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner could challenge his regularization date and claim seniority from his prior work-charged service after a substantial delay, and whether work-charged service could count towards seniority. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal on the grounds of laches and delay, as the petitioner failed to challenge his regularization date within the stipulated period and delayed his departmental representations. The Court reaffirmed that work-charged service prior to regularization does not automatically grant seniority benefits and that the petitioner's acquiescence precluded him from disturbing settled inter se seniority after many years.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant count seniority from the period he remained employed on a work-charged basis prior to regularization?
  • Whether a belated departmental representation regarding a regularization date can sustain a service appeal before the Tribunal?
  • Does the failure to challenge promotion and seniority positions of private respondents for several years bar a subsequent claim for revision of a seniority list?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustaf Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muslim vs Mazhar Malik1999 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-13
  landlord and tenantejectment applicationprivity of contractlocus standitenancy agreementrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the premises, had initiated ejectment proceedings against the respondent based on default in rent payment and unauthorized alterations. The Rent Controller initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming the landlord-tenant relationship. However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that because the tenancy agreement was executed by the petitioner's father, Muhammad Ishaque, rather than the petitioner himself, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent. Consequently, the High Court found the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the ejectment application. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the real owner of a property can maintain an ejectment application against a tenant when the tenancy agreement was executed by an attorney or agent on behalf of the owner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the High Court's finding regarding the lack of privity of contract.

  Questions settled

  • Can the real owner of a property maintain an ejectment application when the tenancy agreement was executed by an attorney or agent?
  • Does the execution of a tenancy agreement by an agent preclude the principal owner from initiating rent proceedings against the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs Water and Power Development Authority and 4 others1999 MLD 1751 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 386 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Collector Customs And Other1999 CLC 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Mst. Umra Bevi1999 CLC 806 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-12
  succession certificateGeneral Provident FundnominationinheritanceTarkagroup insurancefamily pension
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment regarding the distribution of a deceased government employee's terminal benefits, including gratuity, General Provident Fund (G.P. Fund), pension, and group insurance. The core legal question was whether a nominee appointed by the deceased employee is entitled to these benefits to the exclusion of the legal heir, or whether such benefits form part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) distributable under Islamic law. The Court held that while nomination does not override the law of inheritance regarding the G.P. Fund and gratuity, these assets constitute the deceased's estate and must be distributed to the legal heir, in this case, the deceased's sister. However, the Court distinguished group insurance, ruling that it is a grant rather than inheritance, thereby entitling the nominee to receive it. The key principle laid down is that a nomination under the Provident Funds Act or similar service rules does not constitute a will, gift, or trust, but merely a mandate that expires upon the nominator's death, leaving the funds to devolve upon legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nomination of a beneficiary for a General Provident Fund confer absolute ownership upon the nominee to the exclusion of legal heirs?
  • Does a nomination for government employee benefits constitute a valid gift or will under Islamic law?
  • Is group insurance money considered part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) for the purposes of inheritance?
  • Can a nominee receive terminal benefits if they are not a legal heir under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Khan vs The State1999 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  capital punishmentmitigating circumstancesminority of offenderQatl-i-Amdjudicial discretion in sentencingprovocationQisas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Muhammad Mumtaz Khan, for the murder of one Fakhar-ud-Din. The primary legal question was whether the capital punishment was appropriate given the appellant's minority (aged 17/18 at the time of the incident) and the presence of mitigating circumstances, specifically provocation arising from an earlier incident involving the deceased's son. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant was a minor under the definition provided in Section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, he was not liable to Qisas, thereby excluding the application of Section 302(a). The Court determined that the case fell under Section 302(c), which allows for discretionary sentencing up to twenty-five years. Applying the principle that where multiple alternative punishments exist, the lesser punishment is preferred in appropriate cases involving mitigating factors like youth and provocation, the Court converted the death sentence into a term of fourteen years' imprisonment, extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offender who is under eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas?
  • Under which clause of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is an offender who is a minor punishable?
  • Can the court consider mitigating factors such as youth and provocation when sentencing under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When a statute provides multiple alternative punishments for an offence, which punishment should the court prefer in the presence of mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 3302 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar and others vs The State1999 MLD 1853 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar And Another vs Kohitex (Private) LimitedK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad MUBINAccused/ vs The State1999 MLD 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa vs Abdul Aziz and 2 others1999 SCMR 1322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-28
  disintermentexhumationpost-mortemMagistrate 1st Classcriminal revisionleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sindh, which had directed the disinterment of a dead body. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a Magistrate 1st Class, exercising powers under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, possesses the authority to order the exhumation of a corpse for a second post-mortem examination after an initial post-mortem had already been conducted and the case had been taken cognizance of by an Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court had set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge—who had declined the disinterment—and restored the Magistrate's original order allowing it. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety and legality of the High Court's order in the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Pending the final adjudication of this appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the continuation of an interim suspension of the High Court's judgment, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the disinterment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate 1st Class have the authority under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the disinterment of a body after a post-mortem has already been conducted?
  • Can a Magistrate order the exhumation of a body once an Additional Sessions Judge has already taken cognizance of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen vs Station House Officer, Police Station Pindigheb1999 MLD 2565 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen vs S.H.O. P.S. Pindigheb District, Attock And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 310 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mazhar vs Government of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 582 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mazhar And Other vs Government of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mashal vs The State1999 YLR 1585 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maqbool vs Muhammad Akbar and others1999 MLD 2536 · Board of Revenue · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha and others vs Sabir Ali1999 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-03
  pre-emption suitrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factmisreading of evidencewithdrawal of suitcivil procedurebenami transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the High Court, in revision, reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts. The appellants challenged the High Court's interference with factual findings and its refusal to invalidate a previous order permitting the respondent to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Supreme Court held that while revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, the High Court is empowered to interfere if findings of fact are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or ignore material evidence. Regarding the withdrawal of the suit, the Court established that a party should not suffer due to a court's failure to explicitly record grounds for granting such permission, and the validity of such an order cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, finding no jurisdictional defect in the reappraisal of evidence that corrected the lower courts' misreading of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C.?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to record specific grounds for permitting the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh one invalidate the subsequent suit?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court disturb findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik vs Fazal Karim and anothers1999 MLD 935 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Liaqat vs Saima Sardar Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Liaqat vs Saima Sardar And Another1999 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1999 MLD 3421 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Station House Officer And Other1999 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Butt vs Muhammad Usman and 20 others1999 YLR 704 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-01-15
  memorandum of appealdecree sheetmandatory provisionlimitation periodincompetent appealfirst appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by way of leave of the Court arose from concurrent judgments of the lower appellate court and the High Court, which dismissed the appellant's first appeal as incompetent under Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, due to the non-filing of the trial court's decree sheet along with the memorandum of appeal. The core legal question was whether an appellate court has the discretion to dispense with the filing of a copy of the decree sheet along with the memorandum of appeal and whether an appeal filed without it constitutes a valid appeal. The Supreme Court held that while an appellate court may dispense with the copy of the judgment, it has no power to dispense with the copy of the decree sheet, as an appeal is legally preferred against the decree rather than the judgment. The Court laid down the principle that the requirement to file a copy of the decree under Order XLI, Rule 1, C.P.C. is mandatory, and an appeal presented without it is invalid and subject to the law of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the power to dispense with the filing of a copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal?
  • Is an appeal filed without a certified copy of the decree sheet a validly presented appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Does the issuance of process to respondents by an appellate court amount to an implied dispensation of the copy of the trial court's decree?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to file a copy of the decree sheet within the prescribed period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and 3 otherss vs Waris ALI/Plaintiff1999 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurshid Abbasi vs Administrator/Assistant1999 SCMR 2224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-23
  building bye-lawsillegal constructioncompounding of violationsdemolition ordernatural justicediscriminatory treatmentsealing of propertymunicipal administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a writ petition against a demolition and sealing order issued by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Murree. The core legal questions concerned whether the demolition order violated natural justice, whether the petitioner was entitled to have major building plan violations compounded, and whether the sealing of the premises was legally permissible. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had admitted to significant deviations from the sanctioned building plan, which rendered the structure illegal. The Court affirmed that the power to compound violations is intended for minor infractions and cannot be exercised to undermine building regulations or sanction major illegalities. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an illegal benefit granted to others does not create a vested right for the petitioner to claim similar treatment. Finally, the Court upheld the sealing of the property as a necessary ancillary measure to facilitate the lawful demolition of the illegal structure. The principle established is that compounding powers cannot be used to defeat the purpose of building laws, and illegal acts by authorities in other cases do not justify further illegalities.

  Questions settled

  • Can the power to compound building violations be exercised to regularize major deviations from a sanctioned plan?
  • Does the granting of illegal benefits to other parties create a right for a petitioner to claim similar treatment?
  • Is the sealing of a building a legally permissible action when demolition has been ordered under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Nawaz and others1999 YLR 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Ghulam Rasool And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 623 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif and another1999 YLR 1308 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-17
  pre-emptionright of prior purchasevaluation certificatedirect appealconstitutional jurisdictionmahalestate
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addressed the legality of a pre-emption decree and the procedural requirement of obtaining a valuation certificate for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved whether a pre-emptor could succeed on a ground not pleaded (being an owner in the 'mahal') and whether sections 109, 110, and Order XLV Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requiring a certificate of valuation from the High Court applied under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could not be granted a pre-emption decree based on being an owner in the 'mahal' when such a preferential right was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, and that the value of the subject-matter for a direct constitutional appeal meant the actual market value rather than the notional jurisdictional value. Furthermore, statutory provisions requiring a High Court valuation certificate are inconsistent with the constitutional right of direct appeal under the Interim Constitution Act and stand impliedly repealed or inapplicable. The appeal was accepted and the pre-emption suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit be granted a decree on the basis of being an owner in the mahal when such a ground was not pleaded in the plaint?
  • Whether sections 109, 110, and Order XLV Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requiring a valuation certificate from the High Court apply to direct appeals under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974?
  • Does the expression 'value of the subject-matter' in the constitutional provisions governing direct appeals refer to the actual market value or the notional jurisdictional value fixed under the Suits Valuation Act?
  • Can an incompetent direct appeal be converted into a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and anothers vs Massan and others1999 SCMR 2464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-12
  pre-emptionex parte decreepast and closed transactionestoppel by conductvoid orderacquiescenceCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected appeals arising from a common judgment of the High Court, focusing on the maintainability of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The dispute originated from a pre-emption suit decreed ex parte in favor of the appellants, wherein the respondents (vendees) neither contested the suit nor challenged the ex parte decree through appeal. Instead, the respondents withdrew the pre-emption money and delivered possession of the land to the decree-holders in execution proceedings, but later filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., seeking to declare the decree a nullity in light of subsequent constitutional jurisprudence regarding pre-emption rights. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were estopped by their conduct and acquiescence from challenging the validity of the decree after having consciously acted upon it and allowed it to become a past and closed transaction. The Court emphasized that even a void order is not invariably struck down where doing so would be unjust, enable the circumvention of limitation, or where the challenging party has acquiesced to its consequences. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the revisional court, and restored the trial court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party who has withdrawn the decretal amount and delivered possession can subsequently challenge an ex parte pre-emption decree through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a void order required to be struck down by courts irrespective of the conduct, laches, or acquiescence of the party seeking its annulment?
  • Can a party circumvent the period of limitation and the requirement to challenge an ex parte decree through appeal by resorting to collateral proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the principle of estoppel apply to preclude a litigant from challenging a judicial order when they have consciously acted upon it and accepted its benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 91 others vs Additional Commissioner1999 MLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The Executive Director, Pims and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 707 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and others vs The State1999 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-01
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentioncorroborative evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalconspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while commuting their death sentences to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether there existed sufficient corroborative evidence against the convicted appellants so as to distinguish their case from that of the co-accused who were acquitted by the trial court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal of the co-accused was justified as the charge of conspiracy against them could not be legally proved on the uncorroborated sole testimony of a prosecution witness, and that the active participation of the appellants in the fatal assault clearly distinguished their case from the acquitted co-accused. The key principle laid down is that the necessity for seeking corroboration against co-accused only arises when they actively participate in the attack, and a charge of conspiracy failing due to lack of proof does not vitiate the conviction of active participants established through robust ocular and corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused charged with conspiracy warrants the acquittal of active participants whose guilt is proven through ocular and corroborative evidence?
  • Is corroboration required for co-accused who did not participate in the actual physical assault but were merely accused of hatching a conspiracy?
  • Can a conviction for conspiracy be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness when a co-witness is withheld?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 2032 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamran Asghar vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 YLR 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14
  Intermediate ExaminationResult CancellationFraudulent MisrepresentationWrit JurisdictionUnclean HandsAcademic FraudDiscretionary Relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner’s Intermediate Examination result by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dera Ghazi Khan, following the discovery that the petitioner had obtained his marks through systematic suppression of facts regarding his previous examination attempts. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the Board’s cancellation order and whether the Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to protect the petitioner’s medical career, given his subsequent completion of medical studies during the pendency of the petition. The Court held that the Board’s action was lawful, as the petitioner had obtained his results through deliberate deception and misrepresentation in his admission forms. Affirming that fraud vitiates academic results, the Court ruled that it would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to aid a petitioner who approached the Court with unclean hands. The Court further established that the passage of time and the petitioner’s subsequent academic progress do not sanctify fraudulent conduct, and sympathy cannot confer jurisdiction where the merits of the case do not support the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant relief to a petitioner who obtained academic results through fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Does the passage of time or the completion of professional studies during the pendency of litigation validate an academic result obtained through fraudulent means?
  • Is an educational board empowered to cancel an examination result if it is discovered that the candidate suppressed material information regarding previous examination attempts?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem require a show-cause notice in cases where the evidence of academic fraud is documentary and undisputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kalam and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 55 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-06-16
  Section 342 CrPCSection 364 CrPCSection 340(2) CrPCincurable illegalityremand for fresh trialProhibition Hadd Orderexamination of accuseddefence evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the judgment of the Political Agent/Sessions Judge, Khyber, convicting three appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and sentencing each to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. Upon reviewing the record, the Court discovered severe procedural lacunae during trial. Specifically, the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 364(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when recording the appellants' statements under Section 342, failing to append the required certification or memorandum. Additionally, the trial court failed to inform the appellants of their right to give evidence on oath under Section 340(2) or inquire if they wished to call defence evidence. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 364 is an incurable illegality resulting in a failure of justice that falls outside the saving ambit of Section 537. Consequently, the FSC set aside the conviction and remanded the case for fresh trial from the stage of recording proper statements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to append the mandatory certificate under Section 364(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. constitute an incurable illegality that vitiates the trial?
  • Is a failure to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 364 Cr.P.C. Curable under Section 537 Cr.P.C.?
  • Is the trial court under a mandatory duty to inform the accused of their right to give evidence on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kabir and anothers vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 3101 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juma and 4 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 333 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jehangir vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 2450 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14
  Shajjah-i-Munaqqilahconfession during trialsentence enhancementDiyat calculationrevisional jurisdictionArshCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge enhancing the petitioner's sentence for an offense under Section 337-A(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, initially convicted by a Magistrate based on a voluntary confession made during trial, contended that the confession was invalid because it was recorded after prosecution evidence had commenced and under oath. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a confession recorded at an advanced trial stage, the propriety of taking such a confession under oath, and the legality of the sentence enhancement by the revisional court. The Lahore High Court held that Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not restrict the timing of a confession, and Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates an oath, validating the conviction. However, the Court found the revisional court's Arsh calculation erroneous and the imprisonment excessive. The Court laid down that Arsh must be calculated based on the Diyat value applicable at the time of the occurrence, and modified the sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an accused on a confession recorded after the commencement of prosecution evidence?
  • Does the administration of an oath to an accused during a confession vitiate the conviction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the calculation of Arsh in a criminal case based on the Diyat value at the time of the occurrence or the time of judgment?
  • Can a revisional court enhance a sentence of imprisonment and impose Arsh where the trial court failed to award the mandatory legal punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jehangir vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1999 CLC 939 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 328 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid and others vs The State1999 MLD 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Janan vs The State and another1999 YLR 1926 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Muhammad Siddique and another1999 YLR 1089 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-24
  evacuee propertyallotment of landleasedelay and lachesconstitutional jurisdictionrehabilitation authoritiescustodian of evacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court setting aside an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, which had restored an evacuee land allotment in favor of the appellant, Muhammad Jamil. The core legal question concerned the validity of pre-1952 evacuee land allotments classified as leases, their statutory protection under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, and the effect of an unexplainable delay of thirty years in challenging a cancellation order. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while section 18(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 validates pre-existing allotments made by way of lease, the appellant was nonetheless not entitled to relief because he failed to challenge the cancellation order regarding the disputed land for three decades without offering any explanation, particularly when the respondent remained in continuous possession. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-1952 evacuee land allotments made by way of lease are protected and validated under section 18(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957?
  • Does an unexplainable delay of thirty years in challenging an order cancelling a land allotment disentitle a party to relief in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether previous observations regarding allotments by way of lease in earlier precedents constituted binding ratio or obiter dicta?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Iffat Zia And Other1999 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Khan And Others vs Additional Commissioner And Other1999 CLC 360 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Das, Etc. vs The Pakistan through SecretaryK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 256 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Das (W. Gopal Das) And Another vs The Pakistan1999 CLC 541 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28
  enemy propertyconstitutional guaranteesfundamental rightsaudi alteram partemvoid orderlimitationproperty ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dismissing the appellants' suit for declaration and possession regarding property allegedly treated as 'enemy property'. The core legal questions involve whether the appellants' property was validly acquired under enemy property laws, whether they were deprived of their property in accordance with law and natural justice, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants were undisputed Pakistani citizens and owners of the property, that the omnibus notification relied upon did not specify the property in question, that no show-cause notice was given violating the principle of audi alteram partem, and that the proposed sale-deed was never registered or matured. The Court ruled that void and without jurisdiction actions create a continuous cause of action, rendering limitation inapplicable. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decreeing the suit in favor of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that a citizen is out of the country deprive them of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can property be validly treated as enemy property under an omnibus notification that does not specify the property in question?
  • Does an order passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice attract the bar of limitation?
  • Whether an unregistered draft sale-deed can pass a valid title to a purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalil vs Salma Rani and anothers1999 MLD 2192 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir, Proprietor Qadeer Brothers vs Executive1999 MLD 788 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09
  limitation periodresiduary articlecomposite contractrecovery of securitybreach of contractsecond appealwork done
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a civil suit for the recovery of a balance amount and security deposit under a composite contract for supplying and fixing street lights. The core legal question was whether the appellant's suit was barred by limitation and which Article of the Limitation Act applied to a composite claim involving the price of goods, work done, and security deposits. The Lahore High Court held that a composite claim comprising the price of articles supplied, work done, and security deposits does not fall under Article 56 of the Limitation Act 1908, but is governed by the residuary Article 115 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court laid down the principle that laws of limitation must be construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff, and where multiple limitation articles could potentially apply, the one providing for a longer period of limitation should be adopted. The appeal was allowed and the suit decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Which Article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a composite suit for the recovery of the price of articles supplied, work done, and security deposits?
  • Does a combination of several claims in one action deprive each claim of its specific character under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • How should provisions of the Limitation Act 1908 be construed when more than one Article is potentially applicable to a lis?
  • What is the starting point of limitation for a suit arising out of a breach of contract where the rescission of the contract was never communicated to the contractor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffer vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2113 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 557 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority, Lahore1999 MLD 2841 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Dr. Muhammad Afzal Mirza And Another1999 CLC 958 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Local1999 PLC 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishfaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 606 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1999 MLD 526 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Ghafoor Khan1999 YLR 1956 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-15
  mutationland revenuePardanasheen ladysale mutationrevision petitiontitlerevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for declaration challenging the validity of Mutation No. 6906, alleging it was fraudulent and that the vendor, a Pardanasheen lady, never executed the sale. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, finding the transaction genuine. In this revision petition, the petitioners contended that the mutation was void due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 and that the Girdawar Circle lacked authority to record statements. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the evidence sufficiently proved the transaction's validity. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court clarified that while Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 prescribes procedures for revenue staff, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the underlying transaction, as mutations are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not create title. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Girdawar Circle’s role in recording statements did not vitiate the process, as the actual attestation was performed by a competent Revenue Officer.

  Questions settled

  • Does non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 invalidate a mutation?
  • Do mutations create title in immovable property?
  • Can a Girdawar Circle record the statement of a vendor for the purpose of mutation?
  • Does the relationship of a witness to a party automatically discredit their testimony in the absence of hostility?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and others vs The State1999 YLR 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi through Chairman1999 SCMR 2279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  service tribunalretrospectivityservice appealremandmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal directed against the order dated 30-10-1997 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the appellant's service appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground that the newly incorporated Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by Act No. XVII of 1997 was not retrospective. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the view taken by the Tribunal regarding the non-retrospectivity of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was in consonance with the prior judgments of the Supreme Court. Relying on its earlier precedents, including Muhammad Afzal v. KESC and Ghulam Mustafa Khairati v. Federation of Pakistan, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's view was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits within six months. The key principle laid down is that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 applies retrospectively in accordance with the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is retrospective in nature?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine on the grounds that Section 2-A is not retrospective?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and anothers vs The State1999 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-11
  capital chargeinterested witnessocular evidencemedical evidence conflictindependent corroborationbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34, P.P.C., but commuting their sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal questions pertained to the reliability of interested and inimical eye-witnesses, the necessity of independent corroboration, conflict between ocular and medical evidence, and the impact of a disbelieved prosecution motive. The Supreme Court observed that the ocular testimony was provided by closely related and inimical witnesses, contained material contradictions, was contradicted by medical evidence regarding firing distance, and was disbelieved regarding the primary motive. Furthermore, defence witnesses (close relatives of the alleged victim of abduction) supported the defence version of events. The Supreme Court held that evidence on a capital charge must emanate from an unimpeachable source or be supported by strong corroborative circumstances. Acquitting the appellants, the Court held that relying on uncorroborated, partisan testimony in such circumstances was unsafe, thereby granting them the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of interested and inimical eye-witnesses?
  • What is the effect of a conflict between medical evidence regarding firing range and ocular testimony on the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Whether failure to establish the alleged motive renders it unsafe to convict an accused based on partisan ocular evidence without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 711 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs Ahmad Ali, S.I., C.I.A., Faisalabad1999 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Khan vs Mst. Khalida Parveen and 3 others1999 MLD 419 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-12Read full judgment →