Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary to the Government of. Pakistan and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeals as time-barred. The petitioner, an Assistant in the Interior Division transferred to the Narcotics Control Division, sought promotion to the post of Superintendent (BPS-16), claiming seniority over specific respondents. After his departmental representations regarding seniority and promotion were rejected on January 17, 1994, the petitioner filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal on February 15, 1994. The Tribunal dismissed these appeals as time-barred, reasoning that the private respondents had already been promoted in 1989 and 1990. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals as time-barred when the petitioner had filed them within the statutory period following the rejection of his departmental representations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the calculation of the limitation period and the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals on the basis of the respondents' prior promotion dates require further examination by the Court.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is time-barred if filed within the statutory period following the rejection of a departmental representation?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal as time-barred based on the promotion dates of respondents when the petitioner's departmental remedy was rejected at a later date?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeals as time-barred. The petitioner, an Assistant in the Interior Division transferred to the Narcotics Control Division, sought seniority and promotion over specific respondents who had been promoted to Superintendent (BPS-16) in 1989 and 1990. After his representations were rejected by the competent authority on 17-1-1994, the petitioner filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal on 15-2-1994. The Tribunal dismissed these appeals, citing the fact that the respondents' promotions occurred years prior. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals as time-barred when the departmental authority had rejected the petitioner's representations on their merits rather than on limitation grounds, and whether the filing of the appeals within thirty days of the departmental rejection satisfied the limitation requirements. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law of limitation in the context of departmental representation rejections.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is time-barred if filed within the statutory period following the rejection of a departmental representation, even if the underlying grievance relates to events occurring years prior?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal as time-barred when the departmental authority rejected the petitioner's representation on its merits rather than on the ground of limitation?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Noor Muhammad And Other1997 MLD 137 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Nazir And Another1997 MLD 297 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Mumtaz Bibi and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 431 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Through Administrator And 2 Other1997 MLD 2304 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank1997 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank1997 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Anwaar Anwar And Another1997 MLD 631 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Hafiz Abdul Waheed vs S.H.O., Batala Colony, Faisalabad And Other Mrs. Asma Jehangir And Other Muhammadan Law1997 SCMR 987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions challenging conflicting judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning whether a Muslim marriage is void if solemnized without the consent of the bride's Wali at the time of Nikah. In the first instance, a learned Single Judge dismissed two writ petitions holding such marriages void, while in the second instance, a three-member Bench delivered a split decision holding such marriages valid. The core legal question involves the interpretation of Muhammadan Law regarding the necessity of a Wali's consent for the validity of a Muslim marriage. The Supreme Court found that the question involved is of great public importance requiring authoritative interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to settle the legal position on the matter.
Questions settled- Is a marriage between Muslim couples void if it takes place without the consent of the Wali of the bride at the time of Nikah?
- Whether the consent of a Wali is a mandatory prerequisite for the validity of a Muslim marriage under Muhammadan Law?
- Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Noor Muhammad1997 MLD 1795 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and another vs Sanaullah and 7 others1997 PLD Supreme Court 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections including 396 and 325 read with 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, identification parades, and the medical cause of death. The core legal questions revolved around the standard of proof required to set aside an acquittal and the reliability of prosecution evidence in capital cases. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the lower court's findings are perverse, shocking, or ridiculous, or based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which will not be dislodged unless the conclusion reached by the acquitting court is one that no reasonable person could conceivably reach, and that appellate interference is warranted only to avoid a grave miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Does an acquittal carry a double presumption of innocence in criminal appeals?
- Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal merely because a different conclusion is possible upon reappraisal of evidence?
- What is the legal effect of failing to record the dying declaration of a deceased victim who remained in senses during treatment?
- Muhammad Intizar-Ul-Hassan vs University of Agriculture, Faisalabad And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 855 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Inayat vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore And 3 Other1997 MLD 790 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Imran Khan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1997 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Ilyas, for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three alleged eye-witnesses. The High Court had previously acquitted three co-accused by rejecting the testimony of two of these witnesses, but maintained the conviction of the appellant based solely on the testimony of the third witness, Muhammad Yousaf. The Supreme Court examined whether it was safe to convict the appellant on the sole testimony of a witness who had a prior conviction for perjury. The Court held that relying on the testimony of a witness previously convicted for giving false evidence is unsafe. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer failed to mention the names of witnesses in the inquest reports, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ruling that when evidence creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution's story, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Is it safe to convict an accused person based solely on the testimony of a witness who has a prior conviction for perjury?
- Does the failure of an Investigating Officer to name eye-witnesses in inquest reports create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
- Should an accused be acquitted when the evidence presented against them creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution's story?
- Muhammad Ilyas vs S.H.O., P.S. Baddomalhi, District Narowal And 31997 MLD 1527 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional writ petition was filed seeking directions for the registration of a second First Information Report (FIR) containing a counter-version of a fatal incident. The police had registered FIR No. 109/1996 under Sections 302/324/353/148/149 PPC, alleging that a police party was attacked while responding to a land dispute. Conversely, the petitioner alleged that the police party, aiding the adverse party to dispossess the petitioner's family, committed indiscriminate firing, resulting in one death and injuries. The Station House Officer (SHO) refused to record the petitioner's version separately, contending that only one FIR could be registered per occurrence and counter-versions could be analyzed during investigation.
The High Court held that where a counter-version discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 obligates the police to register a separate case. Registration cannot be denied merely because an earlier FIR exists or police personnel are implicated. The Court accepted the writ petition and directed the SHO to register an FIR based on the petitioner's written complaint.
Questions settled- Can a second FIR containing a counter-version of the same occurrence be registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the police obligated to register an FIR on a counter-version if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
- Can the registration of a counter-version FIR be refused on the ground that an FIR regarding the occurrence is already being investigated?
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate And Others vs Asad Ali Bilgrami, Advocate And Other1997 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from review petitions filed against an order suspending the petitioners, who are advocates, from practicing before the Supreme Court for a period of ten years due to their misconduct in making a forcible entry into the Chamber of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns whether the suspension order should be reconsidered in light of the petitioners' remorse and unconditional apology. The court held that the petitioners genuinely expressed remorse and tendered a written apology before the Chief Justice of Pakistan, thereby purging themselves of the contempt. Consequently, the review petitions were accepted and the order of suspension was recalled, laying down the principle that a sincere and unconditional apology coupled with genuine remorse can constitute grounds for recalling disciplinary or contempt orders against advocates.
Questions settled- Whether an unconditional apology and genuine remorse can be a ground for recalling an order suspending an advocate from practice?
- Does forcible entry into the chamber of the Chief Justice constitute conduct unbecoming of an Advocate of the Supreme Court?
- Can review petitions be accepted when the petitioners tender a written apology before the Chief Justice of Pakistan?
- Muhammad Ikram alias Munji vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1079 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ijaz vs Sher Shah And Other1997 MLD 969 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Idrees vs Messrs Avari Hotels Limited, Lahore And Another1997 PLC 289 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 742 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar1997 MLD 2727 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad I. Unjawala and others vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax1997 PTD 1002 · Madras High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs The State1997 MLD 2743 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other1997 MLD 582 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an interim order passed by the Rent Controller in an eviction proceeding. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller can simultaneously pass an order for the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and frame issues in the same order. The petitioner, a tenant, contended that the Rent Controller acted without lawful authority by combining these procedural steps. The High Court held that the order was illegal and violative of the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 13(6). The Court reasoned that the Rent Controller must first determine the amount of rent due and direct its deposit before proceeding to frame issues. By conflating these stages, the Rent Controller bypassed the mandatory sequence required by the Ordinance. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Rent Controller to conduct a proper inquiry into the rent arrears and the tenant's liability before passing any order under Section 13(6), ensuring strict compliance with the statutory provisions governing rent proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller pass an order for the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and frame issues in the same order?
- Is a constitutional petition competent against an interim order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Must a Rent Controller hold an inquiry into the amount of rent due before passing an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Muhammad Hussain Mahar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain And Another vs Faqir Muhammad1997 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court which refused to restore a revision petition dismissed in default on the ground that the restoration application was time-barred and lacked an application for condonation of delay. The core legal question was whether limitation for restoration runs from the date of the order or from the date of knowledge when counsel was not notified of the hearing. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that where parties or their counsel were not notified of the date of hearing, limitation starts from the date of knowledge, obviating the need for a separate condonation application. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the factual merit of the assertion regarding lack of notice.
Questions settled- Does limitation for restoring a revision petition dismissed in default start from the date of the order or the date of knowledge when counsel was not notified of the hearing?
- Is a separate application for condonation of delay required when a restoration application is filed within time from the date of knowledge of the dismissal?
- What is the appropriate course of action when an appellate court refuses restoration without considering whether proper notice of the hearing was served upon the parties or their counsel?
- Muhammad Hayat vs The State1997 MLD 2785 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat vs Deputy Director Education And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat Channa and others vs Jethanand Rathi and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 336 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat Channa And Other vs Jethanand Rathi And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 336 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat And Others vs The State1997 MLD 591 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassnain vs University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila And 2 Other1997 CLC 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassan Musa And 2 Others vs Sardar Muhammad Javed1997 SCMR 1992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over the inheritance of late General (Rtd.) Muhammad Musa, involving the entitlement of grandchildren through pre-deceased children to inherit under section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, despite being allegedly excluded under the Shia Law of Inheritance. The core legal questions involve whether Civil Courts possess the power to examine, review, interpret, or strike down provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 as contrary to the Injunctions of Islam, and whether section 4 of the said Ordinance contravenes Islamic injunctions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised require consideration and noting the general public importance of the questions involved, while rejecting the stay application and directing the office to place the matter before the Chief Justice for a larger Bench. The key principle relates to the justiciability and interpretation of statutory inheritance provisions vis-a-vis Islamic injunctions.
Questions settled- Whether Civil Courts have the power to examine, review, interpret, and strike down any provision of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as contrary to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Do grandchildren through pre-deceased sons and daughters have a right of inheritance under section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, notwithstanding the Shia Law of Inheritance?
- Muhammad Hasnain Sajid Sial vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hashim vs The State1997 MLD 23 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hashim Raza vs The State1997 MLD 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Haq Nawaz Bhalli vs The Administrator, Zila Council, Narowal And 2 Other1997 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs The Federal Government of Pakistan And 3 Other1997 CLC 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Tariq and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Mst. Inayat Bibi And Another1997 MLD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hamayun And Others vs Member Board of Revenue And Other1997 CLC 363 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions challenging a judgment of the Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., which restored partition mutations previously cancelled by the Additional Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to interfere with the findings of a Revenue Tribunal. The High Court held that its writ jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where a tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or failed to exercise jurisdiction. The Court found that the Additional Commissioner had acted in excess of jurisdiction by entertaining appeals that were hopelessly time-barred without condoning the delay. Consequently, the Member, Board of Revenue correctly set aside the Additional Commissioner's order. The Court affirmed that it will not review findings of fact by inferior tribunals merely because they may be erroneous, provided the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and observed principles of natural justice. The writ petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to review findings of fact made by an inferior tribunal under its writ jurisdiction?
- Can an appellate authority entertain an appeal that is time-barred without formally condoning the delay?
- Is the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 appellate or supervisory in nature?
- Muhammad Hafeez vs District Health Officer, Gujranwala1997 PLC (C. S.) 3 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Habib vs Sultan Ahmed Khan1997 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ghaffar and 37 others vs Government of the Punjab1997 PLC (C.S.) 826 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ghaffar And 37 Other vs Government of the Punjab1997 PLC (C. S.) 826 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil vs General Manager, Faisalabad Serona Hotel, Faisalabad1997 PLC 155 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil Chohan vs Messrs Globe Textile Mills Ltd.1997 PLC 708 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil Chohan vs Messrs Globe Textile Mills Ltd. through Chief Executive_Managing Director, Landhi, Karachi1997 PLC 708 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fayyaz vs Abid Pervaiz And Other1997 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against the judgment of the High Court, which partly allowed the appeal of the respondent by maintaining his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but converting his death sentence to imprisonment for life, while also dealing with other co-accused convictions and acquittals. The core legal question is whether the mitigating circumstances relied upon by the High Court to convert the death sentence into life imprisonment—such as a single blow being caused, females of the family receiving injuries, the origin of the fight being shrouded in mystery, and a trivial motive—were legally sound and consistent with the High Court's own findings regarding a premeditated and brutal attack. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the inconsistency in the High Court's reasoning require examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the propriety of the sentence conversion and directed that the jail petition filed by the convict be considered along with the main criminal petition.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in converting a death sentence to imprisonment for life on the ground of a single blow and a trivial motive?
- Can a sentence be mitigated when the High Court itself observed that the attack was premeditated and brutal?
- Whether inconsistencies between the High Court's findings on motive and its reasons for sentence reduction warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Fayyaz Butt vs Metropolitan Corporation Limited Through Administrator, Lahore1997 CLC 55 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which set aside the trial court's order striking off the respondent's defence and decreeing the petitioner's permanent injunction suit. The core legal question revolves around whether the lower appellate court correctly interpreted the period for filing a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, following its amendment by Act XIV of 1994, and whether the trial court properly invoked its power to strike off the defence. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court proceeded on an erroneous assumption of law by holding that the outer limit for filing a written statement remained 90 days instead of the reduced 30-day period. The High Court further held that where a written statement is specifically required by the court through a speaking order and the defendant displays contumacious conduct by repeatedly failing to file it without adequate explanation, the penal provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are rightly invoked. The petition was consequently allowed and the trial court's judgment restored.
Questions settled- Whether the outer limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was reduced to 30 days by Act XIV of 1994?
- Under what circumstances can a defendant's defence be struck off under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does a routine adjournment for filing a written statement satisfy the legal requirement of the court 'requiring' a written statement to attract penal consequences?
- Is a speaking order showing application of mind mandatory before invoking the penal provisions of striking off a defence?
- Muhammad Farrukh Fayyaz vs Aitchison College, Lahore Through Governor Of Punjab Chairman Of The Board Of Governors, Shahrahequaid Azam, Lahore And Another1997 MLD 928 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooque Jagerani vs Abdul Sattar And Other1997 MLD 903 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision Application challenges an appellate court's judgment that set aside a trial court's decree for specific performance and remanded the case for a fresh decision after framing additional issues. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the remand order and the trial court's refusal to allow a handwriting expert to compare disputed signatures on the sale agreement. The High Court held that while the appellate court correctly exercised its power to remand and frame additional issues, the trial court had erred in failing to exercise its jurisdiction to verify the authenticity of the signatures. The Court affirmed the remand order but modified it to include a specific direction for the trial court to obtain specimen signatures of the defendant and the attesting witnesses for comparison by a handwriting expert. Additionally, the Court held that an issue regarding the alleged illegal and forcible possession of the land by the plaintiff must also be framed and determined by the trial court to ensure complete justice.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have the power to frame additional issues and remand a case for a fresh decision?
- Is a trial court required to allow a request for a handwriting expert to compare disputed signatures when forgery is alleged?
- Can a court direct the production of specimen signatures for comparison with a disputed document to ensure complete justice?
- Muhammad Farooq Alwary vs Punjab University Through Controller Of Examination, Lahore And 3 Other1997 CLC 727 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Faisal vs The State1997 MLD 2527 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Faheem vs The State -1997 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Government of N.-W.F.P. And 4 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1086 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Dervaish Al Gilani And 14 Others vs Muhammad Sharif And Other1997 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from petitions challenging an order of the High Court, which had remanded an ejectment matter back to the Rent Controller for re-writing the judgment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of remanding a case when sufficient evidence is already available on the record for an appellate court or revisional court to decide the matter on merits. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, holding that remanding a case is an exceptional power that should not be exercised lightly and is unjustified when the existing record contains adequate evidence to pronounce a decision. The key principle laid down is that appellate and revisional courts should examine the available evidence and decide the case on merits rather than ordering a remand, unless the evidence on record is genuinely insufficient to resolve the issues between the parties.
Questions settled- When is an appellate court justified in remanding a case to a lower court?
- Can a case be remanded for re-writing a judgment when sufficient evidence exists on the record to decide the matter?
- What principles govern the exercise of the power of remand by superior courts?
- Muhammad Daud vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bux vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others1997 PLD Karachi 499 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota vs The State1997 CLC 1201 · Board of Revenue · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota vs The D.I.-G. Police, Gujranwala And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 944 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota vs Pakistan Railway Police Through I.-G. Railway1997 PLC (C.S.) 525 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-01-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Trustee of Port of Karachi Through Chairman1997 PLC 542 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-10-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Haji Muhammad Siddique And 5 Other1997 CLC 466 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit for declaration and possession regarding a plot of land in Mirpur. The appellant, having acquired rights to the plot via an unregistered agreement from the original allottee, transferred these rights to the respondent through an affidavit. The appellant later sued, alleging the affidavit was fraudulently obtained instead of a rental agreement. The core legal questions concerned whether the transfer of rights via affidavit was valid despite the absence of a registered sale deed, and whether the trial court erred in failing to decide all issues. The High Court held that the appellant, not being the legal owner but merely an interest-holder, could not transfer ownership via a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Instead, the appellant transferred his existing interests, which the respondent perfected through allotment by the Mirpur Development Authority. The court affirmed that the affidavit was admissible and that the trial court was not required to decide all issues if one was dispositive. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not the legal owner of a property transfer ownership rights via a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Is a trial court required to record findings on all issues if the decision on a single issue is sufficient to dispose of the case?
- Does an affidavit transferring rights in an allotment from a development authority require compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Can a transferee of property rights perfect their title through allotment by a development authority after the original transferor has relinquished their interest?
- Muhammad Bashir vs Divisional Engineer Telephones, Bahawalpur And Other1997 CLC 655 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Basheer Toor vs Ali Gohar & Company (Pvt.) Limited1997 PLC 104 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Baqir Ali vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 PLC (C.S.) 942 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs Mst. Ghulam Aisha1997 MLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh Through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Shafi And 8 Other1997 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over inheritance rights following the death of a limited owner under custom. The core legal question was whether a declaratory decree obtained by one reversioner, challenging an alienation of ancestral property by a limited owner, enures for the benefit of all other reversioners, and whether a suit for share in such property is barred by limitation when the parties are co-sharers. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that under the prevailing custom, a declaratory decree obtained by a single reversioner against an alienation of ancestral property by a limited owner benefits all persons entitled to impeach that alienation. Consequently, the plaintiff, as a reversioner, was entitled to his share upon the death of the limited owner. Furthermore, the Court held that the plea of limitation was inapplicable because the parties were co-sharers in a joint khata, and possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be on behalf of all. The petition was dismissed as the impugned judgment contained no legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Does a declaratory decree obtained by one reversioner challenging an alienation of ancestral property by a limited owner enure for the benefit of all other reversioners?
- Does the law of limitation apply to a suit for a share in property filed by a co-sharer against other co-sharers?
- Is the possession of one co-sharer in a joint khata considered to be on behalf of all co-sharers?
- Muhammad Aziz vs The State1997 MLD 1433 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azim Khan vs The Secretary, Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the seniority of Assistant Registrars in the Cooperative Department of Punjab. The appellants, who were direct recruits, challenged the anti-dating of the respondents' seniority, which included their two-year training period as service. The Punjab Service Tribunal had dismissed the appellants' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that because the appellants argued the respondents were not 'civil servants' during their training period, the Tribunal lacked authority to adjudicate the matter under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Supreme Court found this reasoning misconceived. The Court held that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to determine inter se seniority disputes between civil servants. The mere fact that the appellants argued the training period should not count as service for seniority purposes did not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the merits of that very claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a decision on the merits, establishing that a Service Tribunal cannot decline jurisdiction over a seniority dispute simply because a party challenges the status of the opposing party's service period.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide a seniority dispute where one party contends the opposing party was not a civil servant during their training period?
- Can a Service Tribunal decline jurisdiction simply because a party argues that a specific period of training does not constitute 'service' for seniority purposes?
- Is the period spent in departmental training by a direct recruit automatically countable as service for the purpose of determining seniority?
- Muhammad Azim Khan vs The Secretary, Government of Punjab And Other1997 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the seniority of Assistant Registrars in the Cooperative Department of Punjab. The appellants, who were direct recruits, challenged the anti-dating of the respondents' seniority, which included their two-year training period as service. The Punjab Service Tribunal had dismissed the appellants' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that because the appellants argued the respondents were not 'civil servants' during their training period, the Tribunal lacked authority to adjudicate the matter under the relevant civil service laws. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's approach was misconceived. The Court clarified that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to determine inter se seniority, and the appellants' argument regarding the respondents' status during training was merely a legal contention in support of their claim for seniority, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a decision on the merits. The judgment reaffirms that a Service Tribunal cannot decline jurisdiction based on a party's legal arguments regarding the merits of a service dispute.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine inter se seniority between civil servants?
- Can a Service Tribunal decline jurisdiction based solely on a party's legal argument regarding the status of the opposing party during a training period?
- Is the period spent in departmental training considered 'service' for the purpose of determining seniority?
- Muhammad Azam Khan And Another vs Muhammad Siddique Khan And 31997 CLC 1790 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azad vs The State And Another1997 MLD 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Zulfiqar Industries Ltd., Karachi And 3 Others1997 PLC 459 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs The State1997 MLD 2775 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Station House Officer, Police Station Lora And 21997 MLD 2294 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub Patel vs Hasham1997 MLD 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayoub and 3 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1340 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayaz Khan vs Inspector-General of Police1997 PLC(C.S.) 391 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1997 MLD 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore And 21997 PLC 6 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Boota And Another1997 SCMR 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the interpretation of possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question revolves around whether a tenant holding property under a lease from the owners can be deemed an occupant in his own right to claim the transfer of an evacuee portion of the land under settlement laws, and whether delay in submitting the C.H. Form is a bar to such consideration. The High Court's Single Judge had initially accepted the writ petition directing fresh consideration and partitioning of the land, but a Division Bench accepted the Intra-Court Appeal and set aside those orders, holding that a tenant's status remains that of a tenant even after partition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to the transfer of the leased property portion following the repeal of section 2(vi) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The key principle established is that a tenant put into possession by the owner does not acquire an independent right of occupancy to compete for the transfer of the property under settlement laws.
Questions settled- Can a tenant in possession of property seek its transfer as an occupant in competition with the person who inducted him as a tenant?
- Does the status of a tenant remain unchanged even if the property in question is partitioned?
- Does delay in the submission of a C.H. Form act as a hurdle in the consideration of a transfer claim under the settlement scheme?
- Muhammad Aslam vs Liaqat Ali Khan And Another1997 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges two orders of the Lahore High Court concerning a compromise arrangement in a property dispute. The petitioner originally sued for possession and declaration of a house, which was dismissed by lower courts. During civil revision proceedings, the parties reached a compromise whereby the respondent was to deposit a specific sum by a set date to secure ownership, failing which a sale deed would be declared void. The respondent failed to deposit the amount by the deadline but subsequently obtained an order from the High Court extending the time and modifying the payment terms, including allowing a bond instead of cash for a portion of the amount. The petitioner contends that the respondent's failure to comply with the initial consent order necessitated a decision on the merits and that the court lacked the authority to unilaterally vary a consent order without the petitioner's agreement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court could modify a compromise order without the consent of all parties involved.
Questions settled- Can a court unilaterally vary the terms of a consent order without the agreement of all parties?
- Does the failure of a party to comply with the conditions of a compromise order require the court to decide the case on its merits?
- Muhammad Aslam vs Kazim Hussain And 2 Other1997 MLD 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad And 4 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 640 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Rashid And 2 Others vs Dr. Muhammad Anwar Saeed1997 CLC 2012 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for declaration and partition concerning the estate of the late Malik Muhammad A.I. The core legal questions were whether a registered will in favor of one heir was validly revoked by a subsequent unregistered letter, and whether a bequest to an heir is enforceable under Muslim Law without the consent of other legal heirs. The Court held that the will was effectively revoked by the subsequent document, as the law does not mandate registration for such revocation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the established principle of Muslim Law that a bequest to an heir is invalid unless consented to by all other heirs after the testator's death. The Court also clarified that under Order XLI, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court possesses the authority to pass necessary orders in favor of all parties, even if an appeal is filed against only part of a decree or excludes certain parties. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the property was ordered to be distributed according to Sharia.
Questions settled- Is a bequest to an heir valid under Muslim Law without the consent of other legal heirs?
- Does an appellate court have the power under Order XLI, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass orders affecting parties not specifically included in the appeal?
- Is a registered will invalidated by a subsequent unregistered document of revocation?
- Muhammad Aslam Petitoner vs Punjab Province Through Collector, Sheikhupura1997 CLC 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Ashraf vs Managing Director, WASA, Lahore And Another1997 PLC 265 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State Through A. G., Punjab And Another1997 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Aslam and another challenging the order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners by the trial court in a criminal case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the bail granted by the trial court where the fatal injury was not specifically attributed to any individual accused, the case involved cross-versions, and the accused persons had also sustained injuries during the incident. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and restored the bail granted by the trial court. The court laid down the principle that where the material collected does not clearly attribute the fatal injury to a specific accused and the matter involves cross-versions with injuries sustained by both sides, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making the grant of bail by the trial court a proper exercise of discretion that warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted by a trial court can be cancelled by the High Court when the fatal injury is not specifically attributed to any individual accused?
- Does a cross-version case where both parties sustain injuries attract the provisions of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When is the discretion exercised by a trial court in granting bail considered improper so as to warrant interference by a superior court?
- Muhammad Aslam Alias Bucha vs The State1997 MLD 1215 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Alias Bodi vs The State1997 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Muhammad Aslam, was convicted by the Trial Court for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, a conviction upheld by the High Court. The prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of two witnesses, Sabir Hussain and Shah Muhammad, to establish the appellant's guilt. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts were justified in relying on this ocular account. The Court found the testimony unreliable, noting that one witness's presence was doubtful, and the other witness's claim of injury by firearm was contradicted by medical evidence suggesting blunt force trauma. Furthermore, the Court found the alleged motive unconvincing and noted that the prosecution's case regarding the appellant's abscondence was unsupported by evidence of proper procedural compliance. Consequently, the Court held that the ocular testimony lacked the quality required for a conviction without independent corroboration, which was absent in this case. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of all charges.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the witness's account is contradicted by medical evidence?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the procedural validity of a proclamation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 negate the inference of abscondence?
- Is independent corroboration required when the ocular testimony provided in a murder case is found to be unreliable?
- Muhammad Asim and others vs Judge Special Courts and others-s1997 P Cr. L J 1890 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asim And Other vs Telecommunication And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who had been serving as daily wages/ad hoc Telephone Operators in the Telephone and Telegraphic Department and subsequent successor entities since early 1990, challenged the termination of their services and the refusal of the authorities to regularize them. They contended that arbitrary appointments and regularizations of junior employees and outsiders were made on political considerations under directions of the Prime Minister's Secretariat, violating their fundamental rights. The core legal question concerned whether the arbitrary termination of long-serving daily-wage employees and the bypassing of their seniority for political appointments in a statutory corporation violates constitutional guarantees of equality and due process. The Lahore High Court held that the selective regularization of juniors and outsiders while bypassing long-serving daily-wage employees is arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of Articles 2A, 25, 27, 3, and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court ruled that a statutory company is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199, declared the termination of employees appointed prior to January 1, 1996 to be without lawful authority, and directed the respondents to formulate a policy for regularizing eligible workmen.
Questions settled- Whether a government-owned company created by a statute is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the regularization of junior daily-wage employees or outsiders over senior long-serving employees on political grounds violate Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Are daily-wage or work-charge employees who have served for a long duration entitled to be considered for permanent absorption and regularization in service?
- Whether the termination of daily-wage employees appointed prior to January 1, 1996, without considering them for regularisation while regularising juniors, is lawful?
- Muhammad Asif vs The State1997 MLD 2545 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-16Read full judgment →