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 Sharif Butt vs Abdul Sattar Daitho, Inspector of Police1994 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)1994 MLD 1951 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Murid Hussain and others1994 MLD 1092 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Bholu and others1994 MLD 81 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1694 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-20
  suretyforfeited bondabsconding accusedleave to appealreduction of forfeited amountcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, who stood as surety for an accused person who subsequently absconded pending trial, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reduced the forfeited surety amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the discretion exercised in reducing the forfeited bond amount and whether further reduction was warranted given the duration of the accused's abscondence and the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that appropriate relief had already been granted and the discretion by the High Court was exercised on sound principles, noting additionally that the petition was barred by 128 days. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that no further interference was called for in the matter of surety bond forfeiture.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the discretion exercised in reducing a forfeited surety amount can be interfered with when based on sound principles?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person justify the forfeiture of a surety bond?
  • Whether a petition filed with a delay of 128 days against the reduction of a forfeited surety amount is maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and anothers vs The Regional Transport Authority, Multan through Secretary1994 MLD 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs The State1994 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-25
  criminal appealocular testimonycorroborationacquittal of co-accusedmurdercommon intentionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder and murderous assault under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants challenged their conviction, arguing that the ocular testimony was insufficient for conviction without corroboration, particularly because their co-accused, implicated by the same evidence, had been acquitted. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence rendered the conviction of the appellants unsustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal of co-accused did not invalidate the conviction of the appellants. The Court reasoned that the appellants were specifically identified as the individuals who caused the fatal injury and the murderous assault, whereas the acquitted co-accused had caused no such injuries. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, finding no justification to interfere with the assessment of evidence. Furthermore, the Court directed that the appellants be granted the benefit of section 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding their sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused?
  • Is ocular testimony sufficient for conviction in a murder case without independent corroboration?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 8 Other vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Its Chief Secretary, Azad Government Of The State And 9 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1127 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 2 others vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1994 MLD 677 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-07
  oral giftMuslim law giftinheritance mutationregistration of gift deeddelivery of possessionrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute over the inheritance and ownership of agricultural land originally owned by Mst. Pashan Bibi, who died in 1977. After her death, an inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favour of her residuary heirs, the petitioners. The sole daughter of the deceased, Mst. Aysha Bibi (the respondent), challenged the mutation through a suit, claiming her mother had gifted the land to her during her lifetime, supported by a written acknowledgment. The trial court and the appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding the gift valid. The petitioners approached the Lahore High Court in revision, arguing that the gift was invalid due to lack of registration, absence of the donor's signature, and failure to report it under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that under Islamic law, a valid gift of immovable property can be made orally without a registered instrument, provided the core conditions of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession are met. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral gift of immovable property under Muslim law requires a registered instrument to be valid?
  • Does a written deed of acknowledgment of a gift require compulsory registration under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the validity of a gift be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction without proof of material irregularity or misreading of evidence?
  • What are the essential prerequisites for completing a valid gift under Muslim law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Alias Sheefa vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs Oil and Gas Development Corporation, Karachi1994 PLC 103 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamsul Huda vs Director-General, Federal Seed1994 PLC (C.S.) 1672 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim vs The Additional Estate Officer and others1994 MLD 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim Akhtar vs Chairman, C.B.R., Islamabad And 18 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1685 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs Settlement Commissioner, And Other1994 CLC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs Sardar Begum And Other1994 CLC 2204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad vs Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan1994 CLC 565 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs Khalid Mehmood Tabassum And 4 OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 112 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Iqbal and anothers vs M/s. Caltex Oil (Pakistan)1994 MLD 594 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft vs Ishaque And Other1994 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft Kamboh vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad And Other1994 CLC 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique and 5 others vs Chief Settlement1994 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Etc. vs Settlement Deptt. And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 55) · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Etc. vs Member (Sett.& Reh.) Board of Revenue Etc.(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 104) · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi, Etc vs Bota, (Deceased) Represented by L.RS(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 115) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1994 MLD 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State and others1994 MLD 847 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Syed Musthaq Hussain Shah and others1994 MLD 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Superintending Canal Officer And Other1994 CLC 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others1994 MLD 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Punjab Public Service Commission And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Nasir Ali and 7 others1994 MLD 283 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-23
  oral giftmutation of giftdisinheritance of heirsMuslim personal lawconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts decreeing a suit filed by the respondent grandsons of Dadu Khan deceased, who challenged an oral gift mutation of agricultural land in favour of their uncle, the petitioner. The core legal questions involved the validity of the oral gift mutation, whether a gift executed with the sole object of disinheriting lawful heirs is legally valid, and the extent of interference warranted in concurrent findings of fact under revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the independent transaction of gift apart from the mere sanctioning of the mutation, which was vitiated by collusion and discrepancies, and further held that a gift whose primary object is to defeat the devolution of property to lawful heirs under Muslim law is a colorable, invalid transaction. The court laid down that mutation proceedings alone are insufficient to prove a gift without independent corroborative evidence, and that a colorable transaction designed primarily to defraud legal heirs of their inheritance is void and nugatory.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere attestation of a mutation sufficient evidence to prove a genuine oral gift without independent corroborative proof?
  • Does a gift transaction whose sole object is to deprive lawful heirs of their inheritance under Muslim law render the transaction void?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction where there is no misreading or omission of evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary weight attached to mutation proceedings under the law when challenged on the grounds of fraud and collusion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Rafique and 7 others1994 MLD 925 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mirza Mushtaq Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 313 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and 2 others1994 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13
  No Objection Certificatepetrol pump installationvested rightslocus standiadministrative cancellationPetroleum Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) for a petrol pump. The petitioner, an agent for Pakistan State Oil Company, had been granted an N.O.C. in 1989, which was subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Chakwal, in 1990 following complaints regarding land ownership and misrepresentation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, arguing that he had acquired a vested right through significant financial investment, that the cancellation occurred without a hearing, and that the appeal against the N.O.C. was time-barred under the Petroleum Rules, 1937. The High Court had dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner's lack of locus standi and the fact that the petitioner was heard during the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the N.O.C. could be cancelled after such a duration, the validity of the appeal process under the Petroleum Rules, 1937, and the petitioner's standing to challenge the cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a No Objection Certificate for a petrol pump be cancelled after a significant period during which the licensee has made substantial investments?
  • Does an agent of an oil company have the locus standi to challenge the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate granted to the company?
  • Is an appeal against the grant of a No Objection Certificate competent if filed beyond the thirty-day period prescribed under the Petroleum Rules, 1937?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Colonies Department And Other1994 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Collector, Land Acquisition, Mirpur and 19 others1994 MLD 920 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Ijaz vs The Board of Governors, Pakistan1994 CLC 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 275 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs Mirza Mushtaq and others1994 MLD 308 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And 2 Others vs Boota Through Legal Heirs And Another Respondents1994 CLC 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And 2 Others vs B00ta Through Legal Heirs And Another .Respondents1994 CLC 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabeer Khan vs Ahmad Din And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 251 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 4) · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Khalid Mehmood(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 78) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-08-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs Abdul Shakoor1994 CLC 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs D.C.O. and others1994 MLD 295 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 572 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State and others1994 MLD 705 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern1994 PLC (C.S.) 1519 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Akram and others1994 MLD 1210 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Land Acquisition Collector and others1994 MLD 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23
  Land acquisitionLimitation periodReference to Civil CourtCollector's awardConstitutional petitionNotice of awardStatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenged the dismissal of a Constitutional petition concerning the rejection of an application for reference to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for seeking such a reference commences from the date of the applicant's knowledge of the award when no notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was served, or from the date of the award itself. The Court held that the limitation period is strictly statutory. It affirmed that even in the absence of notice under Section 12(2), the maximum period for filing an application under Section 18 is six months from the date of the Collector's award. The Court rejected the argument that the date of knowledge serves as the starting point for limitation, emphasizing that the statute provides a fixed, exhaustive period. Consequently, the Collector's refusal to refer the matter, due to the application being time-barred, was upheld as legally correct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, run from the date of knowledge of the award if no notice under Section 12(2) was served?
  • What is the maximum period allowed for filing an application for reference to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when no notice of the award has been served?
  • Is the date of knowledge of an award relevant for computing the limitation period under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Siddiqui vs Directorgeneral1994 MLD 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Educamn, Lahore And Another1994 CLC 778 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 1) · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Sardar Begum and 4 others1994 SCMR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-03
  specific performanceagreement to sellsecond appealfinding of factleave to appealjoint property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a 2/9th share in a joint house, a dismissal previously upheld in a Regular Second Appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the lower appellate courts and the High Court erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the execution of the agreement to sell and whether a finding of fact could be interfered with in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the appellate courts regarding the lack of reliable evidence to prove the transaction were neither against the weight of evidence nor contrary to law. The Court laid down the principle that findings of fact based on a proper survey of evidence cannot be substituted in second appeal unless a clear case of non-reading or misreading of evidence is established.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of fact reached by the first appellate court be substituted in a second appeal without establishing non-reading or misreading of evidence?
  • Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of an agreement to sell can be interfered with by the Supreme Court under leave to appeal when supported by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and another vs Muhammad Irfan and others1994 SCMR 1449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-17
  pre-emptionbenami transactionsettlement of issuesappellate procedurepleadingsagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves five appeals arising from a High Court judgment that dismissed revision petitions concerning competing claims of pre-emption over agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the appellants could challenge the pre-emption suits filed by the vendor's son on the basis that they were 'benami' transactions intended for the vendor's benefit, despite failing to press this plea during the settlement of issues at the trial stage. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were precluded from raising the benami plea because they did not insist on the framing of a specific issue regarding it at the trial court, nor did they raise this grievance in their subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge. The Court reasoned that the mere existence of stray evidence on the record, in the absence of a framed issue, is insufficient to adjudicate upon such a plea. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, establishing the principle that a party cannot resuscitate a plea in appellate proceedings if they failed to press it during the settlement of issues at the trial stage, even if some evidence regarding that plea exists on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a plea in appellate proceedings that was included in the written statement but not pressed during the settlement of issues at the trial stage?
  • Is the existence of stray evidence on the record sufficient to adjudicate a plea that was never framed as an issue for trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq, S.I./S.H.O. Faisalabad vs Inspector-General of Police,1994 PLC (C.S.) 1560 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 265 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Taj Muhammad And 2 Other1994 CLC 326 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Irshad Begum1994 MLD 940 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Imamuddin1994 CLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Another vs Muhammad Nawaz And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 25) · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadio vs Aslam Baig And Other1994 CLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadio And 3 Other vs Inspector-General of Railway Police, Lahore And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 517 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs The State1994 MLD 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Muhammad Abid Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 514 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1994 SCMR 1566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-16
  criminal leave to appealmurderocular testimonyrule of prudencebenefit of doubtcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the trial court, while dismissing both the petitioner's appeal and the complainant's revision for enhancement and acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question is whether the conviction of the sole accused can be sustained solely on ocular testimony when co-accused persons in the same transaction were acquitted and independent corroboration was lacking. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised require detailed examination and granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that where ocular testimony has been rejected regarding multiple co-accused, the rule of prudence may require independent corroboration before sustaining the conviction of the remaining accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained on ocular testimony alone when co-accused in the same trial have been acquitted?
  • Does the rule of prudence require independent corroboration for the remaining accused when testimony against co-accused is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Razia Nishat and others1994 MLD 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18
  restoration of suitnon-prosecutionabatementlegal representativeslimitationconstitutional petitioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts restoring a civil suit for possession that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The original plaintiff had died, and despite the counsel informing the court of the demise, the suit was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance. The legal representatives later applied for restoration, which was allowed. The petitioner argued that the restoration application was barred by limitation and lacked sufficient cause. The High Court analyzed the post-1972 amendments to Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, noting that the concept of abatement was abolished and the list of legal representatives was already on record. The Court held that since the plaintiff was dead, the counsel's authority had terminated, and default in appearance could not ground a dismissal for non-prosecution. Consequently, Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied instead of Order XXII Rule 9, making Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable. Finding sufficient cause for delay, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a sole plaintiff terminate the authority of their counsel such that subsequent non-appearance cannot ground a dismissal for non-prosecution?
  • Which provision of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to the restoration of a suit dismissed for default after the death of the plaintiff where the names of legal representatives are already on file?
  • Is Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to applications for restoration of a suit filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in circumstances involving the death of a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Judge, Family Court And Another1994 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Inspector-General, Pak. Railway Police, Lahore And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 834 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Aslam vs Muhammad Akhtar And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 232 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 3 others vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And 3 Other vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Reran Tayyab vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education and 2 others1994 MLD 539 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Razaq vs Conservator of Forest, Range Management1994 PLC (C.S.) 477 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-05-23
  removal from servicemajor penaltyminor penaltyauthorised officerdepartmental inquiryservice tribunalfictitious certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal arises from the removal of the appellant, a Chowkidar, from service following allegations of furnishing a fictitious school leaving certificate regarding his academic qualification and date of birth. The core legal question involved the legality of the same officer acting simultaneously as the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer' under the relevant disciplinary rules, and whether such an officer could competently award a major penalty. The Tribunal held that under the second proviso to rule 2(1)(c) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, where the Authority is authorised to act as an Authorised Officer, he is restricted to exercising only the powers of an Authorised Officer, which empower him to impose solely minor penalties; he cannot directly award a major penalty without submitting recommendations to the higher Authority, thereby safeguarding the statutory due process and preventing a single officer from acting as both prosecutor and judge. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, converting the major penalty of removal from service into a minor penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the same officer can simultaneously act as the Authority and the Authorised Officer to award a major penalty under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Can an Authorised Officer directly impose a major penalty on a civil servant without submitting recommendations to the Authority?
  • What is the extent of powers an Authority can exercise when authorised to act as an Authorised Officer under the E&D Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf and 10 others vs Muhammad Abbas and another1994 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-20
  concurrent findings of factsecond appealpower of attorneyforged documentmisappreciation of evidencesuit for declarationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a second appeal regarding a property dispute. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration, claiming that a power of attorney used to sell his property was forged and that he remained the rightful owner. The petitioners, claiming through a registered sale-deed executed by the alleged attorney, contested the suit. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, concluded the power of attorney was forged and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. This finding was upheld by the District Judge and subsequently by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact, supported by evidence, cannot be disturbed in second appeal merely on grounds of alleged misappreciation of evidence. The Court affirmed that interference is only warranted if findings are based on extraneous considerations, surmises, or conjectures, or if there is a procedural defect, which was not established here.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a second appeal?
  • Is a concurrent finding of fact liable to be set aside merely on the ground of misappreciation of evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact that is supported by evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid And Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1994 CLC 62 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and 4 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 others1994 MLD 161 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 68) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs S.H.O. and others1994 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Mumtaz and another1994 SCMR 1204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-16
  leave to appealmurderacquittallimitationcondonation of delaycircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Ramzan, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16-11-1992. The respondent had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence for murder. On appeal, the High Court set aside the respondent's conviction and sentence under Section 302, PPC, due to failure of prosecution proof, while maintaining his conviction and sentences under Section 201, PPC. The complainant challenged the acquittal under Section 302, PPC, before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court observed that the petition was barred by limitation by four days without any sufficient ground shown for condonation of delay. Furthermore, on the merits, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were grounded on a proper appraisal of evidence, adhering to established legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions. Consequently, the leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal can be entertained when filed beyond the period of limitation without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
  • Whether the High Court's acquittal of an accused under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the appraisal of circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession, warrants interference by the Supreme Court where no legal defect is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-24
  service tribunalseniority disputepromotee quotadirect recruitmentleave to appealregularisation of service
  Summary & questions settled

  Muhammad Ramzan sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal regarding a seniority dispute against respondent No. 3. The core legal question concerned whether respondent No. 3, initially promoted on an ad hoc basis, was adjusted against the promotee quota and properly ranked senior to the petitioner, who was directly recruited years later. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no merit because respondent No. 3's appointment was regularised in 1984 against a vacancy reserved for promotees, which was prior to the petitioner's induction into service in 1987. Consequently, the direct recruit petitioner could not claim seniority over a promotee regularly appointed within quota before the petitioner's entry into service. The key principle laid down is that a regularly appointed promotee within the prescribed quota holds valid seniority over a direct recruit inducted into service at a later date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a direct recruit can claim seniority over a promotee regularised against a quota vacancy prior to the direct recruit's induction?
  • Does an ad hoc promotion regularised against a vacant post take effect for seniority from the date of regularisation?
  • Can a petitioner challenge a seniority list when appointed years after the respondent's regular appointment within the applicable quota?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others (Copy)1994 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-24
  seniority disputecivil servicepromotee quotaregularization of servicedirect recruitmentFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a direct appointee to the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) in the National Archives of Pakistan, challenged his seniority ranking relative to respondent No. 3, who had been promoted to the same rank earlier. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 3's initial promotion in 1976 exceeded the 50% quota reserved for promotees under the relevant Recruitment Rules, thereby rendering his seniority claim invalid. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court found that while respondent No. 3 was initially promoted on a temporary basis, his appointment was regularized in 1984 following the retirement of an incumbent and the creation of a new post, both of which fell within the promotee quota. Consequently, the Court held that since the respondent's regular appointment predated the petitioner's induction in 1987, the petitioner's claim of seniority was misconceived. The petition was dismissed, affirming that seniority is determined by the date of regular appointment against a sanctioned post within the prescribed quota.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad hoc promotion regularized later against a quota vacancy confer seniority over a subsequent direct recruit?
  • Can a direct recruit claim seniority over a promotee whose appointment was regularized prior to the direct recruit's induction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Federat10n of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 436 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Federal Secretary, Ministry of Religious, Affairs and Minorities Affairs, Islamabad and others1994 MLD 2185 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs F.Ia. And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-10
  service tribunalremoval from serviceunauthorized absencedepartmental inquirymedical certificateleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Ramzan, a BPS-1 employee in the FIA Academy, Islamabad, challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The core legal question concerned the validity of the departmental removal order passed against the petitioner on the grounds of unauthorized absence from duty and failure to substantiate his plea of illness during the domestic inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to lead evidence before the inquiry officer to prove his illness or to explain his prolonged absence, and rightly did not get himself treated by an authorized medical officer of the academy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings upholding the removal from service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee's failure to produce evidence in defense during a departmental inquiry justifies removal from service for unauthorized absence?
  • Can a temporary employee challenge removal from service based on unverified medical certificates when failing to consult an authorized medical officer?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of a departmental authority and the Service Tribunal regarding employee misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs F.I.A. and others1994 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  service lawunauthorized absencedepartmental inquirytemporary employeeremoval from serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioner, a temporary employee of the FIA Academy, from service. The core legal question was whether the departmental authority's decision to remove the petitioner for unauthorized absence was justified given the petitioner's claim of illness supported by medical certificates. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his defense during the departmental inquiry, specifically by failing to produce the medical officer who issued the certificates and failing to explain why he did not seek treatment from the Academy's own medical staff. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the removal from service was lawful due to the petitioner's unexplained and prolonged absence from duty. The key principle laid down is that a temporary employee who fails to lead evidence to justify prolonged absence during a departmental inquiry cannot successfully challenge their removal from service on the basis of unsubstantiated medical claims.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary employee challenge their removal from service based on medical grounds if they failed to produce evidence during the departmental inquiry?
  • Is a departmental authority justified in removing an employee for prolonged unauthorized absence if the employee fails to explain the absence or substantiate their medical defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Tahir vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1205 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Malik And Another vs The Secretary, Health1994 PLC (C.S.) 905 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 12 others vs The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 7 others1994 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-14
  right of pre-emptiontenancydoctrine of sinkerjoinder of plaintiffsrevenue courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the appellants claiming a superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy. The suit underwent various stages in civil and revenue courts, resulting in concurrent findings against the appellants by the revenue hierarchy and the High Court, applying the doctrine of sinker due to the joinder of non-tenant plaintiffs. The core legal question concerned whether the pre-emption suit was vitiated by joining strangers as co-plaintiffs and how pre-emption laws applied to tenancies, alongside the effect of a prior civil court decree. The Supreme Court held that the association of non-tenant co-pre-emptors with tenants extinguished the pre-emption rights of the qualified plaintiffs under the doctrine of sinker. The Court established that revenue forums exercising pre-emption jurisdiction possess deemed civil court status under land reforms legislation, but upheld the dismissal of the suit on findings of fact regarding possession and the fatal defect of joining strangers in the pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the joining of non-tenant plaintiffs with tenant pre-emptors extinguish the right of pre-emption under the doctrine of sinker?
  • Whether revenue authorities hearing pre-emption suits are deemed to be civil courts for the purposes of executing decrees?
  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction re-examine concurrent findings of fact recorded by revenue courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim and anothers vs Baita Gul and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-04
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationfurther inquiryretracted statementsupreme court of pakistancriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge in a triple murder case. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's interference with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting bail, particularly where two conflicting versions of the incident exist and the case rests heavily on a retracted first information report and a subsequent statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling the bail as the Sessions Judge had exercised discretion based on salient facts, including the absence of direct eyewitnesses connecting the petitioners and the existence of material calling for further inquiry. The appeal was allowed and the petitioners were admitted to bail, establishing that appellate interference with bail orders requires a showing of arbitrary discretion or legal illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with a bail order passed by a Sessions Judge without showing that discretion was exercised arbitrarily or in violation of legal principles?
  • Does a retracted statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute sufficient ground for the cancellation of bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under the law of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim And Another vs Baita Gul And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-04
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationfurther inquiryconflicting statementssupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail granted to them by the Sessions Judge in a murder case involving double versions and conflicting statements of the sole witness, a young boy who initially implicated another person in the FIR before naming the petitioners under a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the bail granted by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge had properly evaluated the material showing further inquiry into the petitioners' guilt and that the High Court erred in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge without pointing out any illegality or arbitrary exercise of power. The appeal was allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to bail, establishing that an appellate court should not interfere with a bail order granted by a lower court unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or in violation of legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with a bail order passed by a Sessions Judge without showing that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or in violation of legal principles?
  • Does a retracted first information report substituted by a subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 present a case for further inquiry?
  • Can bail once granted be set aside merely on the ground of abscondence where the material connecting the accused to the crime requires further evaluation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raghib vs Abdul Razzak1994 PLD Karachi 20 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-09
  eviction applicationstatutory tenantdefault in payment of rentnotice of attornmentreconstruction of premisesmaintainability of rent applicationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the Rent Controller’s dismissal of an eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent regarding a commercial premises. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application, ruling it non-maintainable for lack of notice under Section 13-A of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the absence of such notice rendered the eviction application non-maintainable, particularly where the tenant had prior knowledge of the landlord’s title. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, holding the application maintainable. The court laid down the principle that notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is not a mandatory prerequisite for maintainability when the tenant has actual knowledge of the transfer of ownership. Furthermore, the institution of an eviction application itself serves as sufficient notice of the landlord's identity. Consequently, the court found the respondent to be a willful defaulter and ordered eviction on grounds of default and the landlord’s bona fide requirement for reconstruction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, a mandatory prerequisite for the maintainability of an eviction application when the tenant already has knowledge of the landlord's title?
  • Does the institution of an eviction application itself serve as sufficient notice of the landlord's identity to the tenant?
  • Can a tenant be evicted on the ground of default if they continue to pay rent to a previous owner despite having knowledge of the transfer of title to the new landlord?
  • Is an eviction application maintainable on the ground of reconstruction if the landlord has obtained an approved plan and sanction from the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →