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 Zahid vs The State1994 MLD 352 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunus Qamar vs Rubina and others1994 MLD 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunus And Another vs Malaga And 5 Other1994 CLC 882 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1994 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-12
  ocular evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidencewitness credibilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that maintained the appellant's conviction for double murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses was reliable enough to sustain a conviction, given significant contradictions between their statements and the physical evidence at the crime scene. The Supreme Court observed that the witnesses' claims regarding their presence at the scene were undermined by the absence of expected household items and contradictory accounts of who brought meals to the site. Furthermore, the High Court had already disbelieved these witnesses regarding the participation of the co-accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the ocular evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent and unreliable, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of physical evidence at a crime scene, which contradicts the testimony of eye-witnesses, entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can an appellate court acquit an accused when the ocular evidence relied upon by the trial court has been disbelieved regarding co-accused in the same case?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction if there are material contradictions regarding their presence at the scene of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The Presiding Officer, 1ST Sindh Labour Court1994 PLC 83 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Deputy Education Officer1994 PLC (C.S.) 704 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 498 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1994 SCMR 1733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-27
  murderself-defenceprivate defencesentence reductiondeath sentence commutationsuppression of motivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding his conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, for the murder of the deceased, and his sentence of death. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's plea of self-defence was sustainable based on the circumstances and whether the sentence of death was warranted given the suppression of the true motive by prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's plea of self-defence could not be sustained merely because the incident occurred in front of the accused's house or because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, thereby upholding the conviction. However, considering that the prosecution witnesses had concealed the true genesis and reason for the attack, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and altered the petitioner's sentence from death to imprisonment for life, while granting the benefit of section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code. The key principle laid down is that while failure to prove motive or occurrence near the accused's house does not establish private defence, concealment of the true genesis of the occurrence by witnesses can be a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere fact that an occurrence took place in front of the house of the accused party implies that the accused was under attack?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive have a direct bearing on the plea of self-defence?
  • Can the concealment of the true reason for an attack by prosecution witnesses serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Phool Muhammad And Other1994 CLC 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Not1994 CLC 403 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad Abdullah and 3 others1994 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-25
  pre-emptioncivil revisionmisreading of evidencenon-reading of evidenceplaint interpretationright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, brought by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenges the High Court's dismissal of a Civil Revision petition concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the lower courts had committed misreading or non-reading of evidence regarding the respondents' pleadings and their intent to enforce the right of pre-emption over the entire suit land. The appellant contended that the respondents' pleadings indicated an intention to enforce pre-emption only partially, rather than regarding the entire property. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the plaint and found that the respondents had clearly expressed a desire to enforce their right of pre-emption under all circumstances, regardless of potential failures in the underlying sale transaction. The Court held that there was no evidence of misreading or non-reading by the lower courts, noting that the respondents' consistent pursuit of the entire suit land demonstrated their intent. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the lower courts' findings were based on a correct appreciation of the evidence presented.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conditional statement in a plaint regarding the enforcement of a pre-emption right over part of the land negate the intent to claim the entire suit land?
  • Can a High Court's dismissal of a Civil Revision be overturned on the grounds of misreading or non-reading of evidence if the pleadings clearly support the lower court's findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Khuda Bakhsh through Legal Heirs1994 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Akhtar Mehmood And Other1994 CLC 2179 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Yousaf And Other1994 CLC 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf In The Matter Of Taj Compan vs Not1994 CLC 403 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Deceased And Other vs Noor Din And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 349 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf And Others vs Muhammad Rashid Ahmad And Other1994 CLC 168 · Board of Revenue · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs The State1994 SCMR 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16
  criminal appealmurder convictiondeath sentenceeyewitness testimonymedical evidencepost-mortem reportappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the confirmation of a death sentence by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, a former employee of the complainant, was convicted of murdering the complainant's sister, Mst. Shamim, following a dispute over a marriage proposal and the victim's subsequent engagement to another person. The core legal questions addressed were whether the prosecution's eyewitness account was physically impossible given the speed of the attack and the proximity of witnesses, and whether discrepancies in the post-mortem report regarding the time of death undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court held that the nature of the injuries, which were severe and consistent with the weapon used, could be inflicted in a short timeframe, and that the witnesses' inability to intervene in time was plausible. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the medical report's estimation of the time of death created a fatal inconsistency, noting the margin of error inherent in such reports. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the evidence sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the defense argues that the time of death estimated in a post-mortem report conflicts with the alleged time of occurrence?
  • Is it physically impossible for an assailant to inflict fatal injuries with a hatchet in the presence of witnesses who are only a few steps away?
  • Does an old rupture of the hymen in a post-mortem report provide sufficient grounds to infer that a murder was committed by a family member due to suspected chastity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs The Member (Judicial I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1994 MLD 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29
  Lambardar appointmentRule of primogenitureConstitutional jurisdictionRevenue hierarchyWest Pakistan Land Revenue RulesIslamic injunctionsFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, which upheld the appointment of a Lambardar based on the principle of primogeniture under Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The core legal question was whether the appointment was legally sound and whether the High Court could interfere with the executive discretion of Revenue Authorities. The Court held that the appointment was lawful, as the respondent did not suffer from any disqualification under the relevant rules. The Court affirmed that while it possesses constitutional jurisdiction to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, it cannot substitute its own findings of fact for the executive discretion of Revenue Authorities. Furthermore, the Court observed that while the principle of primogeniture may be repugnant to Islamic injunctions, the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate such repugnancy, as that authority is exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court under the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court substitute its own view on questions of fact for the opinion of Revenue Authorities in the appointment of a Lambardar?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to declare the principle of primogeniture in the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, as repugnant to Islamic injunctions?
  • Is the appointment of a successor Lambardar governed by Rule 17 or Rule 19 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  post-arrest bailleave to appealmurderunlawful assemblyfirearm injurieseye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing their bail application in a case involving offences under sections 302, 452, 148, 149 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with others, formed an unlawful assembly, chased the deceased persons into a house, and inflicted fatal firearm injuries. An eye-witness, Mst. Zainab Bibi, corroborated the occurrence and assigned specific roles to the petitioners. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioners committed the alleged capital offences, disentitling them to post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail was proper and legal, given the specific attribution of firearm injuries and the presence of an eye-witness. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically charged with fatal injuries supported by eye-witness testimony, reasonable grounds exist to refuse post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be refused when an accused is specifically assigned a role of causing firearm injuries to the deceased?
  • Does the presence of an eye-witness account implicating the accused constitute reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in dismissing a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 401 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  leave to appealservice tribunalconcession by counselunauthorized concessionproper disposal of appealseniority and pay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which disposed of his service appeal based on a statement made by the respondent's counsel that the petitioner's seniority, pay, and fringe benefits would be protected, despite the petitioner's contention that he challenged his illegal transfer and never authorized his counsel to make such a concession. The core legal question was whether the disposal of an appeal by the Service Tribunal on the basis of an admission by the respondent's counsel on a point not forming the subject-matter of the appeal constituted a proper disposal. The Supreme Court held that disposing of the appeal on such a basis raised a substantial question of law regarding the propriety of the Tribunal's adjudication. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the disposal of an appeal by the Service Tribunal on the basis of an admission by the respondent's counsel on a point not forming the subject-matter of the appeal is a proper disposal of the case?
  • Can an appeal be disposed of as not pressed based on a concession allegedly not authorized by the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Islamabad1994 SCMR 685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  Service Tribunalconcession by counselleave to appealservice senioritytransfer orderadjudication of controversy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had disposed of his appeal based on a concession made by his counsel. The petitioner contended that he had challenged the legality of his transfer order and sought reversion to his parent department, but the Tribunal failed to adjudicate this core controversy. Instead, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal as 'not pressed' based on an assurance from the respondent's counsel regarding the protection of the petitioner's seniority and fringe benefits—a matter the petitioner claimed was not the subject of his appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner denied authorizing his counsel to make such a concession. The Supreme Court identified the central legal question as whether the Service Tribunal properly disposed of the appeal by relying on a concession regarding a matter not originally raised in the appeal, effectively bypassing the petitioner's actual grievance. Finding merit in the petition, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety of the Tribunal's disposal of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Service Tribunal can dispose of an appeal based on a concession regarding a matter that was not the subject-matter of the appeal?
  • Does a counsel's concession on a point not raised in the pleadings constitute a valid basis for disposing of a service appeal?
  • Is an order of the Service Tribunal legally sustainable if it fails to address the core controversy raised in the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Alias Jouni vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasmin vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi Through Its President1994 PLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 621 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary To Government Of The Punjab, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 280 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Province of Punjab And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 215 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi Through President And 4 Others1994 PLC 343 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Province of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and others vs Additional Commissioner1994 SCMR 1456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-10
  land settlementallotment cancellationfraudulent allotmentnecessary partiesinformer rightsvested rightssubsequent purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge to an order cancelling land allotments obtained by one Muhammad Moosa under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The original allottee had admitted obtaining allotments through fraud and deceit. The petitioners, who were subsequent purchasers of the land from the allottee's transferee, challenged the cancellation order in the Lahore High Court, arguing that the informers who initiated the cancellation proceedings were not necessary parties to the writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the informers were necessary parties and that the petitioners, as successors-in-interest, could not claim better title than the original allottee who admitted to fraud. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that informers under Section 14-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 possess a vested right to secure allotment of land resumed due to their information. Consequently, the Court held that the informers were indeed necessary parties, and finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments, refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Do informers under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 have a vested right to claim land resumed due to their information?
  • Are informers who initiate proceedings for the cancellation of fraudulent land allotments considered necessary parties in subsequent writ petitions?
  • Can a subsequent purchaser of land claim a better title than the original allottee who obtained the land through fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar And Other vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 111 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 2 others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar And 2 Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 432 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Irshad Begum1994 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Ali Shan and 8 others1994 MLD 1843 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-11-27
  abatement of appeallegal representativessubstitution of partiesamendment of cause titleinherent powers of courtlimitation actdeceased respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal on the grounds of abatement, following the death of a respondent prior to the filing of the appeal. The core legal question is whether an appeal filed against a deceased person abates, and whether the appellate court possesses the authority to permit the substitution of legal representatives by amending the cause title. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that such an appeal does not automatically abate under Order XXII, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, because the appeal was not 'pending' at the time of the respondent's death. The Court determined that the appellate court has the power to rectify the defect, either under Section 153 or Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to allow the impleadment of legal representatives. The key principle laid down is that while an appeal filed against a deceased person is not inherently void, the court may exercise its discretion to allow the substitution of legal representatives, subject to the appellant explaining the delay in filing the application for impleadment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal filed against a person who died before the institution of the appeal abate automatically?
  • Can a court allow the substitution of legal representatives of a respondent who died before the appeal was filed?
  • Is Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to amend the cause title of an appeal filed against a deceased person?
  • Does the court have the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Khan vs Dalil Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 328 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaooob vs Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi1994 PLC 623 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaoob and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-20
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionkidnapping for ransomchild murderjuvenile offendercapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of two minor appellants, Muhammad Yaqoob and Imran Shamas, who were convicted by the Special Court for Speedy Trials under sections 364-A and 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the kidnapping and murder of a six-year-old boy, Umair Akbar. The core legal questions involve the sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and consequential recoveries, to sustain capital punishment and imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, inspiring confidence, and corroborated by reliable witness testimony and material recoveries. The Court affirmed that despite the absence of direct ocular testimony, reliable circumstantial evidence coupled with extra-judicial confessions and recovery of the murder weapon and dead body is fully sufficient to maintain a conviction in heinous offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder and kidnapping be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness accounts?
  • Whether extra-judicial confessions corroborated by the recovery of the dead body and the weapon of offense are sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the youth of an accused convicted of a diabolic murder of a minor child provide a mitigating ground for commuting the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wazir Khan vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wazir Khan vs The State and 5 others1994 MLD 320 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wasim Abbasi vs Pakistan Railways, Divisional Office, Karachi1994 PLC 424 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wakeel Khan vs Government of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 800 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Qureshi vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17
  service appealdismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealcondonation of delayleave to appealFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which refused to restore his service appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal, filed in January 1987, was fixed for preliminary hearing, but notices sent to the petitioner's given address were returned with the report that he did not reside there, and further attempts at service through a process-server yielded the same result. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in September 1987. More than five years later, in January 1993, the petitioner filed an application for restoration along with an application for condonation of delay, claiming lack of knowledge of the hearing date and reliance on his counsel. The Tribunal dismissed the restoration application due to lack of diligence, failure to communicate a change of address, and inordinate delay. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal was based on a proper exercise of discretion, and consequently, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in refusing to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution after an inordinate delay?
  • Does failure to provide a correct postal address or communicate a change of address justify the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution?
  • Whether an appellant can claim lack of knowledge of hearing dates when notices sent to the provided address are returned unserved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs The State1994 MLD 895 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The Lahoreharike Motor Transport Company Ltd.1994 MLD 1132 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Additional District Judge and another1994 SCMR 1793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23
  leave to appealex parte decreecross-examinationrevision petitiondamages suitconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against the appellate judgment upholding an ex parte decree for damages. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was denied adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and defend the suit, and whether interference was warranted against concurrent findings of lower courts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of being denied cross-examination, noting that the assertion was a mere afterthought unsupported by the record, and that no error of law existed to warrant interference. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that concurrent factual findings regarding procedural opportunities will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of demonstrable error on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte decree can be set aside when the record shows the party was afforded adequate opportunity to participate?
  • Is a contention regarding denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses sustainable without supporting evidence from the trial court record?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding procedural matters where no error of law is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Etc vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf EtcK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 172 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and anothers vs Mirza Aziz Ullah and 14 others1994 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-19
  review petitionconstitutional powerswaiver of rightssettlement lawinformer's rightChief Settlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the petitioners challenged the relief granted to the respondents, arguing it exceeded their claims and that the respondents had waived their legal rights. The petitioners further contended that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had acted correctly in ordering the sale of the land in their favour. The core legal questions were whether the Court exceeded its constitutional powers in granting relief and whether the respondents had waived their rights. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any restriction on the Court's constitutional powers under Article 187, which had been expressly invoked. Furthermore, the Court determined that no waiver occurred prior to the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and any subsequent waiver was irrelevant. The Court reaffirmed that the statutory right of an informer prevails over other claims and operates from a retrospective date. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the review petition and dismissed it, upholding the superior statutory right of the informer.

  Questions settled

  • Does a waiver of rights occurring subsequent to an impugned order validate that order?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant relief under Article 187 that exceeds the specific claims made by the parties?
  • Does the statutory right of an informer prevail over other competing claims in settlement matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and 2 others vs The State1994 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-13
  compromiseqisas and diyatminor heirsacquittalleave to appealinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which had questioned an acquittal based on a compromise in a murder case. The petitioners, accused of murder under sections 148, 302, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had been acquitted by a Special Court following a compromise with the complainant (the deceased's father) and his wife. However, the High Court subsequently noted that the deceased was survived by minor siblings, rendering the compromise legally insufficient for acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the facts and confirmed that the existence of minor heirs was admitted by the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's order, which was interlocutory in nature and sought to address the legal validity of the compromise in the presence of minor heirs, did not warrant interference. The Court refused leave to appeal, effectively upholding the High Court's scrutiny of the compromise arrangement.

  Questions settled

  • Can an acquittal based on a compromise be sustained in a murder case where the deceased is survived by minor heirs?
  • Does the existence of minor heirs invalidate a compromise agreement reached between the accused and the parents of the deceased?
  • Is an order by the High Court directing further consideration of a compromise in a criminal case an interlocutory order that does not warrant Supreme Court interference?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad through Legel Heirs vs Mst. Rehmatan and 4 others1994 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-28
  Muslim Family LawsRepugnancy to Injunctions of IslamFederal Shariat Court jurisdictionConstitutional jurisdictionStatutory validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had relied upon Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner contended that the said provision was repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and, therefore, could not form a valid legal basis for the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal question of whether it possessed the jurisdiction to declare a statutory provision invalid on the grounds of inconsistency with Islamic Injunctions. The Court held that such a plea is inadmissible before it, as the exclusive forum for determining whether a provision of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is contrary to the Injunctions of Islam is the Federal Shariat Court, acting under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that it lacks the jurisdiction in its normal appellate capacity to strike down statutes on the basis of repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan have the jurisdiction to declare a statutory provision invalid on the ground of its inconsistency with the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Which forum is exclusively empowered to determine whether a provision of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is contrary to the Injunctions of Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taslim Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Sharial Cases 115 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 67) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The Director-General, Maritime Security Agency1994 PLC (C.S.) 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-03
  temporary appointmenttermination of serviceabolition of postcivil serviceservice tribunalvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Draftsman appointed on a temporary basis in BPS-14, challenged the termination of his services before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. The matter reached the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether a civil servant appointed on a temporary basis against a temporary post possesses a vested legal right to retain that position or claim reinstatement after the post is abolished. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, holding that the petitioner's appointment was explicitly temporary and the post itself was abolished due to administrative decisions by the Ministry of Defence. The Court reasoned that because the underlying post was not permanent and the appointment was temporary, the petitioner had no legal claim to the position. Consequently, the Court affirmed that a temporary employee whose post is abolished holds no enforceable right to continued employment or to insist on appointment to a lower-graded post, thereby dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant appointed on a temporary basis against a temporary post have a legal right to continue in service after the post is abolished?
  • Can a temporary employee insist on appointment to a lower-graded post after their original temporary post is abolished?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur, Through Its1994 CLC 1927 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Khan vs The Chief Engineer (Thermal), WAPDA, Nishatabad, Faisalabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 400 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  post-arrest bailleave to appealmurderhouse trespasscommon objectbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing their post-arrest bail application in a case registered under sections 302, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific roles attributed to them in the FIR regarding house trespass and facilitating the murder. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners were specifically named for trespassing and breaking open the door through which the deceased was dragged out and killed, the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail was proper and warranted no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that accused persons actively participating in house trespass and facilitating a murder during the incident are not entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons who are alleged to have broken open a door and facilitated a murder entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail when direct roles are assigned in the FIR?
  • Does participation in house trespass during the commission of a murder disentitle an accused from receiving bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz vs Ahmad AliK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 200 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs The State1994 MLD 122 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan and others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue_Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and another1994 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-01
  evacuee landallotmentProduce Index Unitscancellation of allotmentsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' writ petition in limine regarding the allotment of evacuee land. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants were entitled to the allotment of specific land in their possession against balance unsatisfied Produce Index Units pursuant to a previous final High Court judgment. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were indeed entitled to land equivalent to 1,363 Produce Index Units in preference to respondent No. 2 as the earlier High Court order had attained finality, while excess land allotted beyond that limit was subject to valid cancellation, and pending claims of respondent No. 2 merited adjustment for the remainder. The key principle laid down is that final judicial determinations regarding entitlements to evacuee land claims must be strictly honored and implemented by revenue authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioners were entitled to ask for allotment of land in their possession against balance of unsatisfied P.I. Units in terms of a previous High Court order?
  • Do appellants have a preferential claim over land in their possession under the policy of allotment of evacuee land?
  • Are revenue authorities bound to implement final judgments of the High Court regarding entitlement to land units?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs SHO Police Station Civil Lines, GujranwalaK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 465 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suhail vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15
  quashment of FIRpreparation for dacoitycriminal intentovert actSection 561-A Cr.P.C.acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of FIR No. 274/91, registered under Sections 399, 400, and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of preparing to commit dacoity. The petitioners were arrested in a graveyard, with the prosecution alleging they intended to loot a cash van. The core legal question was whether the mere assembly of individuals in a graveyard, without evidence of positive steps toward the commission of a crime, constitutes an offense under the cited sections, and whether the proceedings should be quashed due to lack of evidence and procedural delays. The Court held that mere intention or assembly does not constitute an offense unless accompanied by positive steps toward the crime. Finding that the prosecution’s case lacked probability of conviction and noting discrepancies regarding the date of arrest, the Court quashed the FIR and acquitted the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that criminal liability for preparation or attempt requires overt acts, not merely the existence of an unexecuted intention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere assembly of persons in a graveyard with an alleged intent to commit dacoity constitute an offense under Sections 399, 400, and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a person criminally liable for preparation to commit a crime if no positive steps toward the commission of that crime have been taken?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where there is no probability of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 28 others1994 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 41 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan and anothers vs Mst. Bilquis Begum through Legal1994 PLD Karachi 106 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan and anothers vs Mst. Bilous Begum through Legal1994 SCMR 1507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-16
  ejectmentsublettingparting with possessionsole proprietorshippartnership firmrent defaulttenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an ejectment order confirmed by the High Court, based on allegations of rent default and unauthorized subletting of commercial premises. The landlord contended that the tenant, initially a sole proprietor, converted the business into a partnership firm without written consent, constituting subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners argued that the partnership existed from the inception of the tenancy and that no subletting occurred. The Supreme Court observed that a sole proprietary firm lacks independent legal existence, and its conversion into a partnership fundamentally alters the juristic personality of the tenant, thereby creating new interests in the premises. The Court held that such conversion, without the landlord's written consent, constitutes parting with possession under the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court noted the tenant's admission of lacking written permission for the induction of the firm. Regarding the rent default, the Court found no valid justification for the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding subletting and default.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of a sole proprietary firm into a partnership firm constitute subletting or parting with possession under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a tenant liable for ejectment if they induct partners into the business premises without the written consent of the landlord?
  • Does a sole proprietary firm possess a distinct legal personality separate from its proprietor in the context of tenancy agreements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan And Another vs Mst. Bilquis Begum Through Legal1994 PLD Karachi 106 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Soomar vs The State1994 MLD 969 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddque vs Faqeer Mohmmad(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 49) · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique, Advocate vs Farhat Ali Khan and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique, Advocate vs Farhat Ali Khan And Another1994 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Yahya KhanK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 108 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1994 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-15
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencealteration of sentencesudden affairmitigating circumstancesquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. Leave to appeal was granted solely to consider the appropriateness of the sentence, as the legality of the conviction was not contested. The prosecution case stemmed from a dispute over the digging of a drain, leading to an altercation, after which the accused party returned and the appellant fired a fatal shot at the deceased. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court noted that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel between closely related parties without previous enmity, and the sequence of events indicated that the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the appellant's death sentence to imprisonment for life along with a fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the extreme penalty of death is called for when an offense is the result of a sudden altercation without preplanning?
  • Can the sentence of death be altered to imprisonment for life under mitigating circumstances?
  • Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrants capital punishment in the absence of previous enmity and premeditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Secretary, Food, Government of the Punjab, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1648 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs S.H.O. Sadar, Sialkot and 4 others1994 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs S.H.O. Sadar, Sialkot And 4 Other1994 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Noor Jehan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 454 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mst. Noor Jahan And Another1994 CLC 1674 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Dafedar Usman Ghani1994 MLD 2067 · Board of Revenue · 1994-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Haider Qureshi vs District Judge, Peshawar and 21994 SCMR 1752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22
  review petitionrent restrictiondefault in rentstatutory protectionburden of proofcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 15-1-1992, which had dismissed his civil appeal regarding a rent dispute. The core legal question before the Court was whether the respondent was disqualified from claiming the benefit of the second proviso to section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the basis of being a previous defaulter in rent payments. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the petitioner, the Court held that the review petition lacked merit. The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence to substantiate the claim that the respondent had defaulted on rent payments on earlier occasions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, finding no grounds for interference, although it exercised its discretion to waive the costs previously imposed on the petitioner. The judgment reinforces the principle that allegations of previous default must be supported by evidence to deprive a tenant of statutory protections under rent control legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenant who has defaulted on rent payments on previous occasions entitled to the benefit of the second proviso of section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does a failure to lead evidence regarding previous defaults preclude a landlord from challenging a tenant's entitlement to statutory protections under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Farooqi vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1994 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 13 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others vs The State1994 MLD 834 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and anothers vs Member (Consolidation), Board1994 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10
  restoration of petitionnon-prosecutionsufficient causedismissal of writ petitioncounsel negligencecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a Judge in Chambers, which had dismissed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the restoration of a Constitution petition previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the petitioners demonstrated sufficient cause for restoration, given that their original counsel had retired from practice without notifying them, leading to their absence on the date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not negligent, noting that the petition had remained pending for eight years and that parties in constitutional petitions generally rely on their counsel for updates. The Court found that the failure of the retired advocate to inform the clients constituted sufficient ground for restoration. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the dismissal order, and restored the Constitution petition to its original number, subject to the payment of costs by the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retirement of a counsel without notice to the client constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Is a party to a Constitution petition required to appear on every date of hearing regardless of instructions from their counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And 2 Others vs Mst. Shagufta Begum Alias1994 CLC 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07
  power of attorneylaw of agencyfraudulent transferfemale inheritancesham transactioncivil revisionfiduciary duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a declaratory suit filed by the widow and daughter of a deceased landowner, challenging a sale of agricultural land executed by the deceased's brother acting as his general attorney. The brother had sold the entire property to his own sons for a nominal consideration. The trial and first appellate courts concurrently decreed the suit, declaring the power of attorney and the subsequent sale deed void and fraudulent. On revision, the Lahore High Court upheld the lower courts' findings. The Court held that under the law of agency, an attorney cannot deal with the principal's property on his own account or for his own benefit (such as selling it to his own sons) without obtaining the principal's prior consent after full disclosure of all material facts. The Court observed that the transaction was a sham designed to deprive the deceased's female heirs of their inheritance, and the lack of evidence of consideration paid to the principal rendered the sale void.

  Questions settled

  • Can an attorney validly sell the principal's property to his own sons without the express consent and knowledge of the principal?
  • What is the legal effect of an agent dealing with the principal's property on his own account or for his own benefit without full disclosure?
  • Does the failure of a principal to challenge an unauthorized sale during his lifetime validate an otherwise illegal and sham transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 376 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq and others vs Muhammad Bakhsh and others1994 MLD 2239 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shuaib and others vs Sessions Judge, Swat and others1994 SCMR 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-28
  public nuisancesummary jurisdictionobstruction of pathrevenue recordcivil court jurisdictionquashment of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute regarding the obstruction of a path passing through the appellants' privately-owned property. Respondents initiated proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate, Swat, seeking the removal of the obstruction, claiming it was a public path. The Magistrate's conditional order for removal was upheld by the Sessions Judge, and a subsequent petition for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether the summary jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be invoked to remove an obstruction on a path where the status of the path as 'public' was disputed and not supported by the Revenue Record. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned orders were unwarranted as the Revenue Record did not support the claim of a public path. The Court established that summary proceedings under Section 133 are inappropriate for resolving disputed questions of title or the public nature of a path; such matters must be adjudicated by a Civil Court of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can summary proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to resolve a dispute regarding the existence of a public path?
  • Is a Magistrate empowered to order the removal of an obstruction on a path when the path's status as public is not supported by the Revenue Record?
  • Should disputes concerning the public nature of a path on private property be decided by a Magistrate or a Civil Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 69 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher vs Mst. Salma Bibi and another1994 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-09-02
  dissolution of marriageKhularestoration of benefitspleadingsleave to appealdower
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that summarily dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court's decree for the dissolution of marriage via Khula. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in failing to order the restoration of financial benefits allegedly derived by the respondent from the petitioner during the marriage, specifically regarding a sum of Rs. 7,000 sent from abroad. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to raise this specific plea in his written statement or during the trial proceedings. The Court observed that the petitioner had only claimed the restoration of a plot of land in his written statement, not the cash remittance now asserted. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent had already relinquished her dower amount of Rs. 15,000 as part of the Khula proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot raise a new factual contention for the first time before the Supreme Court when no foundation for such a claim was laid in the pleadings or evidence before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new factual contention for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Is a husband entitled to the restoration of benefits upon the dissolution of marriage by Khula if he failed to plead such claims in his written statement?
  • Does the relinquishment of dower by a wife satisfy the requirement for the restoration of benefits in a Khula decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 50) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Law1994 PLC (C.S.) 1534 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Noor Ellahi and others1994 PLD Peshawar 255 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Taj And 2 Other1994 CLC 2034 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Safdar Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 343 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Safdar and 4 others1994 MLD 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Additional District Judge and others1994 MLD 2210 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Through Legal Heirs vs S. & R.C. And Other1994 CLC 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →