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 Rashid And Another vs The State1997 K.L.R. Criminal Cases 706 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rashid and 3 others vs Saeed Ahmad1995 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a suit for possession of shops filed by the respondent against the appellants, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld in appeal and revision by the District Judge and High Court respectively. The core legal question concerned the proper identification and physical demarcation of the disputed property transferred under settlement laws, where conflicting transfer documents and P.T.O.s were relied upon by both sides. The Supreme Court held that the evidence regarding the identity of the properties was insufficient and that the courts below failed to properly appraise the evidence or utilize local commissions and official records for spot identification. The appeal was consequently allowed, the lower judgments and decrees were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision after allowing parties to lead further evidence and appointing a commission for proper property identification.
Questions settled- Whether oral evidence alone is sufficient to resolve a controversy regarding the identity of disputed immovable properties transferred by settlement authorities?
- Can an appellate court remand a case for fresh decision when the lower courts fail to properly identify the property through official records and local commissions?
- Is the appointment of a local commission necessary for determining the correct physical identity of properties in boundary and possession disputes?
- Muhammad Rasheed and 14 others vs Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur through its Administrator and 5 others1995 CLC 622 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rasheed and 13 others vs Chairman, Balochistan Labour1995 PLC 242 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rasheed and 12 others vs Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur and 5 others1995 CLC 363 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs WAPDA1995 PLC (C.S.) 540 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Umran Khan1995 CLC 1947 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-06-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1995 PLC 644 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Station House Officer, Police Station1995 P Cr. L J 1947 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed seeking directions for the registration of a criminal case and the return of a Hino truck seized by the police. The petitioner claimed ownership of the truck, which was allegedly seized from outside his house by the police without any registered case or legal justification. The police contended that the vehicle was seized under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a complaint by a third party who claimed to have purchased it. The High Court observed that the police failed to report the seizure of the truck to a Magistrate as mandated by Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the statutory requirement to report a seizure forthwith is a condition precedent, and failure to do so renders the seizure illegal. Consequently, the Court declared the seizure unlawful and directed the police to return the truck to the petitioner from whose possession it was taken.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the police to report a seizure of property to a Magistrate under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the seizure illegal?
- Can a Magistrate exercise jurisdiction to order the disposal or delivery of seized property if the police have not reported the seizure under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the police justified in seizing property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their own inquiry reveals that no cognizable offence has been committed?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1995 MLD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1995 MLD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Lal Khan1995 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellant's suit for possession through pre-emption on the ground of failure to prove the requisite Talabs. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptor properly established the making of Talab-e-Mawathibat in compliance with the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Supreme Court observed that although demands were pleaded, the pre-emptor and his witnesses failed to state with particularity when knowledge of the sale was acquired and when Talab-e-Mawathibat was made. The Court held that under Section 31 of the Act, regularity attaches to official acts, presuming the pre-emptor had knowledge of the mutation within two weeks of the public notice. Since the pre-emptor failed to prove the timely making of Talab-e-Mawathibat immediately upon gaining knowledge, his right of pre-emption was extinguished under Section 13 of the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption is extinguished under Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 if the pre-emptor fails to prove the making of Talab-e-Mawathibat immediately upon gaining knowledge of the sale?
- Is knowledge of the attestation of a sale mutation presumed to be acquired by a pre-emptor within two weeks pursuant to public notice under Section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- Is it necessary for a pre-emptor to refer to the first demand of Talab-e-Mawathibat when making the second demand of Talab-e-Ishhad?
- Can a pre-emption suit be decreed when the testimony regarding the time of knowledge of sale and the making of Talab-e-Mawathibat lacks particularity or is based on hearsay?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Deputy Director, Food, Lahore and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Chowkidar, was removed from service following allegations of distilling liquor on duty. Departmentally, the same officer acted as both the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer' throughout the disciplinary proceedings, leading to the appellant's removal. The appellant challenged this procedure, arguing that the combination of these roles violated principles of natural justice by depriving him of an objective, independent assessment of the inquiry report and the opportunity to influence the decision-making process before a major penalty was imposed. The Punjab Service Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Tribunal held that while the rules permit an Authority to act as an Authorised Officer, this power is not absolute. The role of an Authorised Officer is distinct, requiring an objective assessment of the inquiry report. Combining these roles effectively merges the complainant and the judge, which is contrary to fair justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the removal order and remanded the case for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can the same officer act as both the Authority and the Authorised Officer in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Does the combination of the roles of Authority and Authorised Officer violate the principles of natural justice?
- What is the scope of the Authorised Officer's role in assessing inquiry reports under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Muhammad Ramzan Butt alias Luboo Butt vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Khan Muhammad and others1995 SCMR 1200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against revenue authorities' orders in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants possessed a superior right of pre-emption as tenants in cultivating possession of the suit land at the time of sale. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the matter warranted re-examination regarding the actual cultivating possession of the appellants as tenants over the suit property on the date of the sale-deeds. The Court laid down the principle that factual determinations regarding cultivating possession as a tenant supporting a pre-emption claim must be properly tried and determined on merits through specific issues framed for that purpose.
Questions settled- Does a tenant asserting a superior right of pre-emption need to establish actual cultivating possession at the time of sale?
- Can an appellate or revisional revenue authority ignore the factual finding regarding the actual cultivating possession of pre-emptors?
- Whether a pre-emption suit involving tenancy claims requires specific issues regarding the extent of area occupied as a tenant at the time of sale?
- Muhammad Ramzan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan and another vs Pakistan Steel, Karachi through its1995 PLC 742 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rahim alias Abdul Rahim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1350(1) · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiullah vs Mst. Mehrunnissa1995 MLD 418 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1753 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs Pakistan Railways1995 PLC (C.S.) 644 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 24-3-1994, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning his premature retirement. The core legal question is whether a government servant can withdraw an application for premature retirement before its formal acceptance or before the retirement order is passed by the competent authority. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the withdrawal application was duly forwarded and endorsed prior to the issuance of the retirement order by the Divisional Officer. Relying on administrative instructions governing service matters, the Court held that a government servant may withdraw an application for premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent authority. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed that status quo be maintained since the petitioner was stated to be still in service.
Questions settled- Can a government servant withdraw an application for premature retirement after submitting it?
- Whether an application for withdrawal of premature retirement is effective if submitted before the issuance of the retirement order?
- Does the acceptance of a premature retirement application bar its subsequent withdrawal if done prior to the effective date or acceptance?
- Muhammad Rafique vs Pakistan Railways through its General Manager, Headquarters Office, Lahore and others1995 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 24-3-1994, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning his premature retirement. The core legal question is whether a civil servant can withdraw an application for premature retirement before its formal acceptance or before the retirement order is passed by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that as per applicable instructions, a Government servant may withdraw his application for premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent authority. Finding that the petitioner's withdrawal application was submitted and forwarded before the actual retirement order was passed, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that status quo be maintained.
Questions settled- Can a Government servant withdraw an application for premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent authority?
- Whether an application for withdrawal of premature retirement submitted prior to the issuance of the retirement order is legally effective?
- Muhammad Rafique vs Judge Family CourtK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs Hasrat Ali alias Bhutto and 2 others1995 PLD Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique Malik vs Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore and others1995 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal denying the appellant's request for five advance increments under the Government of Punjab, Finance Department Memo dated 6-12-1975. The core legal question was whether a diploma holder holding a post in scale B-17 is entitled to the advance increments provided under the said memo, akin to similarly placed personnel. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's case is squarely covered by its earlier precedent in Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Amin (1991 SCMR 675), noting that the diploma course held by the appellant is comparable to the qualifications considered in the precedent case. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Service Tribunal's order, and ruled that the appellant is entitled to the five advance increments. The key principle laid down is that where an administrative memo grants advance increments based on minimum qualifications prescribed in rules and has received a settled departmental construction, similarly situated incumbents holding equivalent qualifications cannot be arbitrarily discriminated against.
Questions settled- Whether a diploma holder is entitled to five advance increments under the Finance Department Memo dated 6-12-1975?
- Does the refusal of the Service Tribunal to grant advance increments to an eligible civil servant in B-17 violate settled principles established in prior judgments?
- Muhammad Rafique and another's vs Managing Director (WAPDA) and another1995 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, non-graduate junior engineers in WAPDA, were upgraded to BPS-18 but were denied the benefit of "move-over" to BPS-19. The Service Tribunal dismissed their appeals, reasoning that their BPS-18 status was an upgradation rather than a regular promotion, thus disqualifying them from move-over benefits. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether eligibility for move-over to BPS-19 is contingent upon having received a "regular promotion" to BPS-18, or if reaching the maximum of the existing pay scale is sufficient, irrespective of the nature of the promotion or the duties performed. The Supreme Court held that the move-over policy is fundamentally related to the pay scale reached rather than the specific nature of the promotion or the functions performed by the employee. Consequently, the Court ruled that once an employee reaches the maximum of their existing pay scale and satisfies other prescribed conditions, they are entitled to move-over. The distinction between regular promotion and upgradation is irrelevant to this entitlement. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Is the benefit of move-over to a higher pay scale contingent upon having received a regular promotion to the current grade?
- Does the distinction between upgradation and regular promotion affect an employee's eligibility for move-over benefits under the government policy?
- Is the right to receive pay in a higher scale upon reaching the maximum of the current scale a vested right that cannot be denied based on the nature of the employee's promotion?
- Muhammad Rafique and 7 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad1995 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' writ petition regarding the transfer of evacuee property and shops in Abbottabad. The core legal questions involve whether an order of remand by the High Court was properly complied with by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, whether certain shops were available property under the settlement scheme, and whether the Provisional Transfer Order relied upon by a respondent was valid or forged. The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient material to conclusively determine whether the disputed shops were validly transferred to the respondent under a valid order of settlement authorities, or whether they constituted available property for disposal. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the notified officer to determine the validity of the transfer of the shops under the relevant statutory provisions. The key principle laid down is that transfer of evacuee property must be substantiated by a valid order of competent settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Whether an order of remand passed by the High Court has been properly complied with by the Additional Settlement Commissioner?
- Whether the shops in occupation of the petitioners are available property within the meaning of the scheme for management and disposal of available properties?
- Whether the Provisional Transfer Order produced before the authorities was issued under a valid order of settlement authorities?
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1995 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, challenging the petitioner's conviction under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 read with section 7 of Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991, and specifically addressing the failure to give the benefit of pre-sentence detention under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the severity of the fine. The core legal question was how a sentencing court must exercise its discretion under the mandatory wording of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the counting of pre-sentence jail custody towards a sentence of imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that section 382-B imposes a mandatory duty on the sentencing court to consider pre-sentence detention, and the court must exercise its judicial discretion in favour of reducing the sentence by that period unless there are special circumstances disentitling the accused, in which case reasons must be recorded. The Supreme Court laid down that pre-sentence detention is a deprivation of liberty amounting to punishment, and while courts retain judicial discretion, they must exercise it to promote the legislative policy of rational treatment of pre-sentence custody, ensuring consistency and accountability through reasoned orders.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose a mandatory duty on sentencing courts to take pre-sentence jail custody into consideration?
- Can a court refuse to give an accused the benefit of pre-sentence detention under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording reasons?
- Is pre-sentence detention spent in jail during trial considered a form of punishment that must be accounted for in the final sentence?
- How should a court exercise its judicial discretion when deciding whether to reduce a term of imprisonment by the period spent in custody prior to conviction?
- Muhammad Rafiq vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 11 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 338 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq and others vs The State1995 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the petitioners on a capital charge. The core legal question is whether the High Court was legally justified in upholding the conviction based on the testimony of two interested eye-witnesses, who are real brothers of the deceased, in the absence of sufficient corroborative evidence and while allegedly ignoring the defence version entirely. Additionally, a connected petition seeks leave against the acquittal of co-accused persons. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the contentions raised require detailed examination regarding the appreciation of evidence and corroboration standards in capital cases, and directed the criminal petitions to be heard along with the pending appeal and connected acquittal petition.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was right to maintain the conviction of the petitioners on a capital charge on the statements of two eye-witnesses who are real brothers of the deceased without sufficient corroborative evidence?
- Whether the defence version was improperly ignored by the High Court while upholding the capital conviction?
- Muhammad Rafiq And 2 Others vs Sabir Ali And 2 Other1995 MLD 178 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafio and 2 others vs Sabir Ali and 2 others1995 MLD 178 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafi through Legal Heirs vs Nawab Din1995 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondent, Nawab Din, regarding a share in a joint Khata. The petitioner, Muhammad Rafi, challenged the suit on the grounds of limitation, arguing that physical possession was delivered on the date of the mutation entry, and contested the respondent's superior right of pre-emption. The core legal questions were whether the suit was time-barred and whether the plaintiff had established a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that because the subject matter was a share in a joint Khata, the property was not capable of physical possession at the time of the mutation entry. Consequently, the limitation period commenced from the date of the attestation of the mutation, not the entry date, rendering the suit within time. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner had failed to challenge the respondent's superior right in the written statement or during cross-examination. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, establishing that for joint Khata shares, limitation runs from the mutation's attestation date.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit involving a share in a joint Khata run from the date of the mutation entry or the date of attestation?
- Is a suit for pre-emption barred by time if filed within one year of the attestation of the mutation for a share in a joint Khata?
- Can a defendant challenge a plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption on appeal if it was not denied in the written statement or during cross-examination?
- Muhammad Raeese (Azam) vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, S&Ga Department1995 PLC (C.S.) 151 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a retired civil servant seeking pro forma promotion to Grade-21 and consequential benefits after the Provincial Government failed to promote him despite unconditional recommendation by the Special Selection Committee and successful completion of the mandatory Staff College training, while another officer was promoted. The core legal questions involved whether promotion forms part of the terms and conditions of service, whether the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an appeal regarding promotion where the relevant statute bars appeals against fitness for promotion, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable in such circumstances. The Balochistan High Court held that while promotion falls under terms and conditions of service, Section 4(b) of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1974 bars appeals regarding fitness for promotion or promotion to a higher post. Consequently, since no alternative remedy by way of appeal exists before the Service Tribunal, the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 remains competent based on the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. On merits, finding clear discrimination and no lawful justification for withholding the petitioner's promotion, the Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner pro forma promotion with all resultant service benefits.
Questions settled- Whether promotion falls within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order or decision determining the fitness of a person for promotion?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable when the Service Tribunals Act bars an appeal against a departmental decision regarding promotion?
- Whether withholding promotion while promoting a similarly situated officer without fulfilling mandatory prerequisites constitutes actionable discrimination?
- Muhammad Qurban vs Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur and 61995 CLC 1276 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qurban vs Mayor Municipal Corporation Mirpur And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 422 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim vs Najja and others1995 CLC 1600 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim and others vs Moujuddin and others1995 SCMR 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of an application for the re-admission of an appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellants challenged the dismissal order, arguing that the date of the hearing (26-8-1989) was fixed by the Court's Reader rather than the Presiding Officer, rendering the subsequent dismissal order a nullity. The lower courts had dismissed the application for re-admission as time-barred, applying Article 168 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court considered whether a date fixed by a Reader constitutes a valid date of hearing under Order XLI, Rule 17, C.P.C. The Court held that a date fixed by a Reader, rather than the Presiding Officer, cannot be treated as a valid date of hearing. Consequently, the dismissal order was declared void and a nullity. The Court further held that because the dismissal order was a nullity, Article 181 of the Limitation Act applied rather than Article 168. The appeal was allowed, the lower court judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can a date fixed by a Court Reader, rather than the Presiding Officer, be treated as a valid date of hearing for the purposes of Order XLI, Rule 17, C.P.C.?
- Is an order dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution void if the date of hearing was not fixed by the Presiding Officer?
- Does Article 168 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act apply to an application for re-admission of an appeal dismissed by a void order?
- Muhammad Qasim and anothers vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 658 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Pervez vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 776 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Parvez vs The State1995 MLD 1519 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir Khan vs Khalid Javaid and 2 others1995 PLC 215 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir and 3 others vs Mst. Nasira Sultana and 5 others1995 CLC 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision concerns a dispute over the possession of a house previously classified as evacuee property. The respondents, as legal heirs of the deceased, sought a declaration of their rights based on a 1970 agreement (Exh. P1) executed by the parties, which stipulated that the transferee of the property could not dispossess the other signatories, nor sell or rent the premises without mutual consent. Conversely, the petitioner, in whose name the property was subsequently transferred, filed a suit for possession, claiming the respondents were mere licensees. The trial court initially decreed the petitioner's suit, but the appellate court reversed this, upholding the respondents' claim. The High Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding that while the agreement might not constitute a formal agreement of association under settlement laws, it remained a valid, binding private contract. The Court emphasized that substance prevails over form in pleadings and that the transferee was contractually bound by the terms of the agreement, which effectively created perpetual rights of possession for the signatories.
Questions settled- Whether a private agreement regarding the occupation of property is binding on a transferee even if it fails to meet the formal requirements of an agreement of association under settlement laws?
- Does a court have the authority to grant relief based on the substance of a plaint rather than its specific form?
- Can a transferee of property be estopped from dispossessing other parties if a prior valid agreement prohibits such action?
- Muhammad Nazir Abbasi vs Azad J&K C Ouncil, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 543 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-05-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazeer vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Walidad and others1995 P Cr. L J 1727 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1995 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate and revisional courts was unduly harsh and whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be extended. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding effective firing and house trespass warranted no interference, and the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment was not harsh given the lenient treatment already accorded. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that effective firing following house trespass justifies substantive imprisonment without interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction absent compelling mitigating grounds.
Questions settled- Whether effective firing following house trespass warrants a reduction in sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by three lower courts regarding criminal liability?
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in every case regardless of the circumstances?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Ibrahim And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 9 others1995 CLC 773 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Mst. Ahmad Bibi and others1995 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a direct challenge to a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal concerning a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question involved the validity of the agreement to sell, the proof of earnest money payment, and the proper scope and application of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by an appellate court when cross-appeals are filed. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court erred in utilizing Order 41, Rule 33 to set aside a decree in favor of the plaintiff after dismissing the defendants' appeal, thereby allowing contradictory judgments to stand, and that the High Court erroneously found an element of deceit unsupported by evidence. The Court laid down the principle that an appellate court cannot use the wide discretionary powers under Order 41, Rule 33 to undo a finalized portion of a decree or reverse findings in an appeal where that portion is no longer sub judice, and restored the trial court's conditional decree for specific performance.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court invoke Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree in favor of a party when the opposing party's appeal against that same decree has already been dismissed?
- Does the failure of a defendant to specifically deny a thumb-impression on a document shift the burden of proof regarding the execution and consideration of the agreement?
- May an appellate court interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by a trial court in granting specific performance without evidence of fraud, deceit, or legal error?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Mst. Ahmad Bibi and 3 others1995 SCMR 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff/appellant, subject to the deposit of the entire sale consideration due to discrepancies in the proof of earnest money. Both parties appealed. The defendants' appeal was dismissed for want of proper court-fee and limitation, making the decree for specific performance final against them. However, in the plaintiff's appeal regarding the earnest money, the first appellate court invoked Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the entire decree. The High Court, while disagreeing with the appellate court's use of Order XLI Rule 33, dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal on the ground of an alleged 'element of deceit'. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the appeal, holding that Order XLI Rule 33 cannot be used to undo a decree that had attained finality via the dismissal of the defendants' own appeal. The Court restored the trial court's decree, subject to the payment of the sale consideration with markup.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court invoke Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree in favor of a party whose adversary's appeal against that very decree has already been dismissed?
- Does the dismissal of a defendant's appeal on technical grounds render the trial court's decree final against them if they do not challenge that dismissal in higher forums?
- Can a court refuse the discretionary relief of specific performance on the ground of deceit without any supporting evidence on the record?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Ghulam Haider and 24 others1995 MLD 38 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Ghulam Haider And 24 Other1995 MLD 38 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Chief Engineer (Admn.) Water, WAPDA, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 603 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Baluch vs President of Govt. of Peshawar, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 684 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Muhammad Sadiq and another1995 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption dispute concerning whether an appellate court possesses the authority to extend the time limit for depositing the balance pre-emption money, and whether the High Court rightly set aside such an extension in revision. The pre-emptor had challenged the purchase price fixed by the trial court while seeking an interim stay and extension of time to deposit the decretal amount. After multiple remands, the first appellate court accepted the deposit and extended the timeframe accordingly. However, the High Court reversed this decision in revisional jurisdiction, ruling that the suit stood dismissed due to non-deposit within the trial court's original deadline. The Supreme Court majority allowed the appeal and restored the appellate court's order. The Court established that an appellate court is competent to extend deposit timelines during pendency or upon final disposal of an appeal. Additionally, a revisional court under Section 115 C.P.C. cannot interfere with a subordinate court's exercise of judicial discretion unless it is shown to be arbitrary, whimsical, or illegal.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court competent to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money during the pendency or at the time of final disposal of an appeal?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere under Section 115 C.P.C. with an appellate court's exercise of discretion extending pre-emption deposit deadlines?
- Must bad faith that disentitles a pre-emptor from seeking a discretionary extension of deposit time directly relate to dealings with the vendee?
- Muhammad Nawaz And Other vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division And Other1995 KLR Revenue cases 71 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz and 4 others vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division1995 MLD 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz And 4 Others vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division1995 MLD 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasrullah vs The State1995 MLD 937 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1999 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1999 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasim vs Mst. Ghazala1995 CLC 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 362 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem vs Muhammad Haroon Khan and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal which reinstated the first respondent into service after his employment as a Supervisor had been terminated by the department on the grounds of irregularity. The appellant, who claimed to have secured the first position in the recruitment test, challenged the reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the appellant had the locus standi to maintain the appeal against the reinstatement of the first respondent, given that the appellant was serving as a Secretary of the Union Council and not as a Supervisor at the relevant times. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the appellant was not serving in the relevant post at the time of the first respondent's appointment or termination, and had not directly challenged the first respondent's initial appointment, he could not be considered an aggrieved party. The Court upheld the preliminary objection regarding maintainability and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether a person who is not serving in the relevant cadre or post at the time of another's appointment or termination has the locus standi to challenge an order reinstating that person into service?
- Can an individual who did not challenge the initial appointment of a civil servant subsequently appeal against a Service Tribunal's order directing that civil servant's reinstatement?
- Muhammad Muzaffar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1995 MLD 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mushtaq vs District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 201 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Mureed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1987 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1995 P Cr. L J 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir vs Rana Umar Hayat and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Inspector of Post Offices, was appointed in the Karachi Circle in 1973 and subsequently transferred to the Lahore Circle in 1976 upon his own request. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Post Offices Manual, Volume IV, he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the Lahore Circle. Although he later obtained an order re-fixing his seniority based on his original appointment date, this was challenged by a colleague (respondent No. 1) before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the re-fixation, holding that the petitioner's voluntary transfer necessitated his placement at the bottom of the seniority list under Rule 38. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that by seeking a transfer on his own request, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the benefit of his previous service regarding seniority. The Court held that the subsequent declaration of the cadre as a circle cadre did not entitle him to claim seniority benefits from his parent circle, and thus refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a voluntary transfer from one circle to another require an employee to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new circle under Rule 38 of the Post Offices Manual, Volume IV?
- Can an employee who voluntarily transfers to a new circle claim the benefit of service from their parent circle for seniority purposes?
- Does the declaration of a cadre as a circle cadre entitle a transferred employee to retain seniority from their previous circle?
- Muhammad Munir vs PRTC, Badami Bagh, Lahore1995 PLC 581 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir vs Mst. Zahida Parveen1995 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an ejectment petition filed by a landlord against a tenant for default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Upon the tenant's failure to comply, the defence was struck off. The appellant contended that the Rent Controller's order was illegal due to procedural defects regarding the specified dates for rent deposits. The Court held that while an order under Section 13(6) must be clear, a defect in one part of the direction does not render the entire order a nullity. If an order contains multiple directions, the tenant remains obligated to comply with the valid portions, and failure to do so justifies striking off the defence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that appellate authorities possess the power to order rent deposits during the pendency of an appeal, and non-compliance warrants summary dismissal. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the Court's interim order.
Questions settled- Does a defect in one part of an order passed under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 render the entire order a nullity?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a valid direction for rent deposit if other parts of the same order are found to be defective?
- Does an appellate authority have the power to order the deposit of rent during the pendency of an appeal under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- What are the essential requirements for a valid order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Muhammad Munir vs Mst. Zahida Par Veen1995 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir vs (Mst.) Zahida PerveenKX.R. 1995 Civil Cases 436 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir and others vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1995 P Cr. L J 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir Alias Muneera and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munawar Qureshi Manager, Central Workshop (Gulberg)K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 154 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Munawar Khan vs M. Nasir and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munawar Etc vs Shamshad Begum EtcK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 171 · Board of Revenue · 1993-08-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mumtaz Alias Mumtaz vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 451 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mujahid vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 462 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Moosa Khawaja and anothers vs Haji Muhammad Umar1995 MLD 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Moosa Khawaja And Another vs Haji Muhammad Umar1995 MLD 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mohsin And Others vs The State1995 MLD 656 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mizan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 164 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mithal and 3 others vs Secretary, Agricultural and Livestock Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others1995 PLC 354 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mian vs Syed Shamimullah and 2 others1995 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court which had dismissed the appellant's civil revision petition on the technical grounds of delay and failure to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession in a suit for declaration, injunction, and cancellation of a mutation. The core legal questions involved whether a plaint can be amended to include a prayer for possession at a belated stage, and whether a revision petition is barred by a strict period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the relief of possession is a consequential relief arising out of the claim for declaration, and allowing its addition by amendment does not alter the nature of the suit, provided appropriate court-fees are paid. Furthermore, the Court held that no strict period of limitation is prescribed for filing a civil revision petition under the Limitation Act. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's findings were set aside, and the case was remanded for decision on merits. The key principles laid down are that formal and technical defects such as omitting a consequential relief of possession can be cured via amendment of the plaint, and that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised without a rigid statutory limitation period.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint to include a prayer for possession as a consequential relief at a belated stage?
- Does the Limitation Act prescribe a specific period of limitation for filing a civil revision application?
- Can a suit fail solely because the consequential relief by way of possession had not been initially claimed alongside a declaration?
- Muhammad Mehrban vs Sadrud Din and another1995 CLC 1541 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from a suit for possession filed by an attorney on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial court initially dismissed the suit on the ground that the power of attorney had expired, though it decided other issues in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the District Judge decreed the suit, but the High Court subsequently set aside the decree and remanded the case, holding the power of attorney invalid under Section 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The Supreme Court addressed whether the power of attorney authorized the filing of the suit, whether statutory presumptions of execution applied, whether a legal objection could be raised for the first time in appeal, and whether a subsequent power of attorney could ratify unauthorized prior acts. The Supreme Court held that powers of attorney must be strictly construed and, absent explicit authorization or proper statutory authentication under Section 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, no presumption of due execution arises. It further held that a purely legal point can be raised for the first time in appellate proceedings and that a subsequent power of attorney operates prospectively and cannot validate an unauthorized suit.
Questions settled- How should a power of attorney be construed regarding the specific powers conferred upon an agent?
- Whether a power of attorney lacking authentication by prescribed authorities under Section 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act carries a presumption of due execution?
- Can a purely legal objection regarding the competence of an attorney to file a suit be raised for the first time in appellate proceedings?
- Whether a subsequent power of attorney operates retrospectively to ratify acts done without authority at the time of instituting a suit?
- Muhammad Mehmood vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mehmood Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mehboob and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1548 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Maroof Khan and 8 others vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 2066 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Maqsood vs Kabir Ahmed And 6 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 224 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Manzoor vs S.H.O. & Mehr Riaz Hussain, ASIK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 409 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha vs The State1995 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Mansha against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Sattar, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question is whether, given the High Court's finding that the defence version of the occurrence was plausible and befitting, the petitioner should have been convicted at all or if his case fell within Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the conviction was sustainable or if the act fell under sudden and grave provocation or sudden fight exceptions. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution version is rejected in favour of a plausible defence version admitting infliction of blows during a sudden grappling, the applicability of Exception 4 to section 300 requires thorough judicial consideration for potential conversion of the offence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in maintaining a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after rejecting the prosecution's account of eye-witnesses in favour of the defence version?
- Does a case fall under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a grappling ensues suddenly and fatal blows are inflicted during a scuffle?