Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Muhammad Islam And 7 Other vs Quetta Municipal Corporation1994 PLD Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-05-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Islam and 5 others vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1994 SCMR 1626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises cross-petitions directed against a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the fixation of salaries in selection grade 16 and claims for special pay by employees of Pakistan Railways. The core legal questions involved whether the grant of a selection grade constitutes a promotion and whether the employees are entitled to a special pay of Rs. 75 per month. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was just and proper and that the case did not involve any substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that the grant of a selection grade involving a change of grade or post for the better entails an element of selection amounting to promotion, and leave to appeal is refused where no substantial question of law of public importance arises.
Questions settled- Whether grant of a selection grade amounts to promotion?
- Whether employees are entitled to special pay upon being granted a selection grade?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Muhammad Ishfaq Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 153 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque vs Administrator (PR) And Other1994 CLC 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision was filed against concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiff-petitioner's suit challenging orders passed by the Administrator (Residual Properties) and the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board. The petitioner claimed ownership of a plot transferred to him by a Deputy Administrator, which was subsequently cancelled upon finding that the plot constituted Evacuee Trust Property already dealt with under an earlier order. The High Court observed that the revision petition was heavily time-barred. The delay was inadequately explained, as the petitioner relied on consecutive medical certificates found by the Court to be fake documents, and failed to account for a three-month delay in refiling after objection removal. On the merits, the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned administrative orders or the lower courts' concurrent findings, noting also that the petitioner had failed to implead a necessary party who had previously obtained an ejectment order against him. The High Court dismissed the revision both on limitation and on merits, while directing disciplinary proceedings against the medical practitioner for issuing false certificates.
Questions settled- Whether a civil revision petition can be dismissed on the ground of limitation where delay in filing and refiling is supported by false medical certificates?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing a civil suit challenging administrative orders regarding evacuee trust property warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Ishaque Khan and others vs The State and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals and petitions arising from convictions under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the propriety of the High Court’s enhancement of a death sentence based on a 'leading role' and a false defense plea, and the sustainability of convictions where the prosecution failed to prove motive and the parties were embroiled in deep-seated enmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in enhancing the sentence, ruling that the falseness of a defense plea cannot relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof, nor does it justify enhanced punishment. Furthermore, the Court acquitted one co-accused, Ejaz, due to the absence of independent corroboration for ocular testimony in a case shrouded in mystery and enmity. The key principle laid down is that while the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the weakness or falseness of a defense plea cannot be utilized to strengthen the prosecution's case or to impose a harsher sentence.
Questions settled- Can the falseness of a defense plea justify the enhancement of a criminal sentence?
- Is independent corroboration of ocular testimony required in criminal cases involving deep-seated enmity?
- Does the failure of a defense plea relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a court enhance a sentence based solely on the accused's alleged 'leading role' when the evidence does not distinguish their culpability from co-accused?
- Muhammad Ishaque Khan And Other vs The State And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq Dar vs Shahid Nabi Malik and another1994 SCMR 2000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court regarding the bye-election for National Assembly Constituency No. NA-95-Lahore-IV. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's interim order restraining the announcement and notification of the election results pending the final decision of a writ petition was appropriate, or whether the election process should be allowed to reach its conclusion despite the pending litigation. Upon hearing the arguments from both parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. The Court held that the High Court's direction prohibiting the announcement and notification of the election result should be substituted. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed that the election authorities must announce and notify the result of the bye-election, and the candidate declared successful shall be permitted to take their seat in the National Assembly. This permission is explicitly made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition pending before the High Court, thereby balancing the electoral process with judicial oversight.
Questions settled- Can a High Court restrain the notification of election results pending the final decision of a writ petition?
- Should a candidate declared elected in a bye-election be allowed to take their seat in the National Assembly while a writ petition challenging the election is pending?
- Muhammad Isa and anothers vs Qaiser and others1994 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from concurrent findings of three lower courts against the petitioner, a vendee, in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner challenged the pre-emption claim on two grounds: first, that he had become an owner in the estate through an intermediary purchase, allowing him to match the pre-emptor's right; and second, that the vendor was merely an ostensible owner (Benamidar), rendering the sale a reconveyance rather than an independent sale. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions. Regarding the first ground, the Court held it was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and, substantively, an owner of the same estate holds a lower entitlement than the heirs of the vendor under the relevant pre-emption law. Regarding the second ground, the Court clarified that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution; therefore, any defects, reservations, or pre-existing conditions attached to the purchase are transferred to the successful pre-emptor and do not invalidate the substitution itself. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Does an owner of the same estate have a superior right of pre-emption compared to the heirs of the vendor?
- Does the right of pre-emption as a right of substitution transfer defects, reservations, and pre-existing conditions of the purchase to the pre-emptor?
- Can a claim of benami ownership by the vendor defeat a pre-emption suit?
- Muhammad Irshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad and others vs The State1994 MLD 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 169 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irfan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary1994 PLC (C.S.) 674 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Irfan Faisal vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 MLD 1499 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1053 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Vice Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur1994 CLC 1922 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 125) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Sultan Akbar and 2 others1994 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a Civil Revision, which had challenged a trial court's decision to correct a clerical error in a partition suit decree. The core legal issue concerned whether an accidental, typographical inconsistency in the appellate judgment—misstating the respondent's share in a specific shop—could be corrected by the court, and whether a new legal question regarding the necessity of seeking joint possession in a partition suit could be raised for the first time at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court held that the correction of the clerical error was unassailable, as the inconsistency was patent on the face of the record and contradicted the court's own findings and the underlying sale deed. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain the new legal question regarding the necessity of a joint possession decree, noting it was not raised before the High Court and was technical in nature. The petition was dismissed, though the Court noted that parties could still seek review if an out-of-court settlement was reached.
Questions settled- Can a court correct an accidental or typing mistake in a judgment that contradicts its own findings?
- Is a party permitted to raise a new question of law in a petition for leave to appeal that was not agitated before the High Court?
- Does a clerical error in a decree that is patent on the face of the record warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary/Additional Secretary, Ministry of1994 PLC (C.S.) 823 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-08-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs National Bank of Pakistan through its President1994 SCMR 1651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review petition arising from a writ petition challenging the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the National Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner's counsel had withdrawn the writ petition based on an assurance by the respondent-bank to sympathetically consider converting the dismissal into removal without back benefits, a step taken without the petitioner's specific authority. The High Court refused review on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact regarding counsel's authority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Service Rules of the National Bank of Pakistan possess statutory status such that their violation can be challenged through a constitutional writ petition.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Rules framed by the National Bank of Pakistan possess the status of statutory rules?
- Can the violation of National Bank of Pakistan Service Rules be questioned through a writ petition?
- Does the general authority of a counsel extend to compromising a case or withdrawing a writ petition without specific instructions?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Mrs. Syed Habiba Rizvi1994 PLD Karachi 227 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Jamadar Ghulam Ghaus Through Legal Heirs1994 CLC 436 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Abid Hussain alias Mithu and 6 others1994 SCMR 1928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents by the Lahore High Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the principles for interfering with an acquittal judgment, particularly regarding the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused and the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where prosecution witnesses suppress injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence and fail to establish motive, the eyewitnesses lose their veracity, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. The Court affirmed that interference with an acquittal requires exceptional circumstances where the High Court's judgment is perverse or unsupportable from the record. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- What are the well-settled principles for the appreciation of appeals and petitions against acquittal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused person in the F.I.R. and ocular testimony render the prosecution case doubtful?
- Can medical evidence alone connect an accused person with the commission of a crime without independent corroboration?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Abdul Karim1994 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Khalid vs Chairman, P.L.A.T. And Others1994 PLC 535 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 2304 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Abdul Bari and others1994 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the decisions of a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge regarding proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Magistrate had initially dismissed the police complaint, finding no imminent breach of peace concerning the disputed land, a conclusion affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, interfered with these concurrent findings and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the matter on its merits. The petitioners contend that the High Court's interference was improper given the existing civil litigation between the parties regarding the title of the land and the concurrent findings of the lower courts that no imminent breach of peace existed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the orders of the lower courts under the circumstances where civil proceedings were already pending and no imminent breach of peace was established.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when lower courts have concurrently found no imminent breach of peace?
- Is the existence of a pending civil suit relevant to the initiation or continuation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 1621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction and sentence under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which included five years' rigorous imprisonment along with payment of Diyyat amounting to Rs. 1,75,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question raised was whether a poor convict, unable to pay the Diyyat amount immediately, is required to remain in jail indefinitely or for a long term for non-payment, or whether they are entitled to be released on the condition to earn and pay the same. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the question raised is of general legal importance requiring further consideration, and consequently granted leave to appeal. The principle laid down involves examining the proper execution and incarceration rules relating to the non-payment of Diyyat under Islamic penal jurisprudence as applied through statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Whether a convict unable to pay Diyyat due to poverty is required to remain in jail for non-payment?
- Is a convict entitled to be released on the condition to earn and pay the Diyyat amount?
- Does the concept of Diyyat under Islamic law contemplate prolonged imprisonment for failure to pay?
- Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs The State and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 274 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs Sikandar Khan1994 SCMR 2014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two separate petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, both concerning the interpretation of pre-emption rights. In the first case, the petitioners challenged the dismissal of their pre-emption suit, arguing that while they conceded the vendee's co-sharer status regarding one portion of the land, they retained a superior right of pre-emption over a specific 5-kanal portion of land. The Court granted leave to determine whether the vendee could defeat the pre-emption right over that specific portion based on co-sharer status acquired in a different Khasra number. In the second case, the petitioner challenged the lower courts' finding that the named vendees were merely Benamidars for their fathers, arguing that the courts lacked the competence to investigate the Benami nature of a transaction under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Court granted leave to examine whether the enabling provision of Section 4 of the Act limits the court's authority to only determining if a transaction is a sale, or if it extends to investigating Benami transactions.
Questions settled- Can a vendee defeat a pre-emption claim over a specific plot of land by asserting co-sharer status acquired in a different Khasra number?
- Does Section 4 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 preclude courts from investigating whether a transaction is Benami?
- Is the latter part of Section 4 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 an enabling provision that does not control the earlier part of the section?
- Muhammad Iqbal And Another vs The State And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 274 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal And 3 Others vs Muhammad Yar And 6 Other1994 CLC 1669 · Board of Revenue · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others vs Muhammad Akram and 4 others1994 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a criminal conviction. The core legal question presented for consideration is whether, in the presence of a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence—specifically regarding the firing distance as depicted in the site plan versus the medical findings—the court can place implicit reliance on eyewitness accounts solely on the basis of an absence of prior enmity between the parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convicts to examine this evidentiary discrepancy. Furthermore, the Court granted leave to appeal in a related criminal petition against the respondent, Muhammad Akram, and directed the issuance of bailable warrants to secure his attendance. The judgment highlights the necessity of scrutinizing the consistency of prosecution evidence when material contradictions exist between witness statements and expert medical reports, establishing that the absence of motive or enmity does not automatically validate testimony that is otherwise contradicted by physical or medical evidence.
Questions settled- Can implicit reliance be placed on eyewitness testimony solely due to the absence of enmity when there is a conflict between ocular and medical evidence?
- Does a discrepancy regarding firing distance in a site plan versus medical evidence warrant a re-examination of conviction by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 973 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iobal vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
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 for the murder of Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the death of the deceased was the direct result of the firearm injury or caused by improper medical care and frequent shifting between hospitals. The Supreme Court held that the medical and ocular evidence clearly established that the firearm injury sustained by the deceased was the direct cause of death, and the shifting between medical facilities was necessitated by initial absences and lack of proper treatment rather than any contributory negligence by the victim or complainant. Consequently, the Court found no mitigating circumstance to interfere with the sentence and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that mere shifting of an injured person between medical facilities due to inadequate initial treatment does not break the causal link between the firearm injury and death where medical testimony confirms the injury as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Questions settled- Whether shifting an injured person from one hospital to another due to lack of medical attendance breaks the chain of causation between a firearm injury and subsequent death?
- Does improper medical treatment or frequent shifting of a deceased constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Is a medical officer's opinion regarding the cause of death sufficient to establish liability when supported by post-mortem examination and operation notes?
- Muhammad Inayat Khan vs Additional Commissioner, Settlement, Azad1994 PLC (C.S.) 242 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Inayat and 5 others vs Mst. Nisar Fatima1994 PLD Supreme Court 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the appellants regarding the sale of land. The respondent claimed a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer and sister of the vendor. The trial court decreed the suit, applying the doctrine of sinker, finding the vendees did not collectively possess the land. The first appellate court reversed this, finding that since specified shares were purchased, the doctrine of sinker did not apply. The High Court restored the trial court's decree. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued the suit was time-barred, asserting that possession obtained under an agreement to sell prior to registration triggered the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that where the parties intended the sale to be complete only upon registration, possession obtained under an agreement to sell does not constitute possession under the sale for the purposes of limitation. Consequently, the suit filed within one year of the registration of the sale deed was held to be within time. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does possession obtained under an agreement to sell constitute possession under the sale for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for a pre-emption suit?
- When does a sale become complete for the purpose of triggering the limitation period in a pre-emption suit where the parties intended registration to be the completion of the sale?
- Does the doctrine of sinker apply when vendees purchase specified shares in a property?
- Muhammad Inayat And 5 Other vs Mst. Nisar Fatima1994 PLD Supreme Court 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a direct appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which decreed a suit of pre-emption filed by the respondent. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent possessed a superior right of pre-emption through the application of the doctrine of sinker where shares were sold jointly, and whether the suit was barred by limitation based on possession obtained prior to the registration of the sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly applied the doctrine of sinker as the payment of proportionate price separately by each set of purchasers was not proved, and further held that possession obtained under an agreement to sell prior to registration does not constitute possession under the sale for the purpose of limitation where the sale is intended to be complete only upon registration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of sinker apply to a joint sale of shares where separate payment of price by individual vendees is not proved?
- Does possession obtained under an agreement to sell prior to the registration of the sale deed constitute possession under the sale for computing limitation in a pre-emption suit?
- When is a sale deemed complete for the purpose of limitation under pre-emption law?
- Muhammad Imran vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 87 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. through its1994 MLD 2485 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ikram vs Namroz Khan1994 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court upholding the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from a shop on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord. The core legal questions involve whether the landlord had previously vacated and re-rented other properties at higher rents, and whether the High Court properly evaluated the bona fide requirement and the non-appearance of the tenant. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims that the landlord had vacated other shops in the same urban area for higher rent, and that the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the landlord's personal and bona fide requirement involved no misreading or perversity of evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the burden of proving assertions of ulterior motives in ejectment lies on the tenant.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proving that a landlord got other shops vacated and re-rented at higher rent lies on the tenant?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding personal and bona fide requirement be interfered with without showing misreading or perversity of evidence?
- Whether observations made by an appellate court regarding a tenant's non-appearance and alternative business amount to a distinct and unpleaded ground for ejectment?
- Muhammad Ikram Khan through Legal Heirs vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi and 11 others1994 SCMR 1984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the refusal of settlement authorities to transfer an evacuee house to the petitioner, Muhammad Ikram Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim the transfer of the property based on 'undisputed possession' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, despite a prior, final order of ejectment against his son, the original allottee, whose allotment had been cancelled. The Supreme Court held that because the ejectment order against the original allottee had attained finality and remained in force, the petitioner could not be considered to be in 'undisputed possession' of the property. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the petitioner was ineligible for the transfer of the house. The key principle laid down is that an occupant cannot claim 'undisputed possession' for the purpose of property transfer under the settlement laws when there exists a valid, subsisting, and final order of ejectment against them or the person through whom they claim possession.
Questions settled- Can an occupant claim 'undisputed possession' for property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if a final ejectment order exists against them?
- Does the cancellation of an original allotment and a subsequent ejectment order preclude a claimant from establishing 'undisputed possession'?
- Is a petitioner entitled to the transfer of an evacuee house if the previous order of eviction against the original allottee has attained finality?
- Muhammad Ijazulislam vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 MLD 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ihsan vs Muhammad Imran Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 188 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ihsan vs Muhammad HafeezK.L.R. 1994 CivU Cases 442 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Farzana and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Farzana And Another1994 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Director-General, Civil Aviation Authority1994 PLC (C.S.) 840 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim And Others vs Chief Settlement Commisshoner And Other1994 CLC 2206 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 226 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs M/s. Modes Limited, Hyderabad Through Manager1994 PLC 674 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Makhan and another1994 SCMR 1451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant claiming a superior right as a co-sharer in Khata No. 25. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit, holding that the appellant had acquired ownership through adverse possession based on prior oral sales, despite contravention of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the High Court reversed the judgment, finding that the requisite twelve-year prescriptive period for adverse possession was incomplete when the pre-empted sale was attested. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the High Court misread a registered sale-deed. Upon hearing, the Supreme Court held that the registered sale-deed did not concern the Khata in question and that adverse possession cannot be used as a sword to claim a preferential right of pre-emption against a third party, as possession under an oral sale is permissive rather than hostile. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can adverse possession be used as a sword to establish a superior right of pre-emption?
- Does possession under an oral sale constitute adverse and hostile possession against the rightful owner?
- Whether a plaintiff can claim a preferential right to pre-empt on the basis of a title not connected to the disputed Khata?
- Muhammad Hussain vs Ghulam Hussain and 12 others1994 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had set aside an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling a land allotment. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner, exercising powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was competent to reopen and examine the genuineness of a verified claim and set aside an allotment on the ground of fraud allegedly committed before the Claims Organization. The Supreme Court held that the allegations of fraud regarding non-migration of the original allottee were not successfully established on evidence, and further affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner's jurisdiction under sections 10 and 11 does not extend to inquiring into or adjudicating upon fraud allegedly practised upon the Claims Commissioner during the verification of claims under the relevant registration of claims statutes. Moreover, the Court protected the rights of the subsequent alienees who were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 to inquire into fraud allegedly practised upon the Claims Commissioner during the verification of a claim?
- Can an allotment of land be set aside on the basis of a mukhbari application alleging non-migration of the claimant without cogent and conclusive proof?
- Are subsequent transferees for valuable consideration protected as bona fide purchasers when an earlier allotment is challenged on grounds of fraud?
- Muhammad Hussain vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Kamalia And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 793 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain Butt vs Zii.a Council And Other1994 CLC 502 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs Sultan Ahmad and others1994 MLD 566 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs Mst.Rasool Bibi1994 MLD 745 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 441 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 380 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and another vs Mst. Bhoori1994 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a suit for pre-emption, challenging the dismissal of the appellants' Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The core legal question examined was whether the respondent plaintiff's pre-emption suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation due to a delay in supplying a deficiency in court-fee pointed out by the trial Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case is squarely covered by the precedent in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 289). The Court laid down the principle that a plaintiff is entitled as of right to the grant of time in the first instance to make up a deficiency in court-fee, and it is the duty of the trial Court to specify the exact amount to be paid after proper determination, provided the plaintiff's conduct is not contumacious.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation if a deficiency in court-fee is not supplied within the limitation period?
- Is a plaintiff entitled as of right to the grant of time in the first instance to make good a deficiency in court-fee?
- Whose duty is it to specify the exact amount of court-fee to be paid after a determination of deficiency?
- Muhammad Hussain and 2 others vs The State1994 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by three petitioners against an order of the High Court dated 27-6-1993, which denied them bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 188, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations stemmed from a sectarian clash on 12-7-1992, wherein the petitioners were accused of firing from inside the house of a named individual, resulting in the death of two persons. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature and gravity of the allegations. The Supreme Court held that firing from inside a house upon a sectarian group constitutes a serious matter, rendering the petitioners' claim to bail undeserving at this stage. Dismissing the petition, the Court affirmed the High Court's order refusing bail, establishing that severe involvement in sectarian violence with deliberate firing weighs heavily against exercising discretion to grant bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused charged with fatal firing during a sectarian clash is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does deliberate firing from inside a premises during sectarian violence constitute a ground to refuse bail?
- Muhammad Hussain and 2 others vs Eisa and another1994 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the limitation period. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by time, specifically whether the limitation period commenced from the date of an alleged prior possession under an agreement to sell or from the date of the registered sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish that their possession had changed from that of tenants to that of vendees prior to the execution of the sale deed. The Court found that the Khasra Girdawari relied upon by the appellants was unreliable, as it contained inconsistencies regarding the date of possession and lacked corroboration from the Patwari’s daily diary. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings that the suit was within time, as the limitation period was correctly calculated from the date of the registered sale deed. The principle laid down is that entries in Khasra Girdawari do not carry a presumption of correctness and cannot establish a change in the nature of possession without reliable, corroborative evidence.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of possession under an agreement to sell or from the date of the registered sale deed?
- Does an entry in the Khasra Girdawari carry a presumption of correctness?
- Can a tenant claiming possession under an agreement to sell rely on their prior possession as a tenant to establish the starting point of limitation for a pre-emption suit?
- Muhammad Hussain And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 395 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and 11 others vs Deputy Settlement1994 SCMR 1635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the ownership of land formerly classified as evacuee property in Jia Musa, Lahore. The core legal question was whether land validly sold by the Custodian of Evacuee Property with Central Government approval could subsequently be transferred to third parties under Scheme No. VIII by Settlement Authorities. The Supreme Court held that once the property was sold to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, it ceased to be available for disposal under Scheme No. VIII. The Court affirmed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the competence to sell land from the compensation pool under the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's refusal to grant relief in a second writ petition where an earlier petition regarding the same subject matter had been dismissed for non-prosecution without adequate explanation. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the finality of the initial sale and the impropriety of subsequent transfers of the same property by Settlement Authorities.
Questions settled- Can property already sold by the Custodian of Evacuee Property be subsequently transferred by Settlement Authorities under Scheme No. VIII?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the authority to sell land forming part of the compensation pool?
- Is a second writ petition maintainable when an earlier petition on the same subject matter was dismissed for non-prosecution without explanation?
- Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammada vs The State and another1994 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had cancelled the bail primarily because the petitioner possessed a motive for the crime and had been an absconder prior to his arrest. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that no effective firing was attributed to him and disputed his status as an absconder, claiming no formal proclamation had been issued. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner's failure to surrender despite being aware of the allegations and his associates' involvement justified treating him as a proclaimed offender for bail purposes, even in the absence of technical compliance with proclamation requirements. The Court concluded that the High Court's exercise of discretion was sound and refused to interfere, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a court treat an accused as a proclaimed offender for bail purposes even without the technical satisfaction of the requirements of a formal proclamation?
- Does the failure of an accused to surrender despite knowledge of allegations justify the cancellation of bail?
- Is the High Court's discretion to cancel bail based on the accused's status as an absconder and the existence of motive subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Hayat vs The State1994 MLD 1777 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat vs Nishat Ahmad1994 CLC 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second civil appeal arose from a suit for a declaration of ownership and possession over 35 Kanals and 11 Marlas of agricultural land purchased by the appellants via a registered sale-deed. The sale mutation was subsequently reviewed and rejected en bloc by the revenue authorities on the ground that it violated the subsistence holding restrictions under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1959. Consequently, the vendor sold the entire holding to the contesting respondents. The trial court partially decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it in its entirety. The High Court analyzed the severability of the transaction and held that only the portion of the sale reducing the vendor's holding below the subsistence level (4 Kanals, 8 Marlas) was invalid, while the remaining 31 Kanals and 3 Marlas constituted a valid transaction. The Court further ruled that the review of the mutation was illegal as it was conducted without notice to the appellants. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed to the extent of 31 Kanals and 3 Marlas.
Questions settled- Whether a sale transaction that partially violates the subsistence holding restrictions under the Land Reforms Regulation 1959 is void in its entirety or can be severed to protect the valid portion?
- Can a revenue officer review and reject a registered sale mutation without providing notice or an opportunity of being heard to the affected vendees?
- Whether an alternative plea for the return of the sale price in an amended plaint operates as an abandonment of the primary relief of declaration of ownership?
- Can a party re-urge an objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in a second appeal if they had expressly conceded the point before the trial court and abandoned it in the first appeal?
- Muhammad Hayat Qasmi vs Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Proprietor, Sial1994 MLD 268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat Khan vs The Administrator (Residual Property), Rawalpindi And 11 Other1994 CLC 633 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat And Others vs Addl. S.C./D.C., Sialkot And Other1994 CLC 170 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassan vs Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi1994 PLC (C.S.) 1270 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassan And 6 Others vs Pir Muhammad Yunus Shah And 111994 CLC 1112 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hasan vs Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad And 21994 PLC 263 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Haroon vs The Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 1345 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Tariq and another1994 MLD 2032 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Sindg Labour Court No. v, Karachi And Another1994 PLC 106 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Revising Authority and others1993 MLD 315 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Officer on Special Duty, Cro1994 CLC 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Afzal1994 CLC 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 1541 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 87 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Chairman, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,. Karachi1994 PLC (C S.) 84 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif and others vs Subedar Sher Afzal1994 PLD Peshawar 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif And Others vs Hassan Bibi1994 CLC 865 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif And Other vs Subedar Sher Afzal.1994 PLD Peshawar 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif and anothers vs Sultan1994 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against a Supreme Court judgment dated 26-11-1992, challenging the Court's examination of factual grounds that were allegedly not argued before the High Court, and disputing the Court's appraisal of evidence regarding inconsistencies. The petitioners contended that the Supreme Court was restricted from considering arguments not advanced in the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, holding that the mere fact that an argument was not orally advanced in the High Court does not preclude the Supreme Court from considering it, provided the ground was raised in the memorandum of appeal. The Court affirmed its constitutional duty to ensure complete justice, which necessitates an overall view of the case, including all aspects of the record. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the challenge to its appraisal of evidence, noting that the petitioners failed to provide a valid rebuttal to the reasoning provided in the original judgment. Consequently, the Court held that no case for review was established and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court consider a legal ground in an appeal that was raised in the memorandum of appeal but not orally argued in the High Court?
- Does the Supreme Court's duty to do complete justice allow it to examine all aspects of a case regardless of whether they were argued in the lower court?
- Muhammad Haneef vs The State1994 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life in view of his tender age at the time of the commission of the offence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that upon recalculating the appellant's age based on the date of the incident rather than the date of his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, he was approximately 16 years old at the time of the occurrence and thus qualified as a young offender. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the other sentences and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the accused's age for determining leniency must be reckoned as of the date of the occurrence rather than the later date of recording the statement under Section 342.
Questions settled- Whether the age of an accused for the purpose of considering a lesser sentence should be determined as of the date of the occurrence or the date of recording his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a young offender of tender age entitled to mitigation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Does the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when a death sentence is reduced to life imprisonment?
- Muhammad Hamza vs M/s. Sogea (Pakistan Branch), Karachi1994 PLC 70 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-09-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hamid Siddiqui vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Health Department and 3 others1994 MLD 768 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ghani, Advocate vs Khalid Mian, Addl S J., Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ghani vs Ali AhmadK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 459 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Feroze And Another vs Government of Punjab And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 862 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazal vs Muhammad Mushtaq1994 CLC 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazal vs Kaura through Legal Heirs, and others1994 SCMR 1783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court regarding a suit for pre-emption. The petitioner had successfully challenged the sale of 96 Kanals of land in favour of the respondent, with the trial court decreeing the suit after finding that the respondent's claim of being a sitting tenant, based on Khasra Girdawari entries, lacked corroborative evidence. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, reversed these concurrent findings and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact and whether a solitary entry in the Khasra Girdawari, absent other supporting evidence, was sufficient to establish the respondent's possession and status as a tenant. The core legal issue involves the limits of revisional jurisdiction in disturbing concurrent findings of fact and the evidentiary value of isolated revenue records in pre-emption litigation.
Questions settled- Was the High Court justified in setting aside concurrent findings of the lower courts in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Can a solitary entry in the Khasra Girdawari be relied upon to prove possession in the absence of other cogent evidence?
- Muhammad Fazal Khan vs Muhammad Muskeen And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1207 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State1994 MLD 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fayyaz vs Province of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 697 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →