Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Government of the Punjab and others1995 SCMR 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-30
  service matterwrit jurisdictionservice tribunalexclusive jurisdictionpolitical quotatermination of servicerecruitment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which arose from a suo motu writ petition regarding the irregular recruitment of teachers based on political quotas allocated to Members of Provincial Assemblies. The core legal question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the termination of services of these teachers, or if such matters fell exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were misconceived because the petitioners' grievance regarding the termination of their services constituted a service matter. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners must approach the Service Tribunal, which possesses the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether their appointments were lawful and whether their terminations were warranted, in accordance with Article 212 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that disputes concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, including the legality of their appointments and subsequent terminations, are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, thereby barring the invocation of writ jurisdiction under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the termination of services of teachers appointed against political quotas?
  • Is the Service Tribunal the exclusive forum for determining the legality of appointments and terminations of civil servants under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against the termination of services of a civil servant if the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs Government of the Punjab and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-30
  civil servantstermination of serviceservice tribunalquota recruitmentmerit policyconstitutional petitionintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the recruitment and subsequent termination of teachers whose appointments were initially made based on quotas allocated to Members of Provincial Assemblies rather than on merit. The core legal question involves whether writ petitions and intra-court appeals are maintainable against termination orders relating to civil servants whose terms and conditions of service fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitions are misconceived as the petitioners ought to approach the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, since the Tribunal is competent to determine whether their appointments and subsequent terminations were in accordance with law. The Court laid down the principle that the allocation of recruitment quotas to political figures such as Ministers, MNAs, and MPAs is unconstitutional and illegal ab initio, and that service disputes concerning termination of civil servants must be agitated before the appropriate Service Tribunal rather than through constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether writ petitions and intra-court appeals are maintainable against the termination of civil servants whose terms and conditions are governed by the Service Tribunal?
  • Are appointments of public servants made on the basis of quotas allocated to members of assemblies lawful?
  • Can the Service Tribunal independently determine the legality of individual appointments and terminations notwithstanding general observations made in constitutional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs Directorgeneral, Lahore1995 CLC 1881 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20
  constitutional petitioncommercializationresidential plotbuilding regulationsno-objection certificateillegal conversionbanquet hallLahore Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an alleged order of the Director-General, Lahore Development Authority (LDA), granting permission to respondent No.2 to convert a residential plot into commercial use as a banquet hall, and the failure of the LDA to take action against such illegal conversion. The core legal question was whether a residential plot could be converted into a commercial property without complying with the mandatory requirements of the LDA Building Regulations, 1984, including obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from owners of adjoining properties and paying the prescribed fee, and whether a directive from the Chief Minister could override these statutory regulations. The Lahore High Court held that respondent No.2 was utilizing the premises for commercial purposes in violation of the LDA Building Regulations as no formal commercialization was ever legally allowed due to the lack of required NOCs and fees, and that the Chief Minister's directive could not bypass these rules. The Court accepted the writ petition and directed the LDA to take immediate legal action against respondent No.2 to stop the illegal commercial use of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a residential plot can be converted into commercial property without the prior approval of the Director-General of the Lahore Development Authority and fulfillment of mandatory prerequisites under the building regulations?
  • Can a directive issued by the Chief Minister override or dispense with the statutory requirements of obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from adjoining property owners for commercialization?
  • Does the owner of an adjoining property have the locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition against the illegal commercial use of a residential plot causing nuisance and violating building regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal alias Balu and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala vs The State1995 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-22
  compounding of offencecompromiseacquittalcriminal appealrelease of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala, sought relief from the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding his conviction. The parties involved reached a compromise to settle the matter, the terms of which were formally recorded in a previous court order dated 18-1-1994. The State, represented by counsel, expressed no objection to the compounding of the offence. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted permission for the compounding of the offence. The Court held that in light of the compromise between the parties and the lack of objection from the State, the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges against him and ordered to be released from custody immediately, provided he was not required in any other legal case. This judgment affirms the principle that where parties have reached a valid compromise in a compoundable offence, the court may allow such compounding, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal petition be converted into an appeal to facilitate the compounding of an offence?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal upon the successful compounding of an offence with the consent of the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inamul Haque vs The StateK. L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 389 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inam vs Federal Service Tribunal and 2 others1995 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-30
  misconductgovernment servantregular enquirysummary procedureadmission of guiltservice appealdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld the dismissal of the appellant, a Draughtsman, from service on grounds of misconduct involving the acceptance of a bribe. The appellant contended that the respondent department acted unlawfully by dispensing with a regular enquiry after initially deciding to hold one, thereby violating the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the respondent was justified in adopting a summary procedure despite an initial decision to conduct a regular enquiry. Upon reviewing the departmental record, the Supreme Court found that a regular enquiry had, in fact, been conducted, as evidenced by the recording of witness statements. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant had admitted to receiving the money in his statement and had subsequently submitted a letter expressing regret and seeking forgiveness. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal lacked merit. The judgment affirms that where a regular enquiry is factually conducted and the employee has admitted to the misconduct, procedural challenges regarding the mode of enquiry are unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department dispense with a regular enquiry after initially deciding to hold one under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
  • Does an admission of guilt by a government servant during disciplinary proceedings validate the dismissal order?
  • Is the recording of witness statements by an Enquiry Officer sufficient to establish that a regular enquiry was held?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imranullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 66 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran Khan and another vs The State1997 MLD 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran and another vs Messrs Shezan (Pvt.) Limited1995 PLC 726 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The Station House Officer, Police Station, Peoples1995 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Asia Parveen1997 MLD 142 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 621 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Malik vs Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and another1995 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  service lawreinstatementupgradationseniorityleave to appealcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his service seniority and upgradation. The petitioner, a Registration Inspector, was removed from service in 1982 but subsequently reinstated in 1989 following a Tribunal order. While the petitioner was out of service, the Establishment Division upgraded the post of Registration Inspector/Registrar from BPS-16 to BPS-17 in 1986, benefiting 132 other officials. Upon reinstatement, the petitioner was eventually upgraded to BPS-17, but only effective from 1990 rather than the 1986 date granted to his peers. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that because his initial removal was set aside, he remained in service and was entitled to the benefit of the 1986 upgradation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the question of whether a reinstated employee is entitled to the retrospective benefit of a general upgradation notification issued during their period of removal requires further judicial consideration and adjudication by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant, whose removal from service is set aside, entitled to the retrospective benefit of a general upgradation notification issued during the period they were out of service?
  • Does the reinstatement of a civil servant after an illegal removal entitle them to the same service benefits, including upgradation, as those who remained in service throughout the intervening period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Malik vs Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan through its Secretary, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  service lawreinstatementupgradationretrospective benefitseniorityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for retrospective upgradation to BPS-17. The petitioner, a Registration Inspector, was removed from service in 1982 but subsequently reinstated in 1989 following a Tribunal order. During his period of removal, the Establishment Division issued a notification in 1986 upgrading the post of Registration Inspector to BPS-17, a benefit granted to other officials. Upon reinstatement, the petitioner sought similar upgradation effective from the date his peers received it. The authorities granted the upgradation but effective only from 1990, prompting the petitioner to challenge this limitation. The core legal question is whether an employee, whose removal from service was set aside, is entitled to the benefits of a post-upgradation notification issued during the period of his wrongful removal. Finding that the issue requires substantial consideration regarding the rights of reinstated employees to retrospective service benefits, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim for seniority and upgradation from the earlier date.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee, whose removal from service is set aside, entitled to the benefits of a post-upgradation notification issued during the period of his absence?
  • Does the reinstatement of an employee to service retroactively entitle them to the same service benefits granted to colleagues during the period of their removal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Bhatti vs Associated Press of Pakistan through its1995 PLC 759 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others vs Azizurrehman and 38 others1995 CLC 1200 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Akhtar vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore1995 PLC (C.S.) 506 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram vs Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 122 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 509 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram and others vs Syed Muhammad Asif1995 CLC 561 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ihsan vs Muhammad Hafeez1995 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03
  ejectmentpersonal requirementrent restrictionstatus of controllerurban area
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal against an ejectment order passed under rent laws. The core legal questions involve whether the notification appointing Civil Judges as Rent Controllers became inoperative upon the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan, and whether Lahore ceasing to be a municipal corporation and becoming a metropolitan area excludes it from the definition of an "urban area" under the rent restriction law. The Supreme Court held that existing notifications and statutory instruments remained in force under the West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, and that a metropolitan area falls within the wide connotation of "municipality" and thus remains an urban area under the law. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the notification issued by the West Pakistan Government appointing Civil Judges as Controllers became inoperative with the dissolution of the Province?
  • Does the declaration of Lahore as a Metropolitan Area exclude it from the definition of an urban area under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does the mere pendency of a civil suit regarding the disputed property automatically stay rent ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State and another1995 P Cr. L J 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others1995 PLC 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12
  review petitionback benefitsreinstatementadditional evidencelabor appellate tribunalerror apparent on the face of the recordprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed against a previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had dismissed the petitioner's civil appeal concerning the denial of back benefits upon reinstatement in service. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is justified in refusing back benefits and rejecting an application for additional evidence regarding employment status during the intervening period due to procedural omissions. The Supreme Court held that the observations and findings regarding the petitioner's application for additional evidence were mistakenly incorporated into a connected appeal's judgment, constituting an error patent on the face of the record. The Court ruled that procedural and technical rules should not be strictly enforced to impede the ascertainment of truth in labor matters. Consequently, the review petition was accepted, the case was remanded to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence regarding his employment status, and the respondents were granted the opportunity to rebut the assertion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a review petition is maintainable when a finding of the court is mistakenly incorporated into the judgment of a connected appeal?
  • Can procedural and technical rules be strictly enforced to impede the ascertainment of the true position in labor proceedings?
  • Is a workman entitled to lead additional evidence before the Appellate Tribunal to prove he remained unemployed during the intervening period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Rab Nawaz1997 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1839 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs Mir Muhammad and 8 others1995 MLD 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim And Others vs Mir Muhammad And 8 Other1995 MLD 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Yameen and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 58 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Yameen And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Umer Shah (Deceased) through His L.Rs. & OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Case 676 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, Lahore And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 569 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The Ilaqa Magistrate 1ST Class, Lahore and 41995 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09
  physical remanddischarge of accusedconstitutional jurisdictionmagisterial powerspolice investigationjudicial reviewcoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Ilaqa Magistrate who, while considering a request for physical remand under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, discharged the accused and directed the Superintendent of Police to register a case against the complainant and the investigating officer. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate acted without lawful authority or exceeded jurisdiction by recording statements of third parties during remand proceedings and subsequently ordering police action. The High Court held that the Magistrate acted within the scope of their duties. The Court reasoned that when police seek physical remand, the Magistrate must review the case diary to determine if remand is warranted. Upon refusing remand, the Magistrate has the discretion to discharge the accused under Section 63, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or send them to judicial custody. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a Magistrate is not precluded from initiating inquiries into police misconduct or referring matters for further investigation under Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when evidence of excess is apparent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to record statements of third parties while considering an application for physical remand under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate, upon refusing physical remand, direct the police to register a case against the complainant and the investigating officer?
  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered an administrative or judicial act for the purposes of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Saleem Jan and others1995 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-22
  specific performancenatural guardianminoritycontract enforcementIslamic jurisprudencelimitationproperty lawcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of the agreement, sought enforcement of a contract negotiated on their behalf by their father. The core legal questions concerned the enforceability of a contract entered into by a natural guardian for minors and the issue of limitation. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the lower courts' decrees for specific performance. The Court held that a natural guardian may validly enter into a contract for the benefit of minors, rendering the agreement enforceable. Regarding limitation, the Court found the suit timely, as it was filed after the defendant's refusal to transfer the property. Crucially, the Court invoked Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, emphasizing that judicial interpretation must align with Islamic norms, specifically the obligation to fulfill contracts ("Ehd"). Consequently, the defendant could not evade his contractual commitments through technical pleas, as the agreement was binding and made for the minors' benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a natural guardian enter into an enforceable contract on behalf of a minor?
  • Does Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require courts to interpret laws in accordance with Islamic norms regarding the fulfillment of contracts?
  • Is a suit for specific performance time-barred if filed after the defendant refuses to transfer property following the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station, City Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura1995 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Iqbal and others1995 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Iqbal And Other1995 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, N.W.F.P., Peshawar1995 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-19
  service appealdismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealcondonation of delaySupreme Court of Pakistanleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the order dated 13-6-1994 passed by the Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-prosecution and subsequently rejected the application for its restoration due to lack of satisfactory explanation for the non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the dismissed service appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to provide a proper explanation or justification for the absence before the Service Tribunal, and noted that the petitioner had also been removed from service after due inquiry on separate charges. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution by a Service Tribunal can be restored without a satisfactory explanation for the absence?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an order of a Service Tribunal declining to restore an appeal when no proper cause is shown?
  • Is leave to appeal warranted when the petitioner fails to justify the non-appearance of both the appellant and counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-19
  dismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealcondonation of delayservice tribunalleave to appealabsence of counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dismissing an application for restoration of an appeal. The petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal had been dismissed for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of both the petitioner and his counsel. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for restoration along with a request for condonation of delay. The Service Tribunal dismissed the restoration application on the ground that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the absence. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to restore the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for his and his counsel's absence on the scheduled date. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal's order, and noting that the petitioner had also been removed from service following a separate inquiry, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution by a Service Tribunal can be restored without a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a Service Tribunal's discretionary order refusing to restore an appeal dismissed for default when no valid grounds are shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Ilaqa Magistrate 1ST Class, Lahore And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 390 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication and others1995 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Afzal Ahmed and another1995 SCMR 932 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-10
  bailmurder caseunwitnessed occurrenceextra-judicial confessionrecoveryleave to appealcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail where the case against the accused was based on circumstantial and unverified evidence consisting of an unwitnessed occurrence, a belated recovery of a blood-stained weapon, an extra-judicial confession, and being seen near the crime scene. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order contained no legal infirmity and that the material on record did not warrant interference with the discretion exercised by the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where the evidence linking the accused to an unwitnessed crime requires further inquiry and does not suffer from patent illegality in its evaluation for bail, the grant of bail by the High Court will not be disturbed by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted in a murder case based on an unwitnessed occurrence and circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon two months after the occurrence warrant the denial of bail?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient ground to refuse bail when evaluated alongside other weak circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain through Legal Heirs vs Province of the Punjab1995 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-05
  review petitionlimitation periodcause of actionpossessionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from four separate review petitions filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10-12-1992. The primary ground urged for review was that having concluded that the law invoked by the petitioners was unexceptionable for claiming relief, the relief ought not to have been denied. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court observed that the reasoning in the original judgment correctly applied established legal principles to the facts, specifically noting that the plaintiff had never remained in possession between 1946 and December 1977, remained completely ignorant of ownership during this extended period, and that the limitation period for filing the suit had expired long before in 1963. The Court held that there is no principle of law under which the expiry of the full available period of limitation can lead to a fresh revival of a cause of action based on a subsequent date of knowledge, attornment of tenants, or obtaining of possession. Finding no error or legal infirmity in the conclusion reached, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiry of the full available period of limitation permit the revival of a cause of action afresh from the date of knowledge?
  • Can a plaintiff claim a fresh cause of action and maintain a suit within limitation when lacking possession over a property for a prolonged period exceeding the statutory limitation?
  • Does obtaining possession or attornment of tenants revive a limitation period that has already expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 37 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04
  Section 382-B Cr.P.C.period of detentioncommutation of sentencepresidential amnestycriminal miscellaneous applicationsentencing benefit
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioners, who were convicted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners had previously been convicted and sentenced to death and life imprisonment, which were upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Following the commutation of the death sentences to life imprisonment due to a Presidential Order of Amnesty, the petitioners sought the statutory benefit of the period of detention spent during the trial to be counted towards their sentence. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given their circumstances. The Court, noting that the State did not oppose the application and relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 'Abdul Malik v. The State', held that the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, must be extended to the petitioners, thereby allowing the application.

  Questions settled

  • Are convicts whose death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the period of detention spent during the trial count towards the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-20
  surety bondforfeiture of bondabsconding accusedpenalty recoverycriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposes of two criminal petitions (Criminal Petitions Nos. 262-L and 263-L of 1994) filed by sureties challenging the forfeiture of their surety bonds and the subsequent recovery of penalty amounts after the accused absconded. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedure under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before issuing notices, and whether the forfeiture amounts were excessively high given that the petitioners derived no monetary benefit. The Supreme Court held that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of Section 514 by forfeiting the bond before demanding payment, and that the High Court had already exercised sound discretion in substantially reducing the forfeited amounts. The Court laid down the principle that the extent of forfeiture of a surety bond depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and no universal hard and fast rule can be prescribed for leniency based solely on the absence of monetary benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court is required to forfeit a surety bond before issuing a notice for the recovery of the penalty amount under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of monetary benefit derived by a surety automatically entitle them to a lenient reduction in the forfeiture of a surety bond?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of a forfeited surety bond amount when the High Court has already exercised its discretion reasonably based on the facts and circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs General Manager, Cooperative Insurance1995 PLC 393 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 214 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs Zakir Hussain and others1995 SCMR 1276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-06
  pre-emption suitBenami transactionsuperior right of pre-emptionreal purchaseralienationPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment dismissing pre-emption suits. The core legal question was whether, under Section 4 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, a court is empowered to adjudicate upon the Benami nature of a sale transaction to determine the real purchaser, or if the court's inquiry is limited solely to establishing the existence of a sale. The Supreme Court held that the Benami nature of a transaction is a legitimate subject of judicial inquiry in pre-emption proceedings. The Court clarified that Section 4 does not restrict the court's power to investigate the true nature of a transaction. The ratio established is that a pre-emption suit cannot succeed against a Benamidar if the real beneficiary of the transaction possesses a superior or equal right of pre-emption to the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's suits, as the findings of the lower courts regarding the Benami nature of the transactions were not challenged, and the real owners held superior rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 limit a court's power to only determining whether a transaction is a sale?
  • Can a court in a pre-emption suit inquire into whether a sale transaction is Benami?
  • Is a pre-emption suit maintainable against a Benamidar if the real beneficiary has a superior right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Musa and others vs Sardar Muhammad Javed Musa1995 CLC 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Musa And Other vs Sardar Muhammad Jayed MusaK.L.R 1995 Civil Cases 392 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Har vs Amir Bano1995 MLD 833 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 556 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 450 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Nazar EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 305 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad MuslimK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 671 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs (Mst.) Parsan Bibi And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 328 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haji vs Amir Bano1995 MLD 833 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and others vs Fazal Ahmad1995 CLC 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez And Other vs Fazal AhmadK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 300 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 253 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 554 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul vs Mst. Shahru Bibi and 3 others1995 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 449 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghazan vs Allah Ditta Etc.K.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghazan vs Allah Ditta and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs The State1995 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-19
  forgeryfabrication of recordcriminal breach of trustleave to appealhandwriting expertreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine for fabricating a release order (Robkar) with forged signatures to facilitate the escape of a detained murder accused. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the conviction based on the recorded evidence. The Supreme Court evaluated the testimonies of the Resident Magistrate and the Handwriting Expert, finding the prosecution evidence reliable and free from legal infirmity. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on valid reasons and that the sentence imposed was already lenient. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that concurrent factual findings supported by credible ocular and expert testimony regarding document forgery will not be disturbed, and leniency already extended by lower forums precludes further reduction of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when supported by the testimony of a handwriting expert and judicial officers?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the fabrication of a judicial document?
  • Whether a lenient sentence already awarded by the lower courts warrants further reduction by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farrukh Bashir Bhatti vs Engineer-in-Chief, GHQ, Rawalpindi and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  service appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayleave to appealadverse ACR entriesdepartmental representation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner had initially filed a representation against adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to the departmental authority. Subsequently, he filed an appeal under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, which was returned by the appellate authority on the grounds of non-maintainability. The petitioner then approached the Service Tribunal within one month of that order. The petitioner argued that the time spent pursuing the appeal before the appellate authority, even if ultimately found incompetent, constituted a valid ground for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the condonation of delay under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the time spent in pursuing an incompetent departmental appeal can be excluded or condoned when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent appeal before an appellate authority be considered a valid ground for condoning delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the pursuit of an incompetent departmental appeal justify the application of Section 5 or Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooql vs The State1995 MLD 551 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 328 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and 3 others1995 PLC 594 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan1997 P.C.L.T.R. 497 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz vs Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1090 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ehsan vs The State1995 SCMR 853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  criminal petitionleave to appealculpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden fightreduction of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Ehsan challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his appeal against conviction while altering it from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was falsely implicated due to a political clash between rival groups or if the prosecution successfully proved the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder arising from a sudden fight. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution case stood proved in light of the direct charge and the absence of previous serious enmity, justifying the conviction under Section 304 Part-I. The court established the principle that where a lenient view has already been taken by reducing the charge based on a sudden fight, further reduction of sentence is unwarranted, and accordingly dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to section 304 Part-I in the event of a sudden fight?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a sentence where a lenient view has already been taken by the High Court?
  • Does the presence of a political clash between rival groups automatically invalidate a direct charge of murder or culpable homicide?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 598 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Muhammad Amin1995 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20
  revisional jurisdictionrestoration of petitiondismissal for non-prosecutionconcurrent jurisdictionfalse affidavitcivil reforms
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the restoration of a revision petition that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal questions involved whether the revisional powers of the Lahore High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were withdrawn by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV of 1994, and whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the petition. The Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not withdrawn by the said Act, but rather concurrent revisional powers were restored to the District Courts, meaning the High Court retained its jurisdiction. However, the application for restoration was dismissed because the applicant failed to explain his own absence, made false claims regarding his presence in court, and filed a false affidavit in support thereof. The key principle laid down is that the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV of 1994 did not oust the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and an applicant seeking restoration must establish sufficient cause and explain the absence of all concerned parties without relying on false pleas.

  Questions settled

  • Were the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 withdrawn by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV of 1994?
  • Does the District Court exercise revisional jurisdiction concurrently with the High Court under the amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable in the High Court against an order passed by the District Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Can a civil revision petition be restored when the applicant fails to explain his own absence and relies on a false affidavit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Khalid Masood Ahmad Khan and others1995 CLC 256 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Director-General, Pakistan Broadcasting1995 PLC (C.S.) 502 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and 4 others vs Nusrat Begum and anothers1995 CLC 1558 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 120 · Board of Revenue · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The State and 4 others1995 PLD Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs S.H.O., Police Station Cantt., Multan1995 P Cr. L J 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota Javaid vs Officer Commanding, Paf Base, Samungli, Quetta ,1995 PLC (C.S.) 208 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Behram vs The State1997 MLD 108 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1572 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State and others1995 SCMR 1155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-05
  post-arrest bailleave to appealmurdertentative assessmentpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner complainant sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 302, and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted merely on the ground that the accused persons did not suffer injuries during the occurrence and their participation was subject to determination at trial, despite findings of innocence by investigating agencies. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and the contentions of the parties regarding the validity of granting bail in heinous offenses involving multiple accused. The principle laid down is that the lack of injuries on an accused during a crime and differing investigative findings require careful evaluation in the context of tentative assessment of evidence for bail consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of injuries on an accused during a criminal occurrence is a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be granted when successive police investigations have conflicting findings regarding the innocence of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Finance, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 908 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mst. Sattar Bibi and another1995 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20
  cancellation of documentspecific relieflimitation periodvoidable instrumentpower of attorneyforgeryrevision petitionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit seeking the cancellation of a General Power of Attorney and a sale deed, alongside a claim for possession, on grounds of forgery. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The core legal question concerned whether the suit fell under Section 39 or Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and the consequent limitation period under the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court held that because the plaintiff sought cancellation of a voidable instrument, the suit was governed by Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and Article 92 of the Limitation Act 1908, rather than Section 42. Consequently, the suit was time-barred as it was filed beyond three years of the plaintiff's knowledge of the registration. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery, as she neglected to produce the document or utilize procedural mechanisms to compel its production. The revision petition was allowed, and the suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for the cancellation of a registered document governed by Section 39 or Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does Article 92 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit seeking the cancellation of a registered sale deed?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in a claim of forgery without producing the alleged forged document or utilizing court procedures to compel its production?
  • Is the limitation period for a suit determined by the premier relief claimed in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mrs. Jamal Rashid and another1995 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Haji Muhammad Siddique And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 186 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Sheikh and another vs Punjab Small Industries1995 PLC (C.S.) 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan through Muhammad Saeed Khan vs Board of Revenue, Punjab through Secretary (Colonies), Lahore and another1995 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-17
  Lambardari grantallotment of landgovernment policy memoleave to appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of a Lambardari land allotment made in favor of the petitioner. The core legal question is whether a Lambardar of one Chak is entitled to the allotment of a Lambardari grant situated in a neighbouring Chak under government policy. The Supreme Court held that the allotment of land to a Lambardar is governed by government policy memos, specifically prohibiting the accommodation of a Lambardar of one Chak in a neighbouring Chak. The Court concluded that the petitioner, being a Lambardar of Chak No. 135-A/9-L, could not be accommodated in the disputed land situated in Chak No. 135/9-L. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming that outgoing or neighbouring Lambardars have no automatic entitlement to land outside their specific Chak contrary to governing administrative memos.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Lambardar of one Chak can be accommodated with a Lambardari grant situated in a neighbouring Chak?
  • Does a person appointed in place of an outgoing Lambardar hold an automatic entitlement to land held by the predecessor in a different Chak?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →