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 Zaman Sundhu vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 80 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaki and anothers vs Muhammad Taqi1995 PLD Karachi 416 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous application was filed under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the quashment of civil proceedings pending before a Senior Civil Judge. The applicants contended that the subsequent suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to a prior suit filed by the respondents. The High Court examined whether the cause of action in the subsequent suit was identical to the earlier one. The Court held that the subsequent suit, which arose from the registration of sale documents, involved a distinct cause of action not present during the institution of the earlier suit. Consequently, the bar under Order 2, Rule 2 did not apply. Regarding the trial court’s refusal to treat limitation and maintainability as preliminary issues under Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court ruled that such discretion rests with the trial court when it deems evidence necessary for adjudication. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 151 are to be exercised sparingly and only when no other adequate remedy exists, finding no grounds for interference.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a prior suit for permanent injunction bar a subsequent suit for declaration and cancellation of documents if the cause of action is different?
- Is a trial court required to decide issues of limitation and maintainability as preliminary issues under Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, even when it deems evidence necessary?
- Under what conditions can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to quash civil proceedings?
- Muhammad Zakaria And 4 Other vs Muhammad Yakoob And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 681 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahoor and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 638 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahir vs D.I.-G. Pakistan Railway Police, Lahore and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 1084 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahid vs The State1995 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's dismissal of a bail application in a case involving the alleged smuggling of gold, silver, and liquor under the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner, Muhammad Zahid, was apprehended while transporting goods, but contended that the gold was legally imported, relying on a government notification allowing gold imports. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the co-accused, who claimed ownership of the consignment, had already been granted bail by the High Court, and whether the validity of the import documents constituted a matter for further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that since the main accused, who admitted ownership, had been granted bail and that order had attained finality, the petitioner—whose role was at most that of a carrier—was also entitled to bail. The Court ruled that the determination of the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the defense plea were matters for the trial court to decide upon trial, thereby satisfying the requirement for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused who claims ownership of the allegedly smuggled goods entitle a carrier to bail?
- Is the determination of the genuineness of import documents a matter for the trial court rather than a bail stage consideration?
- Does the existence of a triable issue regarding the legality of imported goods constitute a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Zafar Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 155 others1995 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an appeal challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment which dismissed the appellant's claim regarding his fixed seniority in BPS-18 within the Office Management Group. The core legal question concerns the correct principle and date for determining seniority upon transfer to a different occupational group, specifically whether seniority in Grade-18 should be reckoned from the date of promotion in the parent department or from the date of joining the Federal Secretariat on deputation/transfer as governed by applicable administrative instructions and the Civil Servants Act. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific statutory rules framed under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973, reliance is properly placed on established practice, administrative instructions, and applicable Office Memoranda governing the Office Management Group, rather than promotions achieved in the parent department. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that seniority upon transfer to the Office Management Group is determined by the date of joining the Federal Secretariat on deputation or as otherwise prescribed for the group.
Questions settled- How is seniority determined for civil servants transferred to the Office Management Group when specific rules under the Civil Servants Act 1973 have not been framed?
- Does a promotion obtained in a parent department govern the fixation of seniority in a different occupational group upon transfer?
- Can administrative Office Memoranda be relied upon to determine seniority in the absence of statutory rules?
- Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs Assistant Chief Ordnance and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the petitioner's dismissal from service by the Chief Ordnance Officer on grounds of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, contending that the departmental enquiry was procedurally flawed. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, was not provided with copies of witness statements despite a formal request, and was not granted sufficient time to file a reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner relied on precedent regarding the necessity of fair enquiry procedures. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the core legal question to be resolved is whether the enquiry proceedings suffered from such legal infirmities as to warrant judicial interference. The Court identified the necessity of examining whether the denial of procedural safeguards, such as cross-examination and access to witness statements, vitiated the dismissal order.
Questions settled- Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during a departmental enquiry constitute a legal infirmity?
- Is a dismissal order vitiated if the accused is not provided with copies of witness statements requested during the enquiry?
- Does the failure to grant sufficient time to reply to a charge-sheet invalidate a disciplinary dismissal?
- Muhammad Zaeem Khalid and others vs Bahauddin Zakeria University1995 SCMR 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had denied the appellants relief regarding the declaration of their B.Ed. Examination results. The appellants, who appeared as private candidates, had their results withheld by the Bahauddin Zakeria University due to alleged non-compliance with teaching experience requirements. While other similarly situated candidates successfully challenged the University's action via a writ petition and obtained a favorable judgment that attained finality, the appellants' own constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court on grounds of delay. The core legal question was whether the appellants could be denied the same relief granted to similarly situated candidates solely due to the delay in approaching the court, despite their ongoing representations to university authorities. The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not be treated differently from those similarly situated, especially when the University admitted the cases were identical. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the University to declare the appellants' examination results, establishing the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated parties in administrative matters.
Questions settled- Can a university deny relief to candidates when similarly situated candidates have already been granted the same relief by a court order?
- Does the principle of equality apply to administrative decisions regarding the withholding of examination results?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of delay when the petitioner has been actively pursuing administrative remedies?
- Muhammad Yusuf vs Mst. Kharian Bibi1995 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a revision petition and set aside the dismissal of the respondent's pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit instituted through an attorney who failed to initially file the power of attorney with the plaint was improperly instituted, rendering it incompetent or time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent filing of the power of attorney during the proceedings, coupled with the plaintiff's own testimony owning the act and the delayed raising of objections by the defendant, cured any procedural irregularity under Order III, Rule 6 of the C.P.C. The Court also affirmed that the High Court is competent to convert a second appeal into a civil revision. The key principle laid down is that procedural irregularities regarding the delayed filing of a power of attorney are curable if the authority is duly established and no prejudice is caused, and that the High Court possesses the competence to convert a second appeal into a revision petition.
Questions settled- Does the failure to file a power of attorney along with the plaint render a suit incompetent or time-barred?
- Whether a procedural irregularity regarding the late filing of a power of attorney can be cured during the proceedings?
- Is the High Court competent to convert a second appeal into a civil revision upon a verbal prayer?
- Muhammad Yusuf and 4 others vs Allah Yar and 3 others1995 SCMR 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and affirmed the lower courts' rejection of their plaint. The core legal question involved whether persons who allegedly acquired a lease over the suit land after the passing of a pre-emption decree could maintain a separate suit to challenge or frustrate the execution of that decree when they were not parties to the original pre-emption proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having acquired their alleged lease subsequent to the pre-emption decree and deriving their rights from the judgment-debtor, could not maintain a suit to defeat a decree that had already attained finality. The Court laid down the principle that subsequent lessees deriving rights from a judgment-debtor after the passing of a pre-emption decree have no legal standing to frustrate the execution of a final pre-emption decree.
Questions settled- Whether a person who acquired a lease in respect of suit land after the passing of a pre-emption decree can maintain a suit to challenge the decree?
- Can subsequent lessees deriving rights from a judgment-debtor defeat a final pre-emption decree?
- Are non-parties to original pre-emption proceedings entitled to file suits to frustrate the execution of a pre-emption decree when their lease was acquired post-decree?
- Muhammad Yusuf Ali Shah vs Federal Land Commission, Government1995 CLC 369 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenge orders passed by land revenue authorities and the Federal Land Commission regarding the resumption of agricultural land under land reform laws. The core legal questions involve whether the Land Commissioner could validly initiate suo motu revisional proceedings in mechanical obedience to a Federal Land Commission Inspection Team report, and whether the authorities possessed the requisite jurisdiction under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The Lahore High Court held that the Land Commissioner acted without lawful authority by delegating or mechanically adopting the report without independent application of mind, and that the impugned orders and their appellate/revisional superstructures were null and void. Furthermore, because relevant provisions of the land reform legislation were declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions by the Supreme Court, remanding the matter would be futile. The petitions were accordingly accepted and the impugned orders set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an administrative authority can exercise statutory power mechanically on the dictation or report of another body without independent application of mind?
- Whether the Land Commissioner has the power under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 to initiate suo motu proceedings based on a report of the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team?
- What is the legal effect on consequential orders when the foundational order passed by a subordinate authority is held to be a nullity?
- Whether an order passed without jurisdiction by a land commissioner renders subsequent appellate and revisional orders legally unsustainable?
- Muhammad Yunis vs Provincial Government of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the alleged Government of Punjab policy of allocating job quotas to elected representatives and Ministers, and specifically contested the Education Department circular requiring the Education Minister's prior approval (NOC) for public appointments. The core legal questions involved whether political interference and ministerial quotas in public recruitment are constitutional, and whether executive instructions can override established merit policies and departmental selection rules. The Lahore High Court held that allocating recruitment quotas to Members of the National and Provincial Assemblies or requiring ministerial NOCs violates the Constitution, service laws, and the government's own cabinet-approved merit policies, rendering such appointments and instructions void ab initio. The Court laid down the key principles that executive authorities and ministers cannot usurp the powers of designated departmental selection authorities, that binding precedents of the Supreme Court under Article 189 must be strictly followed, and that recruitment procedures must ensure complete objectivity and fairness to prevent arbitrariness and political nepotism.
Questions settled- Whether the allocation of recruitment quotas to members of the assemblies or ministers is constitutional and lawful?
- Can a provincial minister require a mandatory NOC or prior approval for public service appointments contrary to the established merit policy?
- Whether subordinate courts and high courts are legally bound to follow the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution?
- Does the reservation of excessive marks for interview without maintaining a proper record of assessment render the selection process arbitrary and discriminatory?
- Muhammad Yousuff vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, East Pakistan, Dacca ,1995 PTD 167 · DaccaRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, LocalK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 172 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Muhammad Din And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 92 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Force Commander, Airport Security Force, Karachi and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 441 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf Memon vs Karachi Stock Exchange (Gurantee)K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 282 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf Memon vs Karachi Stock Exchange (Guarantee)1995 CLC 183 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit filed by the appellant against the Karachi Stock Exchange. The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2, and Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given that the appellant had previously withdrawn a suit involving similar subject matter without seeking leave to file a fresh one, and had omitted certain claims in the prior litigation. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision. The court held that a plaintiff cannot split claims arising from the same cause of action; failure to include the entire claim or seek leave to reserve it bars subsequent litigation for omitted reliefs under Order II, Rule 2. Furthermore, unconditional withdrawal of a suit without court permission precludes the institution of a fresh suit regarding the same subject matter under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3). The court clarified that issuing a subsequent legal notice does not constitute a fresh cause of action when the underlying dispute remains identical to the previous litigation.
Questions settled- Does the unconditional withdrawal of a suit without court permission preclude the filing of a fresh suit regarding the same subject matter?
- Can a plaintiff who omits a claim or relief in a previous suit subsequently sue for that omitted relief under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the issuance of a subsequent legal notice create a fresh cause of action when the underlying dispute is identical to a previously withdrawn suit?
- Is a suit barred under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if the plaintiff fails to include the whole of the claim to which they are entitled?
- Muhammad Yousuf alias Baggi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1995 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based solely on a retracted confessional statement in the absence of direct evidence or reliable corroboration. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the voluntary nature of the confession, noting that the recording magistrate could not confirm the absence of police influence, and evidence suggested the appellant was detained under suspicion prior to the confession. Furthermore, the court held that the alleged motive was unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the weapon was inconsistent with the confessional narrative. The Court reiterated the principle that for the safe administration of criminal justice, courts should refrain from basing convictions solely on retracted confessions without independent, reliable corroborative evidence regarding material particulars. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on a retracted confessional statement without independent corroborative evidence?
- What is the legal requirement for the prosecution to prove the voluntary nature of a confessional statement?
- Does a discrepancy between the confessional statement and the recovery evidence regarding the location of the weapon undermine the prosecution's case?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The State EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 293 · Other · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The Deputy Commissioner_ District Collector, Khanewal and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Revenue Department through Secretary, Revenue1995 PLC (C.S.) 1051 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf Sam and 5 others vs Azad Government of the State1995 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 31 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf Gull vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf ASI vs Fida Hussain and others1995 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the respondent's civil suit for specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of a plot. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of an instalment by the allottee under a mistaken belief that the housing scheme had been cancelled amounted to a voluntary surrender or termination of the agreement. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal, having been made under a mistaken belief regarding the scheme's cancellation and without proper clarification from the authority, did not terminate the agreement, especially as the allottee retained his security deposit to keep the application alive. The ratio is that a withdrawal of payment made under a bona fide mistake of fact does not constitute a rescission or surrender of contractual rights. The court laid down the principle that a mistake induced by misinformation regarding the subsistence of a scheme does not vitiate an ongoing allotment where the party's intent to maintain the application remains evident.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a plot instalment under a mistaken belief of scheme cancellation amount to a surrender of the plot allotment?
- Can a suit for specific performance be maintained when an allottee withdraws an instalment but retains the security deposit keeping the application alive?
- Whether the cancellation of an allotment by an authority based on a misunderstanding of a party's withdrawal of funds is legally sustainable?
- Muhammad Younus vs The State1997 MLD 204 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis Khan vs Secretary, Health Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1995 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal against a revised seniority list as barred by limitation. The core legal question is whether an aggrieved civil servant, upon receiving no response to a departmental representation within 120 days, is strictly bound to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within the statutory timeframe from the expiry of those 120 days, or whether he may await the actual departmental decision and file an appeal within thirty days thereof. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the Service Tribunal's finding on limitation, relying on precedent. The Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to consider whether the appeal before the Service Tribunal was rightly dismissed as time-barred, laying down that the limitation computation rules regarding pending departmental representations require authoritative examination by the Court.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is barred by limitation if filed within thirty days of the rejection of a departmental representation when the departmental authority failed to decide it within 120 days?
- Is it mandatory for a civil servant to approach the Service Tribunal upon the expiry of 120 days of filing a departmental representation, or can he wait for the actual decision?
- Muhammad Younis and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas vs The State1995 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that cancelled the petitioner's bail. The petitioner, facing trial under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had initially been granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds of trial delay. The High Court subsequently cancelled this bail, reasoning that the relevant statutory provisos regarding delay had been omitted and that the petitioner was responsible for the trial's delay. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the statutory provisions concerning trial delay, despite the subsequent omission of those provisions and the petitioner's own contribution to the delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court affirmed that even if the statutory provisos were applicable, the petitioner failed to meet the criteria for bail due to his own role in causing adjournments. Furthermore, the Court established that trial courts should not grant adjournments on flimsy grounds, such as the unavailability of a complainant's counsel, when the prosecution is represented by a public prosecutor.
Questions settled- Does the omission of statutory provisos regarding trial delay affect pending bail proceedings?
- Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of delay if the accused is responsible for the adjournments?
- Are adjournments granted due to the unavailability of a complainant's counsel justified when a public prosecutor is present?
- Muhammad Younas vs The S.H.O. Ghalib Market, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 407 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas vs The Chief Engineer (C & W) Department, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 356 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas Minhas vs Secretary, Immigration and Passports, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1995 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking a direction for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent from the date his juniors were promoted. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion despite delay in approaching the forum, refusing to be transferred outside his home town based on personal undertaking, failing to qualify the required departmental examination, and lacking eligibility under the relevant service rules which designated the post of Superintendent as a promotional post exclusively from Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) while the petitioner belonged to the Stenotypist cadre. The Supreme Court held that the reasons weighed by the Tribunal suffered from no legal infirmity and upheld the dismissal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant who refuses to serve outside his home town and fails to meet mandatory departmental examination and cadre requirements is not entitled to promotion.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant who refuses to be transferred outside his home town due to family circumstances entitled to claim promotion?
- Can a Stenotypist claim promotion to the post of Superintendent when service rules designate it as a promotion post exclusively from Upper Division Clerks?
- Does failure to qualify the mandatory departmental examination bar a civil servant from claiming promotion?
- Muhammad Younas Minhas vs Secretary, Immigration and Passports, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad ,1995 PLC (C.S.) 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning his claim for promotion as Superintendent from the date his alleged juniors were promoted. The petitioner, serving as a Stenotypist, challenged promotions made in 1981 after his departmental representation had already been rejected in 1982. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation, the petitioner's explicit undertaking refusing transfer outside his home station, failure to pass the required departmental examination, and distinct cadre rules reserving the post of Superintendent exclusively for promotion from Upper Division Clerks (UDCs). The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the reasons given by the Tribunal suffered from no legal infirmity. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, reiterating that a civil servant refusing posting outside their home town and belonging to a different cadre without the requisite qualifications cannot claim promotion against cadre rules.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who gives an undertaking refusing posting outside his home town is entitled to be considered for promotion?
- Whether an employee from a separate cadre can claim promotion to a post reserved exclusively for another cadre under service rules?
- Whether failure to pass a mandatory departmental examination precludes a civil servant from claiming parity in promotion with colleagues who qualified the examination?
- Muhammad Younas Chishti vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1995 MLD 12 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin vs A.D.B.P, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 101 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaseen vs The State1995 SCMR 839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming his conviction under Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in awarding the maximum sentence of life imprisonment instead of ten years' rigorous imprisonment or a lesser period under Section 304 (Part I) after holding that the case did not fall under Section 302. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave on the merits of the case, but granted leave to consider the quantum of sentence awarded under Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may examine the appropriateness of awarding the maximum sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the circumstances of a given case.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court is justified in awarding the maximum sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of a lesser term?
- Can leave to appeal be granted solely to consider the quantum of sentence while declining it on the merits of the conviction?
- Muhammad Yaseen And Other vs The StateK.LR. 1995 Shariat Cases 22 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaseen and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 711 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by accused persons facing trial under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the alleged offence, thereby justifying continued detention. The Court observed significant flaws in the investigation, including an unexplained 20-hour delay in registering the F.I.R. despite the complainant's statement being recorded earlier, discrepancies in the recovery of stolen property, and the questionable application of Section 17(3) of the Ordinance given that the recovered amounts were below the statutory 'Nisab'. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds for guilt and that the case warranted further inquiry, the Court granted bail to the applicants. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation is conducted with gross negligence, unexplained procedural delays occur, and the evidence collected fails to substantiate the specific statutory charges, the court must lean in favor of granting bail for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in registering an F.I.R. after a statement is recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the recovered property value is below the 'Nisab' required for an offence under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to establish reasonable grounds for the alleged offence sufficient to warrant the release of an accused on bail pending trial?
- Muhammad Yar vs Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 91 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub vs Kala Khan and 7 others1995 MLD 1611 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub vs Kala Khan And 7 Other1995 MLD 1611 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs The To Circle-16, Lahore1997 P.T.C.L.R. 371 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs Mst. Surriya Bibi And Another1995 MLD 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs (Mst.) Irshad BegumK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob Abdullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 606 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaq00b and others vs General Manager, Tarbela Dam1995 CLC 1536 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yahya and another vs Muhammad Ahmad1995 MLD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Shariat Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad vs Mst. Rehmoon through Legal Heir1995 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an appellate court's decision to decree a suit in favour of the respondents. The original suit was filed by Mst. Rehmoon, an elderly and illiterate woman, seeking a declaration that a sale deed executed by her in favour of the petitioner's father was fraudulent, void, and ineffective against her rights. The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the registered sale deed. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, noting the absence of evidence regarding independent advice provided to the illiterate executant and discrepancies in the evidence concerning the actual payment of the sale consideration. The High Court affirmed this reversal. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petitioner's contention that the lower courts misread the evidence and drew incorrect conclusions, determined that the submissions required further examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to address the validity of the transaction and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the sale price payment.
Questions settled- Does the absence of independent advice for an illiterate woman at the time of executing a sale deed render the transaction void?
- Is the mere recital of payment in a registered sale deed sufficient to prove that the sale consideration was actually paid?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the payment of sale consideration be challenged in revision if the evidence is alleged to be misread?
- Muhammad Usman vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs Iqbal Hussain Khan1995 CLC 931 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman Alias Chan Mahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Umer vs H.J. Behrana Fire Temple Parsi Trust1995 CLC 1725 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Umer vs Government of Sindh and others1995 PLD Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed in the Sindh High Court by Muhammad Umer seeking the production and release of his detained brother, Muhammad Qassim. During the proceedings, the police disclosed that the detenu had been shifted to District Jacobabad and subsequently arrested under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection that the High Court's Principal Seat at Karachi had lost territorial jurisdiction as the detenu was now held within the jurisdiction of the Sukkur Circuit Bench. The core legal questions addressed by the court concerned the extent of territorial jurisdiction among different benches of the High Court under Article 198 and Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with the High Court of Sindh Benches Rules, 1987, and whether an offence under Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 is bailable or non-bailable. The court held that all benches of the High Court share co-extensive jurisdiction, that the Benches Rules do not restrict this overarching jurisdiction, and that offences under Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 are non-bailable due to enhanced penalties. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with directions for medical treatment and liberty to approach the trial court for bail.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of a Circuit Bench of a High Court is restricted exclusively to its assigned area under the High Court of Sindh Benches Rules, 1987, or is co-extensive with the Principal Seat?
- Whether an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 is bailable or non-bailable?
- What is the legal effect of the repeal of the Arms Act 1878 by Section 29 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 upon references to the repealed Act in prior amendments and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- How should the High Court treat factual allegations made in a habeas corpus petition supported by an affidavit when the respondent police officials fail to file a counter-affidavit?
- Muhammad Umer Khan vs Haji Muhammad Sultan Siddioui and others1995 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises after his defence was struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry into the rate of rent and the period of default before passing an order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the subsequent striking off of the defence under Section 16(2) was legally justified. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller is not required to hold a full-fledged inquiry but rather a summary one as deemed fit. The Court found that the Rent Controller correctly determined the rent based on the tenancy agreement, which stipulated an automatic increase after the initial term. The key principle laid down is that while a Rent Controller must pass a tentative rent order, this process does not necessitate a full-fledged trial or examination of witnesses, but rather a summary assessment based on available material, and non-compliance with such an order justifies striking off the defence.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to hold a full-fledged inquiry before passing a tentative rent order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the failure to comply with a tentative rent order justify striking off the defence of a tenant under Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a Rent Controller rely on the terms of a written tenancy agreement to determine the rate of rent for a tentative rent order?
- Muhammad Umer and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Umar Malik vs The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through it1995 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in revision that dismissed his suit for reinstatement in service. The petitioner, an employee of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., had his services terminated and subsequently filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that his termination was illegal and that he remained in service. Although the trial court and appellate court decreed the suit on the ground of incompetent authority, the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that because the respondent bank is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and lacks statutory rules governing service terms, and the petitioner did not claim workman status under labour laws, the relationship between the parties was strictly that of master and servant. Consequently, a decree for reinstatement or declaration of continued service cannot be granted. The Court further held that claims regarding the non-issuance of a no-objection certificate and unpaid gratuity could not be resolved in these proceedings, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can an employee of a non-statutory incorporated company seek a declaratory decree for reinstatement in service under the master and servant rule?
- Does the absence of statutory rules governing service terms restrict a terminated employee to damages rather than reinstatement?
- Can the Supreme Court grant relief regarding unpaid gratuity and non-issuance of a no-objection certificate under Articles 184(3) and 187 of the Constitution in an appeal arising from a civil suit for reinstatement?
- Muhammad Umar Farooq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 279 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail vs Lahore Development Authority, LDA Plaza, Egerton Road, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 465 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail vs Government of Punjab1995 MLD 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail vs Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad, District1995 MLD 1744 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail and 2 others vs The State1995 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners for murder and causing the disappearance of a dead body. The petitioners were tried for the murder of Sarfraz Khan, allegedly committed by firing shots at him and subsequently disposing of his body in a canal. The trial court convicted the petitioners under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them to death, while acquitting their co-accused. The High Court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences to imprisonment for life. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, challenging the reliability of the ocular evidence, which they argued was not independent and lacked necessary corroboration. They further contended that the police failed to recover the dead body and questioned the possibility of identifying assailants on a dark night. Finding that these contentions raised substantial legal questions requiring further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does ocular evidence that is not independent require corroboration for a conviction in a murder case?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the dead body of the victim has not been recovered?
- Is the identification of assailants on a dark night a valid ground for challenging the reliability of eyewitness testimony?
- Muhammad Tufail alias Muhammd Yasin vs Muhammad Suleman and 61995 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a complaint and acquittal of respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving Sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are applicable to private complaint cases and whether a Magistrate can acquit an accused under this section after issuing process without recording evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that Section 249-A is fully applicable to complaint cases and empowers a Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction. The Court laid down that the summoning of an accused under Section 204 is of a tentative nature and does not bar the subsequent exercise of powers under Section 249-A to prevent frivolous proceedings and lighten the burden on higher courts.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to private complaint cases?
- Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence after having summoned them?
- Is the opinion formed by a trial Magistrate while summoning an accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 of a tentative nature?
- Muhammad Tazeel vs Mst. Khairunnisa1995 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a civil revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decrees of the lower courts in favor of the respondent wife for the recovery of her dowry articles or their alternative value. The petitioner husband contended that because the value of the dowry exceeded the statutory limit and the list of dowry was not furnished to the Nikah Registrar pursuant to the Dowry and Bridal Gifts Restriction Act, 1976, the respondent had admitted to an offense and the list was inadmissible in evidence. The Supreme Court held that the contentions were dishonest pleas raised merely to deprive the respondent of her property, noting that cognizance of offenses under the Act requires a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner within the prescribed limitation period, which did not occur, and that a dowry list does not become inadmissible merely because a copy was not furnished to the Nikah Registrar. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a violation of the valuation limits under the Dowry and Bridal Gifts Restriction Act 1976 bar a wife from recovering her dowry articles?
- Is a list of dowry articles inadmissible in evidence solely because it was not furnished to the Nikah Registrar under section 8 of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts Restriction Act 1976?
- Can a court take cognizance of an offense under section 9 of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts Restriction Act 1976 without a complaint in writing by or under the authority of the Deputy Commissioner?
- Muhammad Tayab vs Akbar Hussain1995 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court order dismissing an appeal in limine, which had challenged a Single Judge's decision making an arbitration award the rule of the court. The Single Judge had refused to consider the appellant's objections solely because they were filed six days after the extended deadline. The core legal question was whether a court is duty-bound to examine the validity of an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, even if objections are filed beyond the statutory limitation period, particularly where a party alleges lack of notice of the arbitration proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have summarily rejected the objections on the ground of limitation without examining the merits. The Court ruled that where a party raises a plea of non-service of notice in arbitration proceedings, the court must examine the record to determine if the award is a nullity. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the Single Judge to examine the service of notice.
Questions settled- Can a court refuse to examine the validity of an arbitration award solely because objections were filed beyond the stipulated limitation period?
- Is a court empowered under the Arbitration Act, 1940 to examine whether an award is a nullity regardless of whether objections were filed in time?
- What is the duty of the court when a party alleges they were not served with notice in arbitration proceedings?
- Muhammad Taufique vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 228 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq-II vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 389 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 457 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq vs P.T.C. And Other1995 MLD 896 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq Manzoor vs Muhammad Ahmad and 6 others1995 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq Manzoor vs Muhammad Ahmad and 6 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq Khan and 3 others vs Muhammad Sharif Khan1995 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court maintaining an eviction order passed by the Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment against tenants of commercial premises operating as a hotel and restaurant. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of personal requirement and subletting under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963. The petitioners, who were legal heirs of a deceased co-tenant, contended that they were necessary parties who were wrongly excluded from the rent proceedings. They further submitted that the landlord failed to issue the mandatory two-year written notice mandated by the third proviso to Section 17(4) of the Act prior to seeking eviction for personal use. The landlord contended that the express stipulation in the lease agreement requiring surrender of possession upon lease expiry satisfied the statutory notice requirement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider whether terms in a rent deed constitute valid statutory notice under Section 17(4) and whether non-party legal heirs are bound by the eviction order.
Questions settled- Whether terms incorporated in a written rent deed stipulating surrender of possession upon lease expiry satisfy the two-year notice requirement under the third proviso to Section 17(4) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963?
- Whether legal heirs of a deceased co-tenant who were not impleaded in ejectment proceedings are bound by an eviction order passed against the remaining tenants?
- Muhammad Taqi vs Lahore Development Authority And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tahir and 3 others vs Ch. Nazir Ahmad1997 MLD 71 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sultan vs District Judge and 4 others1995 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition against concurrent findings of the Family Court and the District Judge regarding maintenance claims. The petitioner, the father of the respondents, argued that his children (respondents 4 and 5) were majors and living apart without reasonable cause, thus disentitling them to maintenance. The Supreme Court observed that while the record indicated the respondents were of majority age, the petitioner had failed to raise the specific plea or request an issue be framed regarding whether the respondents were living apart from him without reasonable cause during the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction, as the petitioner's argument required the determination of a factual controversy for which no material had been placed on the record by the petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed that it would not interfere with factual findings where the underlying plea was not agitated before the lower courts. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a factual plea for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction when it was not agitated before the trial court?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts where the petitioner failed to request the framing of a necessary issue?
- Muhammad Suleman vs Superintendent of Central Jail, Mianwali and another1995 PLD Lahore 591 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddiqui vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique. Ac. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 660 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs Syed Zulfiqar Haider and others1995 CLC 431 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the appellant's suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale after closing his evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerns the proper exercise of judicial discretion by a trial court in refusing an adjournment and closing evidence due to counsel's personal tragedy. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted arbitrarily and failed to exercise its discretion judicially in the light of attending facts, specifically that the counsel's son-in-law had been murdered, leaving the counsel in an unfit state of mind. The Court reiterated the principle that procedural rules should advance the cause of justice and that the law strongly favors the adjudication of disputes on merits rather than summary disposal. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision on merits after providing a fresh opportunity for the production of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court exercises its discretion judicially when it refuses an adjournment and closes a party's evidence due to the counsel suffering a severe personal tragedy?
- Does the law favor the adjudication of rights of parties on merits rather than their disposal summarily?
- Can an appellate court set aside a judgment and decree dismissing a suit for want of evidence where the trial court acted arbitrarily under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Muhammad Siddique vs Shaheen Airport Services1995 PLC 55 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs S.H.O., Police Station, MUZAFFARABADNonPetitioner1995 P Cr. L J 1477 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a court direction compelling the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding a cognizable offence, alleging that the police failed to act on his report despite his injuries. The core legal question was whether the police are legally obligated to register a counter-version F.I.R. when a case regarding the same incident is already under investigation. The Court held that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the police have a mandatory duty to record a report if it discloses a cognizable offence, regardless of whether a counter-case exists. The Court emphasized that the police cannot unilaterally determine a counter-version to be false without conducting an investigation. The key principle laid down is that the police must register the F.I.R. for a counter-version and investigate it; if the investigation reveals the report is false, the police may then proceed under the relevant penal provisions for false information, rather than refusing registration initially.
Questions settled- Is the police officer legally obligated to register an F.I.R. when a report discloses a cognizable offence, even if a counter-case is already under investigation?
- Can a police officer refuse to register a counter-version F.I.R. based on their own assessment that the report is false?
- What is the correct legal procedure for the police when faced with a counter-version of an incident already being investigated?
- Muhammad Siddique vs Assistant Commissioner Model Town, LahoreK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 254 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Rehman And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 550 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique Bhatti vs The Director-General, Audit (Works), Lahore and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique and Others vs Muhammad Yar and others1995 P Cr. L J 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 189 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Case 237 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique and another vs Muhammad Latif and 3 others1997 MLD 181 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddiqi vs Lahore Improvement Trust1995 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal on the grounds of limitation and merits. The core legal question involved the maintainability of a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from allotting a plot when the plaintiff was not in possession, particularly in circumstances where previous suits instituted by the plaintiff had been dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's order suffered from no infirmity, affirming that a suit for injunction is not maintainable by a plaintiff out of possession and is further barred due to the dismissal of earlier connected suits. The key principle laid down is that a suit for injunction regarding property cannot be maintained by a party who is not in possession, and repeated litigation on the same subject-matter after previous dismissals is untenable.
Questions settled- Is a suit for injunction restraining the allotment of a plot maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession of the said plot?
- Whether a subsequent suit is maintainable when previous suits filed in respect of the same matter have been dismissed?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an appellate order that is free from legal infirmity on limitation and merits?
- Muhammad Siddiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shoaib vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 4 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding a long-standing property dispute. The litigation originated in 1979 over a recovery suit for 'Ijara' (rent) and possession of land in the Malakand Agency. Following a series of administrative orders and compromises, the petitioner was granted possession of the land in 1985 due to the respondent's failure to pay the agreed sum. However, in 1989, the Assistant Collector permitted the respondent to pay the outstanding amount, which was accepted by the petitioner's special attorney, leading to the restoration of possession to the respondent. The petitioner challenged this, claiming the attorney lacked authority. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that factual disputes regarding the attorney's authority and receipt of payment could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the High Court's refusal to exercise constitutional jurisdiction over disputed questions of fact, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner may pursue other legal remedies if defrauded.
Questions settled- Can disputed questions of fact regarding the authority of a special attorney be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction?
- Is a High Court justified in refusing to interfere with administrative orders when the petition involves factual controversies?
- Does the acceptance of a decretal amount by an attorney during execution proceedings preclude the decree-holder from challenging the validity of that payment in writ proceedings?
- Muhammad Sher and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1995 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a dispute over the allotment of land to a respondent under a rehabilitation scheme for Mangla Dam oustees. The core legal question presented for the Court's consideration is whether the disputed land fell within a 'Prohibited Zone' during the year 1981, thereby rendering it ineligible for inclusion in the schedule for allotment under the specific rehabilitation scheme established for the displaced persons of the Mangla Dam project. The Court, upon reviewing the petition, granted leave to appeal to examine this specific issue regarding the legal status of the land at the material time and the validity of the allotment process. The holding establishes that the classification of the land as being within or outside the Prohibited Zone is a critical factual and legal determination necessary to resolve the legitimacy of the allotment. The principle laid down emphasizes that land designated as a Prohibited Zone cannot be lawfully allotted under rehabilitation schemes, necessitating judicial scrutiny of the administrative records from the relevant period.
Questions settled- Did the land in dispute fall within the Prohibited Zone in 1981?
- Could the disputed land be legally included in the schedule for allotment to the respondent under the Mangla Dam oustees rehabilitation scheme?