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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Ibrahim through Legal Heirs and others vs Mst. Basri through Legal Heirs and others1998 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-12
  power of attorneyrevocation of power of attorneypardanashin ladybona fide purchaserconcurrent findingsburden of proofsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a regular second appeal was accepted and the plaintiff's suit for a declaration regarding land being unauthorisedly sold was decreed. The core legal questions involved the manner of revocation of a power of attorney, the validity of a sale executed by an attorney, and the burden of proof regarding transactions involving pardanashin or illiterate ladies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the power of attorney did not grant a right to alienate the land, that the revocation notices given via press and notice were sufficient where the original power of attorney was not produced, and that beneficiaries transacting with illiterate ladies must prove free consent and independent advice. The key principles laid down include the presumption against withholding best evidence (the original power of attorney), the necessity of strict proof of good faith and independent advice in transactions involving vulnerable women, and the duty of vendees to exercise prudence and ascertain the principal's consent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registered power of attorney can be revoked through notice and press citation without a registered revocation deed?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of withholding the original power of attorney in a suit challenging an attorney's authority to sell property?
  • What is the burden of proof when a transaction is entered into with an illiterate or pardanashin lady?
  • Can a sale executed by an attorney be held valid when the attorney lacks the authority to alienate the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Saleh Muhammad1998 MLD 1115 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs Mianjee Khan through Deputy1998 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-19
  civil jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionPresident Order No. 12 of 1961devolution of propertyRuler of Kharan Statedeclaratory suitland ownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of civil appeals challenging a consolidated order of the High Court of Balochistan, which had dismissed the appellants' suits for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land. The respondents, legal representatives of the former Ruler of Kharan State, argued that the appellants were mere tenants (Bazgars) and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction under Articles 3, 4, and 7 of the President Order No. 12 of 1961. The core legal question was whether the dispute regarding ownership of the land fell within the ambit of the Order, which bars civil courts from adjudicating disputes concerning the devolution and distribution of a Ruler's property among heirs. The Supreme Court held that the Order applies exclusively to disputes between heirs and successors concerning the devolution of a Ruler's property. Since the present case involved a dispute between alleged owners and the respondents regarding land ownership and revenue records, rather than a succession dispute among heirs, the bar on jurisdiction did not apply. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the suits for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 7 of President Order No. 12 of 1961 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes that do not involve the devolution or distribution of a Ruler's property among heirs?
  • What is the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government under Article 3 of President Order No. 12 of 1961?
  • Is a dispute regarding the ownership of agricultural land between private parties and the legal representatives of a former Ruler covered by the provisions of President Order No. 12 of 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 3 others vs Custodian of Evacuee Property1998 CLC 302 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias Tedi vs State1998 MLD 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias Kali vs State1998 MLD 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain (Muhammad Hassan) vs Abdul Zahir and another1998 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Khan and 3 others vs Ali Akbar Khan1998 CLC 209 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1998 MLD 437 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Haji Abdul Wali Khan1998 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-15
  rent controlexecution proceedingsobjection petitionremand orderlimitation periodappellate jurisdictionrecording of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Balochistan High Court judgment that remanded an execution matter to the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in remanding the case for a fresh decision on an 'Objection Petition' without first addressing whether the underlying appeal was time-barred, and whether the Executing Court was legally obligated to record evidence regarding such objections. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's prior directions in the same litigation. The Court found that the petitioner failed to raise the limitation issue before the High Court or demonstrate that the appeal was time-barred. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Executing Court, exercising powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is duty-bound to examine evidence and decide on objection petitions filed during execution proceedings. The principle laid down is that an Executing Court must provide a fair opportunity of hearing, including the framing of issues and recording of evidence, when adjudicating objection petitions in rent matters.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Executing Court under the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1980 required to record evidence when adjudicating an objection petition?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that was rendered in strict compliance with the Supreme Court's own prior remand directions?
  • Does the failure to raise a limitation plea before the High Court preclude a party from raising it for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 363 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Abbasi vs M/s. Gharib Nawaz Construction1998 CLC 15 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Abbasi vs (M/s.) Gharib Nawaz ConstructionK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 144 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef vs Mst. Reshman and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1576 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-02
  zina-bil-jabrrapewhippingacquittal appealenhancement of sentencedefense witnesschemical examiner reporthudood ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves criminal appeals arising from a conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused and for enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of medical evidence and delay in lodging the F.I.R. in a rape case, the admissibility and use of police statements and defense witness testimonies, and the validity of a sentence of whipping in Tazir cases following legislative changes. The Federal Shariat Court held that minor discrepancies or delays do not inherently vitiate a prosecution case if corroborated, that defense witness testimony duly brought on record can be relied upon, and that sentences of whipping in Tazir cases stand remitted under the Abolition of the Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996. The court laid down principles regarding the evaluation of defense evidence, the presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals, and the mandatory application of statutory remissions of whipping sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case in an offence of rape?
  • Can a sentence of whipping awarded in a Tazir case be executed after the promulgation of the Abolition of the Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996?
  • How does an appellate court evaluate an appeal against an acquittal keeping in view the double presumption of innocence?
  • Whether contradictions between oral testimony and the chemical examiner's report regarding bloodstains are sufficient to demolish the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hamdan Shaikh vs The Chairman, Board of Secondary1998 PLD Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-08
  educational recordsname changeSpecific Relief Actdeclaratory suitcivil revisioneducational boardmaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged the concurrent findings of lower courts, which dismissed the applicant’s suit for a declaration and mandatory injunction to change his name from 'Muhammad Shariq Shaikh' to 'Muhammad Hamdan Shaikh' in his Secondary School Examination records. The core legal question was whether a student is entitled to a judicial declaration altering their name in official educational certificates after having voluntarily provided that name during the examination process. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a valid legal right to the relief sought. The Court affirmed that the suit did not fall within the scope of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, as the applicant could not establish a legal character or property right warranting such a declaration. The Court emphasized that Section 42 is exhaustive, and relief cannot be granted unless the claim strictly satisfies its statutory requirements. Consequently, personal preferences or alleged cultural customs regarding name changes do not provide sufficient grounds for the judiciary to compel educational boards to alter official, voluntarily submitted records.

  Questions settled

  • Can a student seek a judicial declaration to change their name in official educational certificates after voluntarily providing that name during the examination process?
  • Does a suit for the correction of a name in educational records fall within the scope of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Is a civil court empowered to order an educational board to alter official records based on a student's personal preference to change their name?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hamdan Shaikh vs Chairman Board of SecondaryK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 523 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs The Zila Council Gujranwala through ItsK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib vs Muhammad Siddique and 16 others1998 CLC 417 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 899 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul and others vs The State1998 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-10
  anticipatory bailcriminal procedurepolice constablesF.I.R. omissionbail conversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of accused police constables to anticipatory bail when they are not named in the First Information Report and no significant role is attributed to them. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition regarding the first petitioner was not pressed and thus dismissed, while the petitions of the remaining petitioners, who were police constables with no significant role alleged and whose names were absent from the F.I.R., were converted into appeals and allowed. The court laid down the principle that accused individuals not named in the F.I.R. and lacking specific active roles are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether accused individuals not named in the F.I.R. and having no significant role attributed to them are entitled to anticipatory bail?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal and allowed under criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghafoor and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1876 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-30
  retrospective punishmentQisas and Diyat Ordinanceattempt to murderunexplained injuriescounter-caseTazkiyat-tul-Shahoodcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves the legality of convicting and sentencing the appellants under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for an alleged offence committed prior to its enactment, and whether such conviction violates the constitutional protection against retrospective punishment. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court acted without jurisdiction and illegally in awarding punishment under a law that was not in existence at the time of the commission of the offence. The court established that no law can authorize retrospective punishment or a penalty different from the one prescribed at the time the offence was committed, in accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Additionally, the court noted the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the appellant in a counter-case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for an offence committed prior to its enactment?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the imposition of retrospective punishment?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction?
  • Is Tazkiyat-tul-Shahood mandatory in cases punishable with Hadd and Qisas?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazal vs Zahid Mahmood and 3 others1998 MLD 1156 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazal and 4 others vs Khadim Hussain1998 MLD 1658 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1998 MLD 270 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Khalid Masud and 13 others1998 CLC 217 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Eisa vs Musa and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The State1998 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-21
  post-arrest bailmurderpolice investigation reportscolumn 2 challanfurther inquiryfatal role
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his pre-trial bail application in a murder case registered under F.I.R. No. 76 of 1996. The core legal question was whether an accused person is entitled to bail as of right on the ground of further inquiry solely because successive police investigation reports declared him innocent and his name appeared in column 2 of the challan, despite being specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with a fatal role supported by eye-witnesses and a subsequent investigation by a senior police officer implicating him. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that conflicting police investigation reports and placement of a name in column 2 are not the sole or conclusive criteria for granting bail. The Court laid down the principle that a court evaluating bail must assess the entire material on record to determine reasonable grounds of involvement, rather than deciding merely on the basis of police exoneration reports or challan column placements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail merely because successive police investigations declared him innocent?
  • Does the placement of an accused's name in column 2 of the challan automatically entitle him to the grant of bail?
  • Can a court rely exclusively on conflicting police investigation reports while deciding a bail application?
  • Whether specific attribution of a fatal firearm injury supported by eye-witness accounts constitutes reasonable grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dildar Malik vs Tahir Mahmood and anothers1998 SCMR 652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-02
  private complaintpolice challanconcurrent trialswitness testimonyleave to appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's criminal revision and miscellaneous application. The core legal question concerns whether persons challaned as accused by the police in a murder case can be examined as prosecution witnesses upon oath in a parallel private complaint arising from the same occurrence. The Supreme Court held that where different versions with distinct sets of accused and witnesses are put forward, and the individuals in question are not named as accused in the private complaint but are cited as witnesses, they can be lawfully examined upon oath as witnesses in the complaint case pursuant to the procedure settled in Nur Elahi v. The State. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave declined, affirming the trial court and High Court orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can persons challaned as accused by the police be examined as witnesses upon oath in a private complaint arising from the same occurrence?
  • What is the procedure for the trial of a case involving a private complaint alongside a police challan with conflicting versions?
  • Whether an accused in a police report can be cited as a witness in a parallel private complaint without being pardoned or acquitted first?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Daud Naz vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Communications, Islamabad and 9 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 993 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Chiragh vs Rustam Ali and 2 others1998 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22
  murderacquittalocular accountdelayed FIRdefense suggestionscriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of murder under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case alleged that the respondents intercepted the deceased while he was driving a tractor, raised a lalkara, and stabbed him to death due to a motive arising from a previous allegation of Zina. The trial court convicted the respondents, but the High Court reversed the decision on appeal, citing doubtful presence of eye-witnesses, unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., discrepancies in the time of death, and compromised credibility of the ocular account regarding a co-accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the legality of the High Court's acquittal. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the reasons advanced by the High Court for discarding the ocular and recovery evidence were sound and that inconsistent defense suggestions put to witnesses during cross-examination do not amount to an admission of guilt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in discarding the ocular account and corroboratory evidence to acquit the respondents?
  • Do inconsistent and erratic suggestions put by defense counsel to a witness during cross-examination amount to an admission of guilt?
  • Can an order of acquittal be reversed merely because a different view of the evidence is possible?
  • What is the probative value of an F.I.R. recorded after preliminary investigation and mature deliberations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota and 48 others vs Allah Ditta and 14 others1998 SCMR 2764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-24
  inheritance mutationco-sharerslimitationestoppelrevenue recordpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision against the appellate court's decree in a suit for possession and inheritance. The core legal question involves whether a suit challenging an incorrect inheritance mutation is barred by limitation and estoppel where co-sharers are in joint possession, and whether wrong revenue mutations confer title. The Supreme Court held that erroneous revenue entries do not confer ownership rights, limitation does not run against co-sharers in joint possession where a wrong mutation is sanctioned, and co-sharers are not strictly obliged to seek a declaration immediately upon the sanctioning of a wrong mutation. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding inheritance entitlement and dismissed the petition, ruling that no jurisdictional defect under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was made out.

  Questions settled

  • Does a wrong revenue mutation confer any right or title in property?
  • Does limitation run against co-sharers challenging an incorrect inheritance mutation?
  • Are co-sharers obliged to file a declaratory suit immediately upon the sanctioning of a wrong mutation?
  • When does a revisional court interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and 3 otherss vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1998 CLC 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Province of Punjab and others1998 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mst. Iqbal Begum and another1998 CLC 333 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Haji Muhammad Siddique and 5 others1998 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 36 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Haji Muhammad Siddique & 5 Other(K.L.R. 1998 SC 77) · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ the College of Physicians and Surgeons and anothers vs Dr. Ahsan Waheed Rathore1998 SCMR 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, J Ch. Saeed Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 others1998 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Basharat vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 216 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baseer Khan and anothers vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-16
  service lawseniorityretrospective regularizationPublic Service Commissiontemporary appointmentcompetitive examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Services Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' claim for seniority over respondents. The petitioners were initially appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers in 1967, subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission. While the respondents qualified the Commission's examination and were appointed on a regular basis, the petitioners failed to qualify and were placed in a surplus pool. Although the petitioners' services were later regularized with retrospective effect, they sought seniority over the respondents who had qualified the examination. The core legal question was whether the retrospective regularization of the petitioners' services entitled them to seniority over those who had been regularly appointed through the Commission's competitive process. The Supreme Court held that the retrospective regularization of the petitioners could not adversely affect the seniority of the respondents, who had duly qualified the Commission's examination. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing the principle that retrospective regularization of service cannot supersede the seniority rights of employees who were appointed on a regular basis through the prescribed competitive examination process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retrospective regularization of service grant an employee seniority over those who were regularly appointed through a competitive examination?
  • Can an employee who failed to qualify for a post through the Public Service Commission claim seniority over those who qualified and were appointed regularly?
  • Is the seniority of regular appointees protected against the retrospective regularization of temporary employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baseer Khan and another vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-16
  seniority disputeretrospective regularizationPublic Service Commissionservice lawtemporary appointmentcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.W.F.P. Services Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal regarding seniority claims. The petitioners were initially appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers in 1967, subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission. While the petitioners failed to qualify for regular appointment through the Commission and were placed in a surplus pool, respondents Nos. 3 to 12 successfully qualified the Commission's examination and were appointed on a regular basis. Although the petitioners' services were later regularized with retrospective effect, they sought seniority over the respondents who had qualified the Commission's examination. The core legal question was whether the retrospective regularization of the petitioners' services entitled them to seniority over those who had been regularly appointed through the Commission's competitive process. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' retrospective regularization could not adversely affect the seniority of the respondents who had duly qualified through the Commission. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that seniority cannot be claimed over regular appointees by those who failed to qualify through the prescribed competitive examination process. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retrospective regularization of service confer seniority over employees who were regularly appointed through a competitive examination process?
  • Can an employee who failed to qualify for a post through the Public Service Commission claim seniority over those who successfully qualified and were appointed on a regular basis?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1896 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh, Etc. vs Mehar Aziz Ullah, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 309 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Shafi and another1998 CLC 711 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs The S Tate1998 P Cr. L J 362 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Malik vs The Director, Federal Government1998 PLC (C.S.) 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-02
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksdisciplinary proceedingscivil serviceservice tribunalexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) for the year 1995. The core legal question concerned the validity and finality of these adverse remarks in the context of ongoing disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. With the consent of both parties, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition by directing the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner via Charge Sheet No. 3400/D-18 within 60 days. The Court held that the adverse remarks in the petitioner's A.C.R. shall remain contingent upon the final outcome of these disciplinary proceedings. This judgment establishes the principle that adverse entries in a civil servant's service record may be rendered subject to the final determination of related disciplinary inquiries, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing premature prejudice to the employee's service record.

  Questions settled

  • Can adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report be made subject to the final outcome of pending disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to set a timeline for the completion of departmental disciplinary proceedings under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Malik vs The Director, Federal Government1998 SCMR 2724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-02
  service tribunaladverse remarksannual confidential reportdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petitioncivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) for the year 1995. The core legal question concerns the validity of adverse remarks and the pendency of related disciplinary proceedings. With the consent of both parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it by directing the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to a specific charge sheet are completed expeditiously within sixty days. The Court held that the adverse remarks entered in the A.C.R. of the petitioner shall remain subject to the final outcome of those disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report are subject to the final result of pending disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a petition against the dismissal of an appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal be converted into an appeal and disposed of with directions for expedited departmental proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 175 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Suhail and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources, Islamabad and others1998 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-01
  constitutional jurisdictionenforcement of contractmanagement traineeslegitimate expectancypromissory estoppelwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses appeals filed by Management Trainees who, after completing their fixed-term training scheme with Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., were not absorbed into regular service and subsequently challenged this refusal through constitutional petitions in the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants had an enforceable right to regular employment under constitutional jurisdiction and whether contractual terms or the doctrine of legitimate expectancy could compel their absorption. The Supreme Court held that the relationship was governed strictly by a contract for a fixed-period training scheme which explicitly stipulated no entitlement to regular employment, and that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the principle of promissory estoppel was inapplicable as no vested right was created. The appeals were consequently dismissed, establishing that writ petitions are not maintainable for enforcing private or employment contracts, and that recruitment must adhere to open merit regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contract of employment or training can be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does successful completion of a fixed-term management trainee scheme create a vested right or legitimate expectancy for regular absorption into company service?
  • Can the principle of promissory estoppel be invoked to claim regular employment in the absence of an express term in the training agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan and others vs Government of N.W.F.P.1998 PLC (C.S.) 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-23
  writ of mandamuscontractual employeesregularization of servicepublic service commissionconstitutional jurisdictioncontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates on a contractual basis, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Provincial Government to honor the recommendations of the Chief Justice and regularize their services. The core legal question was whether contractual employees possess a vested legal right to demand regularization of service through a writ of mandamus, and whether such regularization can bypass statutory requirements involving the Public Service Commission. The court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce contractual obligations or to compel the executive to act outside statutory frameworks. It ruled that the petitioners, having accepted employment on specific contractual terms stipulating termination upon the availability of Public Service Commission selectees, lacked a clear legal right. Furthermore, the court held that regularizing posts in BPS-17 without the Public Service Commission's process violates governing statutory laws. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to enforce contractual obligations or compel the regularization of contractual employees?
  • Do contractual civil judges have a vested legal right to demand regularization contrary to their terms of appointment?
  • Whether the appointment and regularization of civil judges in BPS-17 can bypass the statutory functions of the Public Service Commission?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable to alter the terms of a contract freely entered into between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan and 10 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P.1998 PLC (C.S.) 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-17
  writ of mandamusregularization of servicecontractual appointmentjudicial independencepublic service commissionseparation of judiciarylegal right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, initially appointed as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates on a contract basis, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Provincial Government to regularize their services, relying on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court and the principle of the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had no vested legal right to regularization and that contractual terms could not be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The Court held that a writ of mandamus requires a clear legal right and a corresponding legal duty, neither of which existed here. The Court emphasized that appointments to BPS-17 posts must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed by the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978, and the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983. It further clarified that the principle of judicial independence does not place the judiciary above the law, nor does it authorize recommendations that violate statutory appointment procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to enforce the regularization of contract employees in the absence of a clear legal right?
  • Does the principle of judicial independence empower the judiciary to override statutory appointment procedures?
  • Are appointments to BPS-17 posts in the N.-W.F.P. province subject to the recruitment procedures prescribed by the Public Service Commission?
  • Does an appointment on a contract basis create a vested legal right to regular appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and another vs The State1998 MLD 367 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad Khan vs Talib Hussain1998 MLD 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Attique, Etc. vs TayabuddinK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 639 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atiq and others vs Tayubuddin and others1998 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-31
  SadaqaSeri tenureadverse possessionImamatrevocation of giftcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a suit for possession of land filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, alleging that the suit land was given to defendant No. 1 in lieu of his services as an Imam and that he was asked to hand over possession upon failing to perform duties and raising constructions. The trial court dismissed the suit, but upon appeal and remand, the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs subject to the payment of improvement costs. Both parties filed civil revisions challenging different aspects of the lower appellate court's judgment. The core legal question was whether land granted more than a century ago as 'Sadaqa/Seri' for services as an Imam, and held continuously without objection, is revocable and whether the possessors are mere tenants-at-will. The Peshawar High Court held that land given as 'Sadaqa/Seri' with delivery of possession for religious services over a century becomes adverse in possession and is irrevocable, and the grantees enjoy permanent rights analogous to ownership, preventing their eviction. The Court accepted the defendants' revision, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, laying down that ancient 'Seri' grants for religious services are irrevocable and create protected possessory rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land granted as 'Sadaqa/Seri' for religious services such as Imamat for over a century is revocable by the grantor's successors?
  • Does continuous possession of land under a 'Seri' tenure ripen into adverse possession against the original owners?
  • Can a grantee holding land under a 'Seri' tenure for religious services be evicted as a tenant-at-will?
  • Whether a party can simultaneously accept a lower appellate court decree while challenging only the portion relating to the cost of improvements in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Athar Hussain and another vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi through Chairman, Karachi Port Trust Head Office Building, Eduljee Dinshaw Road, Karachi1998 CLC 633 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ateeq and 5 others vs Mst. Asghari Begum and 8 others1998 CLC 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asmatullah vs D.C., Sargodha and others1998 MLD 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asmat vs (Mst.) Surriya Kausar And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 593 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asmat Ullah alias Muhammad Asmat vs Mst. Suraya Kausar1998 CLC 295 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam. Etc. vs (Mst.) Fazal Bibi. Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 318 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Zafar Hussain, Judicial Magistrate, PattokiK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 210 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Zafar Hussain Judicial Magistrate And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 439 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 522 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1998 PLC 382 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Ghulam Hussain and others1998 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Khanpur, District Rahimyarkhan and 4 others1998 CLC 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12
  revenue mutationdelivery of possessioncivil suit pendencyjurisdiction of revenue authoritiestemporary injunctionconstitutional petitionland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Khanpur, directing the delivery of possession of agricultural land to the respondents, Mst. Salima Bibi and her son, based on revenue mutations, despite a pending civil suit between the parties regarding the title and possession of the same land. The core legal question was whether a Revenue Officer possesses the lawful authority to order the dispossession of a party and transfer possession to another based solely on mutation entries while a civil suit concerning the title and possession is actively pending. The Court held that the impugned order was patently illegal. It established the principle that Revenue Authorities lack the jurisdiction to independently order the delivery of possession of land to a party merely on the basis of mutation entries. Such authorities may only act to deliver possession in execution of a decree or order passed by a competent court. Consequently, the Court set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and directed the restoration of the status quo ante regarding possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Revenue Officer or Collector order the delivery of possession of land to a party based solely on mutation entries while a civil suit regarding the title is pending?
  • Do Revenue Authorities have the independent power to execute possession of land without a decree or order from a competent court?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an illegal order of a Revenue Officer even if an alternate remedy might exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Additional Commissioner1998 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-23
  leave to appealevacuee propertyproperty ownershipevacuee statusSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a petition for leave to appeal concerning the character and ownership status of certain immovable commercial properties. The core legal issue brought before the Court was whether the shops bearing numbers B-682, B-683, and B-684 were constructed and owned by an evacuee named Chandar Parkash, thereby legally constituting evacuee properties subject to relevant evacuee property laws. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, the Supreme Court determined that the matter raised substantial legal and factual questions requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider and determine the exact ownership history and whether the subject shops fell within the legal classification of evacuee property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted to determine if specific shops constitute evacuee property based on their construction and ownership by an evacuee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Sukhera and others vs Collector, Land Acquisition1998 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-28
  intra-court appeallaw reforms ordinanceland acquisitionoriginal orderconstitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilitydeeming provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing Intra-Court Appeals as not maintainable under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The underlying dispute arose from land acquired under the Land Improvement Act, 1922, where the Collector rendered an award, followed by a reference to a tribunal under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which enhanced the compensation. Writ petitions against the tribunal's award were dismissed by a Single Judge, and subsequent Intra-Court Appeals were rejected on the ground that the original order was appealable under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby barring an Intra-Court Appeal pursuant to the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the Intra-Court Appeal and held that since the law applicable provided a right of appeal against the award of the tribunal—which is deemed to be an award of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—an Intra-Court Appeal against the order of the Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction was incompetent. The principle laid down is that under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, if the relevant law provides for an appeal against the original order, no Intra-Court Appeal lies from the decision of a Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent against an order passed by a Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction if the law applicable provides for an appeal against the original order?
  • Does the award of a tribunal constituted under the Land Improvement Act, 1922, constitute an appealable award under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • What constitutes the 'original order' for the purpose of applying the embargo contained in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  • Does the failure to actually avail of an available statutory appeal affect the bar against maintaining an Intra-Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Sajjan vs Liaqat Ali and 2 others1998 SCMR 1555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-25
  quantum of sentencemitigating circumstancespolitical rivalryintentional murderright of self-defencedeath penaltyenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the quantum of sentence awarded to the convict, Liaqat Ali, for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf. The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but imposed a sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, citing political differences between the parties as a mitigating factor. The Supreme Court examined whether such political animosity constitutes a valid ground for leniency in sentencing. The Court held that political differences do not mitigate the gravity of intentional murder and that awarding lesser sentences on such grounds would undermine democratic tolerance and the rule of law. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's claim of self-defence, noting it was unproven, and dismissed the unsubstantiated plea of minority. Consequently, the Court set aside the sentence of life imprisonment and enhanced the punishment to the death penalty, affirming that the normal penalty for murder should be imposed absent valid legal mitigation. The judgment reinforces the principle that political rivalry is not a mitigating circumstance for capital offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can political differences between the accused and the deceased serve as a mitigating circumstance to justify a lesser sentence than death in a murder case?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the accused to establish a plea of self-defence when the commission of the act is admitted?
  • Is a mere statement by an accused regarding his minority sufficient to claim leniency in sentencing without supporting evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1998 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-09
  evacuee propertyauctionvoid ab initiosettlement authoritiesprovisional transfer orderfactual controversypresumption of regularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the disputed transfer of an evacuee shop. The core legal question concerned whether the Settlement Authorities possessed the jurisdiction to transfer a property that had already been auctioned and transferred to a previous purchaser. The Supreme Court held that since the suit property had been validly auctioned to the respondent and a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) issued prior to the subsequent transfer to the petitioner's predecessor, the property was no longer available for disposal by the Settlement Authorities. Consequently, the subsequent transfer was declared void ab initio. The Court further affirmed that factual contentions, such as the lack of authorization of an Additional Settlement Commissioner, cannot be raised for the first time in appeal if not pleaded in the lower courts. The principle established is that once property is validly disposed of by the state, subsequent administrative transfers of the same property are legally ineffective, and the presumption of regularity applies to official acts where no contrary evidence is pleaded.

  Questions settled

  • Can Settlement Authorities transfer an evacuee property that has already been validly auctioned and transferred to a previous purchaser?
  • Is a transfer order issued by Settlement Authorities regarding property already disposed of considered void ab initio?
  • Can a party raise a factual plea regarding the authority of a public official for the first time in an appeal if it was not raised in the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Karimi vs Khalil Ahmad and others1998 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-22
  Section 12(2) CPCvacant possessionexecution of writrent controllerpolice aidundertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed against the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel requested time until the end of the year to vacate the premises, while the respondents' counsel proposed a period of four months. The Court disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner time to vacate the premises until 30th November 1996. The Court imposed a strict condition that if the petitioner failed to hand over vacant possession by the specified date, the Rent Controller would be authorized to execute a writ of possession with police assistance without issuing any further notice. Additionally, the petitioner's counsel provided an undertaking that the petitioner would discontinue the receipt of petrol before the expiry of the granted period. Consequently, the petition was dismissed subject to these observations and conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant time for vacating premises while dismissing a petition against the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a Rent Controller be directed to execute a writ of possession with police aid without further notice upon the failure of a party to vacate by a court-ordered deadline?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Gatta and another vs Karachi Building Control1998 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-27
  interim injunctionunauthorized constructionbuilding controlvoid agreementbona fide purchaserSindh Building Control Ordinancedemolitioncontractual illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns fifteen consolidated applications for interim injunctions filed by allottees of flats and shops against the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) to restrain the demolition of buildings constructed in violation of approved plans. The core legal question was whether agreements, such as sub-leases, executed between builders and allottees for properties built in contravention of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, are void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, and whether such allottees possess a legal right to retain possession. The court held that these agreements are void because they are designed to defeat the provisions of the Ordinance, specifically regarding occupancy certificates and approved building plans. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications, ruling that allottees cannot claim the status of bona fide purchasers to protect illegal construction. The key principle laid down is that where an agreement is intended to defeat statutory provisions or is contrary to public policy, it is unenforceable. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the balance of convenience does not favor granting interim injunctions to protect illegal structures, as public interest and regulatory compliance take precedence.

  Questions settled

  • Are agreements between builders and allottees for properties constructed in violation of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Can an allottee of a property built in violation of approved building plans claim the status of a bona fide purchaser to prevent demolition?
  • Does the delivery of possession of a building without an occupancy certificate violate the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a court required to grant an interim injunction to an allottee of a building constructed in violation of approved plans?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Cheema vs University of the Punjab, through ViceK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 109 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Municipal Committee and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 93 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Haji Khuda Dad Khan and 7 others1998 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-12
  land reformssuo motu revisionfinality of ordersgift mutationresumption of landtenancy rightsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld orders passed by land revenue authorities regarding the resumption and gifting of agricultural land under land reform laws. The core legal question is whether the Federal Land Commission possessed the authority to exercise suo motu revisional powers to interfere with land transactions and administrative orders that had already attained finality between the parties. The petitioners, who were tenants allotted land under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, challenged the Additional Chief Land Commissioner's decision to set aside the resumption of land that had been subject to a gift mutation, thereby cancelling the petitioners' allotments. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the arguments regarding the finality of previous administrative orders—specifically the Deputy Land Commissioner’s confirmation of land exchange and the Federal Land Commissioner’s earlier order regarding the gift mutation—required deeper judicial examination. The Court held that the issues raised regarding the limits of suo motu revisional jurisdiction over finalized administrative matters warranted a full hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Land Commission exercise suo motu revisional powers to reopen administrative orders that have already attained finality?
  • Does the confirmation of a land exchange by a Deputy Land Commissioner preclude subsequent interference by higher land commission authorities?
  • Is a gift mutation that has been previously adjudicated upon by the Federal Land Commissioner subject to further review by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State through A.G.. Punjab And Another(K.L.R. 1998 SC 70) · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationcommon intentioncross-versionfurther inquiryfatal injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Qayyum challenging the Lahore High Court's order cancelling the bail granted to them by the trial court in a case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order granting post-arrest bail where the fatal head injury was not specifically attributed to either petitioner, and where a cross-version of the incident existed involving injuries sustained by the accused. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the bail granted by the trial court. The Court held that where medical evidence does not specify which accused inflicted the fatal blow, and the record discloses a cross-version with injuries sustained by the accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making bail cancellation by the High Court improper.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted by a trial court should be cancelled when the fatal injury is not specifically attributed to a particular accused?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version and injuries sustained by the accused warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of bail?
  • When can the High Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial court in granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another vs Muhammad Hayat1998 PLD Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 9 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 976 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 9 others vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Science and Technology, Islamabad and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-13
  civil servantservice lawstatus of employeesFederal Service Tribunalgovernment resolutiondepartmental redress
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, concerning the employment status of the petitioners. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioners, who were employees of a Council established under a Government Resolution, qualified as civil servants. During the proceedings, the Deputy Attorney-General, representing the Federal Government, filed a written reply explicitly conceding that, based on established Supreme Court precedents, such employees are indeed civil servants. Following this categorical admission by the Federal Government regarding the petitioners' status, the petitioners' counsel decided not to press the petitions further, opting instead to approach the appropriate departmental authorities for the redress of their grievances. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions in light of the Government's admission, allowing the petitioners to pursue their remedies through departmental channels. The judgment serves to confirm the status of employees of bodies established by government resolution as civil servants, thereby enabling them to seek relief through the appropriate service forums.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of a Council established under a Government Resolution considered civil servants?
  • Can the Federal Government concede the status of employees as civil servants based on judicial precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 14 others vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Abbottabad and 17 others1998 MLD 1737 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Kurd Alias Gailoo vs Nawabzada Mir Laskhari KhanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 386 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Kurd alias Gailoo vs Nawabzada Mir Lashkari Khan1998 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-09-10
  election petitioninterlocutory orderconstitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilityrecounting of votesalternative remedyelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by the Election Tribunal, Balochistan, which directed the recounting of ballots in an election dispute. The core legal question was whether a High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a petition against an interlocutory order of an Election Tribunal, or if such an order is appealable under the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It interpreted Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, determining that the term 'decision' therein is broad enough to encompass interlocutory orders, thereby providing an aggrieved party with a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court established that because an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked. The Court further affirmed that, pursuant to Article 225 of the Constitution, the High Court's interference in election matters is restricted, and statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal?
  • Does the term 'decision' in Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 include interlocutory orders passed by an Election Tribunal?
  • Can a High Court exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in election matters where an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Kurd alias Gailoo vs Nawabzada Mir Lashkar1 Khan1998 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-02
  Election PetitionRepresentation of the People Act 1976Election TribunalRe-counting of votesInterlocutory orderConstitutional jurisdictionDismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing in limine a Constitutional Petition that challenged an interim order passed by the Election Tribunal. The Election Tribunal had directed the re-counting of votes in an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's interlocutory order lacked specific reasons and that circumstances did not justify a recount. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal and upheld the dismissal, holding that the statutory scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 does not permit appeals or constitutional challenges against interlocutory orders of an Election Tribunal when proceedings remain pending. The Court observed that under Section 46 and Section 64 of the Act, an Election Tribunal possesses discretionary power to order inspection and re-counting of votes in appropriate cases. Any grievances or objections regarding the Commission's recount report can be raised before the Tribunal prior to its final judgment, which remains appealable.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal or a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal directing the re-counting of votes?
  • Under what statutory powers and conditions can an Election Tribunal order the inspection and re-counting of counted ballot papers during the pendency of an election petition?
  • Can a party object to an Election Commission's recount report before the Election Tribunal prior to the final disposal of an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Yusufi vs Muhammad Akbar Jahangir and anothers1998 SCMR 2618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-20
  adverse remarksannual confidential reportnatural justiceaudi alteram partemmagistrate conductdelay in disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from an order of the Lahore High Court directing that adverse remarks regarding inefficiency and shirking of duty be recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the appellant, a Magistrate. The High Court's censure was based on the appellant's failure to expeditiously decide an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant contended that the adverse remarks were ordered without giving him an opportunity of being heard, and that the High Court ignored his explanation and the favorable comments of the District Magistrate explaining the procedural delays. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not be condemned unheard. The Court ruled that directing adverse remarks in an employee's ACR without considering their explanation or providing an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and deprives the employee of statutory remedies of appeal or representation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court direct the recording of adverse remarks in a judicial officer's Annual Confidential Report without providing them an opportunity of being heard?
  • Whether the failure of a court to consider the explanation of a judicial officer and the comments of the District Magistrate before passing strictures violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Does a judicial direction to record adverse remarks in an employee's ACR, which effectively bypasses the statutory remedy of appeal or representation, constitute an unsustainable exercise of power?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The StateK.L.R. 1998.Criminal Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Ghulam Rabbani alias Rabbani and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 773 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-17
  revision petitionjurisdictionSpecial Courtscheduled offenceKlashnikovtrial de novoacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner/complainant filed a revision petition against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge for the murder of his brother using a Klashnikov rifle. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to take cognizance and adjudicate upon the matter or if it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, given the use of a Klashnikov. The Peshawar High Court held that based on the F.I.R. and prosecution material indicating the use of a Klashnikov, the offense was a scheduled offense triable exclusively by a Special Judge, rendering the Sessions Judge's trial and acquittal a nullity. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, remanded the case for a trial de novo before the Special Judge, and ordered the respondent to be taken into custody as an under-trial prisoner, establishing that jurisdiction in such matters is determined from the F.I.R. and material presented at the time of challan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sessions Judge is competent to take cognizance of a case involving the use of a Klashnikov or if it falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • How is the question of jurisdiction determined when a scheduled offense is alleged in a criminal case?
  • Does a trial conducted by a Court lacking jurisdiction constitute a nullity in law?
  • What is the legal effect of a lack of initial objection to jurisdiction by parties during a trial held by an incompetent Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Other vs Government of the Punjab, through Chief Secretary And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 87 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and another vs The State1998 MLD 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq and others vs Tauqir Shahid and others1998 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →