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 Bashir and 2 others vs Mst. Roshi and 12 others1995 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-20
  consolidation proceedingsland entitlementconsent orderfindings of factBoard of Revenueleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a consolidation matter where the Lahore High Court refused to interfere with the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioners challenged the decision on two grounds: first, a factual dispute regarding the allocation of land, claiming they received deficient land compared to their entitlement; and second, a legal argument that the respondents, having benefited from a consent order, were estopped from challenging it. The Supreme Court held that since the factual controversy regarding land entitlement was not raised in the Review Petition before the Board of Revenue, the findings of fact made by the Board were sacrosanct and could not be reopened. Regarding the second ground, the Court clarified that while consolidation schemes are often prepared through consensual arrangements, such consent does not preclude landowners from challenging the scheme if it fails to meet statutory requirements regarding entitlement and land classification. Finding no merit in the contentions, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Are findings of fact made by the Board of Revenue in consolidation proceedings considered sacrosanct if not challenged in a review petition?
  • Does a consensual arrangement in a consolidation scheme prevent a landowner from challenging the scheme's compliance with statutory entitlement requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Ahmad vs Syed Ali Abbas1995 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14
  specific performanceagreement to sellleave to appealmisreading of evidenceearnest money
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a contract. The petitioner filed the suit on 26-5-1985, seeking specific performance based on an agreement to sell, which was contested by the respondent and eventually dismissed by the trial court on 15-10-1989. An ensuing appeal to the High Court was likewise dismissed on 25-4-1993. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment of earnest money suffered from non-reading and misreading of evidence. Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court held that the contentions required consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts' findings on specific issues suffered from misreading of evidence or ignored material pieces of evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the execution of an agreement to sell suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted when the lower courts have allegedly ignored material pieces of evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Ahmad and another vs The State and another1995 CLC 1616 · Board of Revenue · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 291 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs S.H.O. and others1995 P Cr. L J 94 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28
  quashment of FIRfree-will marriagesui jurispubertyOffence of Zinafundamental right of marriageArticle 199abuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court sought the quashment of FIR No. 439 of 1994 registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Shorkot City, District Jhang, concerning the alleged abduction of an alleged sui juris female. The main issue before the Court was whether criminal proceedings for abduction and Zina could be sustained when the alleged abductee had validly contracted marriage with the petitioner of her own free will and attained the age of puberty/majority under Muslim law. The Court observed that according to her statement, birth certificate, school leaving certificate, and relevant Islamic law principles, the female was sui juris, had attained puberty, and had lawfully married the petitioner three months prior to the FIR without any abduction. Holding that the State must safeguard the right of marriage under Article 35 of the Constitution and that the impugned prosecution constituted mala fide harassment incapable of ending in conviction, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an FIR registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution where the alleged abductee confirms a valid, voluntary marriage?
  • Whether a female who has attained puberty is deemed an adult under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and competent to contract marriage of her own free will?
  • Whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can intervene and quash criminal proceedings or police investigation that violate the constitutional protection of marriage under Article 35?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Ahmad alias Ahmi and 6 others1995 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Ahmad Alias Ahmi And 6 Other1995 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim Jehlami vs Mst. Tashrif Khatoon and 7 others1995 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Mst. Bashiran1995 MLD 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1997 MLD 1900 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 287 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Mirza vs Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation1995 SCMR 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-18
  service appeallimitation perioddepartmental representationmaintainabilityFederal Service Tribunaltime-barred 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 service appeal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's service appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable, given that the underlying departmental representation was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal had held that because the departmental appeal was time-barred, it did not constitute an appeal in the eye of the law, rendering the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal incompetent. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's reasoning, noting that the grievance arose from a recruitment method notified on 24-11-1992, while the departmental representation was only filed on 29-3-1993, clearly exceeding the thirty-day limitation period. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that a departmental appeal filed after the period of limitation is legally ineffective, thereby precluding the maintainability of an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision regarding the incompetence of the appeal due to limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal maintainable if the underlying departmental representation was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Does a departmental appeal filed after the statutory period of limitation constitute an appeal in the eye of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam And 3 Others vs The State1995 MLD 582 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 185 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore1995 PLC (C.S.) 428 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 532 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Khan and 6 others vs The District Magistrate, Batagram and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 587 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-28
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public Ordervague groundsmala fideconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionalternative remedypublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by seven petitioners challenging their preventive detention orders dated 03.11.1994, issued by the District Magistrate, Batagram under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 for a period of 30 days. The detaining authority alleged that the petitioners were instigating the public to stage demonstrations against the government. The petitioners argued that the grounds were vague, lacked concrete facts, and were passed mala fide to defeat a bail order granted to them on the same day in separate criminal cases.

  The Peshawar High Court quashed the detention orders and declared them void. The Court held that preventive detention grounds must be objective, backed by specific facts, and not vague. Where substantive criminal cases are already registered against detenus on the same allegations, preventive detention cannot legally be justified. Furthermore, issuing detention orders immediately upon grant of bail demonstrates bad faith. The Court also reaffirmed that filing a representation with the government under Section 3(6) is not an adequate alternative remedy barring writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether vague and non-specific grounds of detention lacking concrete facts vitiate a preventive detention order under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960?
  • Can executive authorities validly issue a preventive detention order on the same allegations for which substantive criminal cases have already been registered against the detenu under the Penal Code?
  • Does passing a preventive detention order immediately upon a detenu's release on bail by a criminal court render the detention order mala fide and unlawful?
  • Does the statutory right to make a representation to the government under Section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 constitute an adequate alternative remedy barring constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The Government of the Punjab through Home1995 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The Additional Inspector General of Police, Punjab Lahore And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 96 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Subregistrar and others1995 CLC 674 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21
  constitutional petitionstamp dutyvaluation tableregistration of sale-deedspecific performance decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register sale-deeds executed by a Civil Court pursuant to decrees for specific performance unless ad valorem stamp duty was paid based on a valuation table prepared by the Collector under the Stamp Act, 1899. The core legal question was whether stamp duty could be demanded based on a valuation table that had not been duly notified to the public as required by law. The Lahore High Court held that since an earlier judgment of the Court had already declared the valuation table to be of no legal effect due to a lack of proper notification to the general public, the authorities could not lawfully demand stamp duty based on it. The Court accepted the petitions, declaring the demand for stamp duty based on the unnotified valuation table to be without lawful authority, and directed the respondents to register the documents upon payment of stamp duty according to the consideration value mentioned in the documents themselves.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a sale-deed executed by a Civil Court on the ground of non-payment of stamp duty based on a valuation table?
  • Is a valuation table prepared by the Collector under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 legally effective without being notified to the general public?
  • Can ad valorem stamp duty be demanded on the basis of an unnotified valuation table?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Rent Controller and others1995 MLD 474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Rent Controller And Other1995 MLD 474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Punjab Public Service Commission and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 159 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Tufail and 2 others1995 CLC 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-24
  civil revisionmutation of saleburden of proof of fraudpresumption of truthrecord of rightslimitation periodinheritance disputeconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and joint possession filed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the petitioner-defendant concerning a residential property originally owned by their deceased father, Naqshoo. The respondents challenged a 1971 mutation of sale in favour of the petitioner as fraudulent, without consideration, and void. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, finding the mutation doubtful due to a low sale price, lack of best evidence, and a delayed disclosure. The Lahore High Court, upon reviewing the record, held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. The High Court ruled that public documents like revenue mutations carry a presumption of truth, that the initial burden to prove fraud was not discharged by the respondents, and that the execution of a contemporaneous mutual family agreement and related transactions sufficiently supported the validity of the transfer. Furthermore, the Court found the suit to be barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The civil revision was accepted and the lower courts' judgments were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revenue mutation incorporated in the record of rights carry a presumption of truth under the land revenue law?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a suit to challenge a mutation on the ground of fraud?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with by the High Court if they are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie when fraud is alleged with regard to a registered or sanctioned revenue document?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Gul and others1995 P Cr. L J 1733 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Razia Sultana1995 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02
  jactitation of marriagedissolution of marriageKhulaconstitutional jurisdictionminoritypubertyfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a constitutional petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, which decreed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The core legal question was whether a Family Court can grant dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula' when the plaintiff primarily sought jactitation of marriage with an alternative prayer for dissolution, and whether absence of a specific issue regarding Khula' prejudices the trial. The Lahore High Court held that even if a wife omits to explicitly frame an issue for Khula', the Court may grant dissolution on that basis if evidence establishes extreme aversion and that refusing it would result in a hateful union violating the limits prescribed by Allah. Furthermore, the Court noted that a wife has the right to repudiate a marriage contracted during her minority upon attaining puberty. The petition was dismissed in limine as the concurrent findings of fact called for no interference in extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' when the plaintiff originally filed a suit for jactitation of marriage with an alternative prayer for dissolution?
  • Whether the absence of a specific framed issue regarding Khula' vitiates a family court judgment where evidence of extreme aversion is present on record?
  • Does a wife have the right to repudiate a Nikah performed during her minority upon attaining the age of puberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Govt. of Punjab Through The Home Secretary, CivilK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs (Mst.) Razia SultanaK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 451 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Tahir-Ul-Qadri vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 5 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 498 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Qureshi vs Secretary, SRTC, Hyderabad and another1995 PLC 604 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Pervez Alias Ghazi vs The State1995 MLD 664 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Others vs Muhammad Shafi1995 MLD 441 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Government of the Punjab and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 419 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09
  constitutional petitiontermination of servicead hoc appointeesnatural justiceright of audienceshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple constitutional petitions filed by civil servants serving in the Irrigation Department, Government of the Punjab, challenging the termination of their services. The core legal question is whether the summary termination of ad hoc civil servants without issuing show-cause notices or providing an opportunity of hearing is lawful. The Lahore High Court held that passing adverse orders without affording a hearing violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned termination orders void, coram non judice, and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that no adverse order can be passed against any person without providing them an opportunity of being heard.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of ad hoc civil servants can be terminated without issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Does passing an adverse order against a civil servant without an opportunity of hearing violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Are termination orders passed without hearing the affected employees without lawful authority and of no legal consequence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs Mst. Inayat Bibi and 4 others1995 CLC 1572 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-20
  power of attorneywithdrawal of suitstrict constructionpre-emption suitinherent powersattorney connivancerestoration of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the District Judge, Mirpur, who accepted an appeal against the trial court's refusal to set aside an order allowing the withdrawal of a pre-emption suit. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a possession suit through her attorney, Talib Hussain, who subsequently applied to withdraw the suit. The plaintiff later sought restoration of the suit, alleging that the attorney had connived with the opposite party and lacked the specific authority to withdraw the suit, having also executed a new power of attorney in favour of another person. The trial court dismissed the restoration application, but the District Judge reversed this decision. The High Court examined the rules governing the strict construction of powers of attorney, holding that general words do not confer a power to alienate or dispose of property or withdraw a suit unless expressly authorized. The Court concluded that the attorney lacked the competence to withdraw the suit and that the application for restoration was correctly entertained. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney must be construed strictly and cannot empower an agent beyond what is expressly or by necessary implication conferred?
  • Does an attorney possessing a general power of attorney have the inherent authority to withdraw a suit without an express and specific clause to that effect?
  • Can a trial court recall or set aside an order permitting the withdrawal of a suit procured through an unauthorized act or connivance of an attorney in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction?
  • Whether an appeal is competent against an order of a trial court refusing to set aside proceedings relating to the unauthorized withdrawal of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 338 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 953 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam alias Ashraf vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Khan vs Director (Establishment), S & Ga, Lahore and another1995 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12
  service appeallimitationtime-barredreversion from probationretirementadverse remarksleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The core legal questions involve the competency of a single appeal challenging three distinct types of orders—reversion from probation, adverse remarks in an ACR, and retirement—and whether the appeal was barred by time. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred and, furthermore, that the reversion order was unexceptionable since the petitioner was serving on probation. The Court laid down the principle that multiple distinct service orders cannot be challenged in a single time-barred appeal, and that a case failing to disclose a substantial question of law of public importance does not warrant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a single service appeal is competent against multiple distinct orders such as reversion, adverse remarks, and retirement?
  • Is an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation maintainable before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the reversion of an employee working on probation to their substantive post warrant interference when found unexceptionable?
  • What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance for the grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif And Another vs The State1995 MLD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Yusufi vs Muhammad Akbar Jahangir and another1995 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-02
  adverse remarksnatural justicecondemned unheardjudicial conductAnnual Confidential Reportdue processleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that directed adverse remarks regarding inefficiency and shirking of duty to be recorded in the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.). The petitioner, a Magistrate, contended that the High Court's order was passed without providing him an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. The petitioner had been presiding over a case where an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was pending. The High Court, while directing the disposal of said application, simultaneously issued the impugned remarks against the petitioner's conduct. The Supreme Court, noting the delay in filing the petition, condoned the delay upon finding sufficient cause. Addressing the core legal question of whether adverse remarks can be recorded against a judicial officer without affording them an opportunity to be heard, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contention that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The judgment underscores the requirement of due process before imposing disciplinary or adverse administrative consequences on judicial officers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court record adverse remarks in a Magistrate's Annual Confidential Report without providing the Magistrate an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply when a court issues administrative censure against a judicial officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-26
  speedy trialspecial court jurisdictiontransfer of criminal casestatutory interpretationsaving clausemurder convictionpublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a death sentence confirmed by the High Court, primarily questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Speedy Trials and the legality of the case transfer. The appellant contended that the Special Judge was not qualified under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987, and that transferring a case already at the argument stage defeated the Act's purpose. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was valid under the saving provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act, which preserved appointments made under the repealed Ordinance. Regarding the transfer, the Court clarified that while the government has the power to transfer cases in the public interest, such orders must explicitly reflect consideration of the statutory guidelines defining an "offence" (gruesome, sensational, etc.). Although the transfer order in this instance lacked such explicit reasoning, the Court upheld the conviction on merits, finding the evidence reliable and the defence plea of a stray bullet inconsistent with the physical evidence at the crime scene. The judgment emphasizes that jurisdiction transfer powers must be exercised with caution and within statutory parameters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Special Judge appointed under the repealed Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987 continue to preside over cases under the subsequent Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987?
  • Does the power to transfer a case to a Special Court for Speedy Trials require the transfer order to explicitly demonstrate that the offence meets the statutory guidelines of being gruesome or sensational?
  • Is a transfer order valid if it fails to explicitly record the reasons regarding the public interest and the nature of the offence as defined by the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The Rent Controller EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 356 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Rent Controller/Civil Judge Ist Class,1995 MLD 742 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs M/s. Karachi Transport Corporation through its1995 PLC 666 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Zahid alias Zahidi1995 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Bushra Shaheen and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 44 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-31
  maintenancedivorceArbitration Councilex parte decreelimitation periodrevision petitionMuslim Family Laws Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner challenged an order directing him to pay maintenance to his former wife. The petitioner contended that the Arbitration Council lacked jurisdiction under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, because the marriage had been dissolved prior to the maintenance application. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the ex parte maintenance order was passed without proper service and that the revisional court erred regarding the limitation period for filing a revision. The Court held that an ex-wife may competently file for maintenance before an Arbitration Council for the period during which the marriage subsisted, as the term 'wife' in the Ordinance includes a divorced woman for such claims. Regarding service, the Court found that the petitioner had been duly served through registered post, pasting of notices, and publication. Finally, the Court affirmed that Rule 16(1) of the rules framed under the Ordinance, which prescribes a thirty-day limitation period for revision, is intra vires the statute, as the Ordinance itself does not provide a 'reasonable time' standard for revisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a divorced wife invoke the jurisdiction of an Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 to claim maintenance for the period when the marriage was subsisting?
  • Is Rule 16(1) of the rules framed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, which prescribes a thirty-day limitation for revision petitions, intra vires the Ordinance?
  • Does the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 provide a 'reasonable time' standard for filing revision petitions against maintenance orders, or is it governed by the prescribed rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Liaqat Ali and others1995 P Cr. L J 1598 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Liaqat Ali And OtherK.L.R.1995 Shariat Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Factory Manager, Packages Ltd1995 PLC 529 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Abdul Majid1995 CLC 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Shakar vs S.H.O., Police Station Hujra Shah1995 P Cr. L J 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Shagufta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot vs Lahore High Court hrough Registrar and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 1165 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs The State and others1995 P Cr. L J 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 313 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-26
  dying declarationextra-judicial confessioncriminal appealmurder convictionprocedural irregularityadmissibility of evidencecommutation of sentencesite plan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, for the murder of a Deputy Inspector-General of Police and another individual, alongside a charge of house trespass. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of a site plan prepared by the investigating officer, the evidentiary value of unproved newspaper reports regarding motive, the legality of the challan submission process, and the validity of the dying declaration and extra-judicial confession. The Court held that minor procedural irregularities in investigation, such as the preparation of a site plan by an investigating officer rather than an expert, do not vitiate a trial unless they cause prejudice or miscarriage of justice. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that a dying declaration, if credible and corroborated by circumstances, is sufficient for conviction even without formal attestation. Furthermore, the Court held that unproved newspaper reports are inadmissible hearsay. While upholding the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the absence of a clear motive and the existence of prior friendly relations between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity in the investigation, such as the preparation of a site plan by an investigating officer, automatically vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Can unproved newspaper reports be admitted as evidence to establish the motive for a crime?
  • Is a dying declaration admissible and sufficient for conviction if it is not signed or verified by a doctor or magistrate?
  • Does the submission of a challan by a police officer other than the Station House Officer invalidate the trial in the absence of prejudice to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Ikram vs WAPDA1995 PLC (C.S.) 29 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Butt vs The State1995 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-28
  post-arrest bailforged currency notescounterfeit currencyemigration offencerecovery from possessionbailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Ashraf Butt against the dismissal of his post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was implicated in a case registered under sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, and 489-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, following the alleged recovery of forged national and foreign currency notes and other documents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the lack of prima facie evidence connecting him to the actual forgery or emigration offences. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the petitioner made out a case for bail, noting that the State could not controvert that mere possession of the forged currency notes constituted a bailable offence or that evidence existed regarding the emigration-related allegations. The Court laid down the principle that an accused is entitled to bail when the primary offences alleged regarding possession are bailable and prosecution fails to substantiate active involvement in non-bailable elements at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes considered a bailable offence under the law?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail when prosecution fails to establish active participation in forgery or emigration-related offences?
  • Does the non-association of persons from the locality during a recovery pursuant to section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs The State1995 SCMR 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-13
  double jeopardyautrefois convictautrefois acquitsimultaneous trialsconstitutional guaranteecriminal appealocular testimonymurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder, primarily raising the legal question of whether a dual trial—where the appellant was convicted in one proceeding and acquitted in another for the same incident—violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution and Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the constitutional guarantee under Article 13(a) is confined to protection against double punishment, while Section 403(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides broader protection against subsequent trials following a final adjudication of conviction or acquittal. The Court determined that since the conviction was rendered prior to the acquittal, the conviction holds the field and is not invalidated by the subsequent acquittal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that simultaneous prosecutions are not barred, provided the accused is not punished twice for the same offence. The Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular testimony credible despite the appellants' arguments regarding the complainant's survival.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 13(a) of the Constitution prohibit a second trial if the first trial resulted in an acquittal?
  • Does the rule against double jeopardy prohibit simultaneous prosecutions for the same offence?
  • When an accused is convicted in one trial and acquitted in another for the same offence, which judgment prevails?
  • Is a conviction rendered prior to an acquittal in a separate trial for the same offence valid under Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs Zahoor' Muhammad Sarohi1995 PLD Supreme Court 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-09
  pre-emptiondoctrine of sinkerindivisible transactionvendeeright of pre-emptionpleadingssale price
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the vendee-defendants challenged the application of the doctrine of sinker. The land in question was sold to three vendees, with one vendee possessing an equal right of pre-emption to the plaintiff. The trial court applied the doctrine of sinker, holding that because the purchase price was paid in a lump sum rather than specified per vendee, the transaction was indivisible, thereby allowing the plaintiff to succeed. The core legal questions were whether the doctrine of sinker applies when shares are specified but the price is not, and whether the doctrine must be explicitly pleaded in the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of sinker applies to indivisible transactions where the purchase price is not allocated per vendee, regardless of specified shares. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a plaintiff is not required to plead the doctrine of sinker in the plaint, as doing so would unfairly require the anticipation of a defense. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of sinker apply when the sale shares are specified but the purchase price is paid in a lump sum?
  • Is a plaintiff required to explicitly plead the doctrine of sinker in the plaint to rely upon it?
  • What constitutes an indivisible transaction in the context of the law of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1995 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-09
  criminal appealocular testimonyidentification paradeindependent witnesscorroborationmurder convictionFIR discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which modified a death sentence to life imprisonment for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining a conviction for theft under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the FIR contained incorrect names and that the identification parade was flawed due to police interference. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, specifically that of an independent witness, was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite these challenges. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the independent witness remained credible and was corroborated by the recovery of the motorcycle used in the crime. The Court established that where an independent witness is present and their testimony is consistent and corroborated by physical evidence, such evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction, even if other witnesses are contested or the FIR initially contained discrepancies regarding the identities of the perpetrators.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of an independent witness when other witnesses are alleged to be compromised?
  • Does the recovery of a vehicle used in the commission of an offense provide sufficient corroboration to support an identification of the accused?
  • Is a conviction valid when the FIR names different individuals, but witnesses identify the accused as having used aliases during the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Secretary, Interior, Narcotics, Islamabad and 41995 PLC (C.S.) 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-31
  service tribunaldismissal from servicedepartmental inquiryleave to appealgovernment servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-2-1993, whereby the petitioner, a former Field Investigating Officer with the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, had his dismissal from service upheld. The petitioner was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on charges including unauthorized possession of narcotics and unaccounted cash. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was justified in holding the charges proved against the petitioner in light of the star prosecution witness's statement indicating that the items might have been kept with official knowledge and consent, and whether the denial of the full inquiry report and witness statements by the Tribunal vitiates the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions of public importance, holding that prima facie the evidence required deeper examination regarding the establishment of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in holding the charges proved against the accused in view of the statement of the star prosecution witness?
  • Is an employee entitled to the full text of the inquiry report and witness statements before the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether the charges of misconduct stood proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1995 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-27
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonycorroborationweapon recoverybenefit of doubtforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case was founded on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of a weapon. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the reliability of the eyewitness identification when the witnesses initially failed to recognize the rider of the motorcycle. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence regarding the recovery of the crime empty and the weapon, noting serious discrepancies between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the official forensic reports regarding the dates parcels were dispatched and received. The Court held that when the recovery of the incriminating weapon becomes doubtful and the ocular testimony is not fully corroborated, the conviction cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, establishing that doubtful recoveries cannot serve as safe corroboration to maintain a murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a weapon recovery when the forensic dispatch dates contradict the prosecution timeline?
  • Whether doubtful recovery of a crime empty and weapon can furnish safe corroboration for ocular testimony?
  • How does a discrepancy between witness statements and forensic science laboratory reports affect the credibility of circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs Aijaz alias Jajji and another1995 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12
  culpable homicidemurdergrave and sudden provocationaltercation over loanalteration of convictioncriminal appealPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which altered the respondent's conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code, reducing his sentence from life imprisonment to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether a minor altercation arising from the lawful demand of a small loan by the deceased constitutes grave and sudden provocation sufficient to bring the case within Exception 4 to section 300, Pakistan Penal Code, reducing murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that demanding the repayment of a loan is a lawful act that cannot furnish self-assumed or grave and sudden provocation to justify reducing the offense, especially where the accused was armed with a dagger and inflicted a fatal blow to a vital part of the body. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment convicting the respondent under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, laying down the principle that a verbal altercation over a debt does not mitigate murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether demand of a loan and a subsequent verbal altercation can constitute grave and sudden provocation to attract Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does an altercation arising from the lawful demand of a creditor reduce the offense of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  • Whether the High Court was legally correct in converting the conviction under section 302 to section 304, Part II, of the Pakistan Penal Code based on the precedent cited?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Khan vs M/s. Pakistan Steel, Karachi1995 PLC 180 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ash Raf vs Rent Controller/Civil Judge Ist Class,1995 MLD 742 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1995 MLD 230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Ijaz Ahmed and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Khan And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 409 · Other · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and anothers vs Khola Din1995 CLC 564 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad, And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 578 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-03
  visual identificationmurderbenefit of doubtcorroborationchance witnesscriminal appealappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Jamal Din. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained based on disputed visual identification by alleged eyewitnesses during a dark night, corroborated by a delayed recovery of a weapon and an alleged motive linked to the appellant's father. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's evidence—specifically regarding the presence of adequate lighting, the credibility of the chance and related witnesses, prompt reporting, and the delayed weapon recovery—was fraught with reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that visual identification in criminal trials is suspect evidence requiring strict corroboration, particularly where opportunities for observation are fleeting and conditions of visibility are dubious.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be safely sustained on the sole basis of disputed visual identification made during a dark night without reliable corroboration?
  • Does the delayed recovery of a blood-stained weapon after a significant lapse of time serve as reliable corroborative evidence against an accused?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses and interested witnesses be relied upon without independent and trustworthy corroboration in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Bhindar vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 631 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  leave to appealZina-bil-Jabarcorroborationsolitary statementcontradictionsfalse implicationbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which upheld their conviction under Article 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, while reducing their sentence. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners committed Zina-bil-Jabar with the complainant. The defence contended false implication due to severe party faction and enmity in the village, supported by admissions of village factionalism, bad reputation of the prosecutrix, and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix regarding the sequence of events and presence of eyewitnesses. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated solitary statement of the prosecutrix could form a sound basis for conviction under the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to consider this question, and confirmed the interim bail allowed to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated solitary statement of a prosecutrix can form a sound basis for conviction in a charge of Zina-bil-Jabar?
  • Does material contradiction in the testimony of the prosecutrix regarding the sequence of events warrant interference in conviction?
  • Whether enmity and party factionalism in the village provide grounds for doubting the prosecution version in a Zina case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi vs The State1995 SCMR 1639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-18
  Zina-bil-Jabrcriminal trespassocular evidenceconsenting partyaccomplice testimonycriminal appealacquittalHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for Zina-bil-Jabr and criminal trespass. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the complainant’s testimony, whom the Federal Shariat Court had deemed a consenting party, and the credibility of the sole eyewitness. The Supreme Court held that the complainant, having been labeled a consenting party, effectively became an accomplice, rendering her testimony unreliable without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court found the eyewitness’s account contradictory and inconsistent with the physical circumstances, classifying her evidence as wholly unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellant. A key principle laid down is that ocular evidence must be categorized as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or partly reliable; conviction cannot rest on wholly unreliable testimony. Additionally, the Court cautioned that a finding of consent against a complainant is a serious matter with grave legal and social consequences and should not be recorded summarily without a proper trial, as it may stigmatize the individual and potentially lead to prosecution for perjury.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a witness who has been judicially declared a consenting party to the act of Zina?
  • What are the three categories of ocular evidence, and how does each affect the possibility of a conviction?
  • Is it legally permissible for a court to record a positive finding of consent against a complainant in a Zina case without a proper trial?
  • Does the absence of enmity or interest in a witness automatically stamp their statement with truth?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1684 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 333 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Kayani vs Chairman, Federal Public Service1995 PLC (C.S.) 805 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1991-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Station House Officer And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 595 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs R.M. EtcK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 643 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Province of N.W.F.P. and 3 others1995 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-20
  service tribunalpensionary benefitsad hoc appointmenthigher postgovernment notificationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding pensionary benefits. The petitioner, initially appointed in the Health Department in 1948 and subsequently promoted, had served as Assistant Accounts Officer in BPS-17 on a posting made by the Government of N.-W.F.P. Health and Social Department from December 1983 until May 1984, before applying for leave preparatory to retirement and ultimately retiring as an Almoner in BPS-9. The Federal Service Tribunal held that his appointment to BPS-17 was neither approved by the competent authority nor in conformity with the rules, thus denying him pensionary benefits of that higher post. The core legal questions concern whether the Service Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner's initial appointment was not in accordance with the rules despite performing duties pursuant to a government order, and whether he could be deprived of pensionary benefits of that post. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these questions of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner's initial appointment in BPS-17 was not in accordance with the rules although he held the post and performed such duties in compliance of the order of appointment?
  • Can an employee be deprived of pensionary benefits of a higher post duly held under a government posting order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Associated Trading Co. Ltd. and another1995 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-08
  res judicatareview applicationarbitration proceedingsconstructive res judicatafinality of litigationrejection of plaintCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged an appellate order that dismissed a suit for recovery, which had been rejected at the trial stage due to the non-existence of the underlying agreement as determined in prior arbitration proceedings. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of res judicata could bar a subsequent suit based on an agreement already declared non-existent, particularly when the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 might not apply to arbitration matters. The Court dismissed the review application, holding that the previous dismissal was correct. The Court affirmed that the principles of res judicata are not exhaustive and are not confined solely to the statutory provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Instead, these principles have a broader, constructive application to proceedings where the Code might not be strictly applicable, serving the essential purpose of preventing endless litigation and ensuring finality in judicial determinations once a matter has been adjudicated by a competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Are the principles of res judicata confined strictly to the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the doctrine of res judicata be applied to proceedings where the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not specifically applicable?
  • Does a prior adjudication that an agreement does not exist bar a subsequent suit based on the same agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Shah vs The State1995 MLD 103 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 403 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs Mian Noor Ahmad and others1995 MLD 269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And Others vs Mian Noor Ahmad And Other1995 MLD 269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and anothers vs Muhammad Afzal and others1995 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-02
  pre-emption suitleave to appealdismissal of suittarget dateprecedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the trial court on 12-12-1984. Subsequent appeals filed by the petitioners before the District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. The High Court's dismissal was predicated on the finding that no decree had been passed in favour of the appellants before the target date, and consequently, no such decree could be granted in light of established Supreme Court of Pakistan precedents. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the dismissal of their suit constituted a decree, thereby entitling them to relief. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming that the legal position regarding pre-emption suits where no decree was passed before the relevant target date is well-settled. Relying on the principle established in Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah (1992 SCMR 445), the Court held that the petitioners could not be granted relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a pre-emption suit constitute a decree for the purposes of relief?
  • Can a decree be passed in a pre-emption suit after the target date has passed?
  • Is a suit for pre-emption maintainable if no decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff before the target date?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ansar vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 567 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anayat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2027 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →