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 Arshad and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  Zina-bil-Jabarleave to appealuncorroborated testimonyfalsely implicatedparty factionalismcriminal convictionprosecutrix credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioners' convictions for Zina-bil-Jabar but reduced their sentences. The core legal question is whether the uncorroborated, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabar in circumstances where there is evidence of pre-existing enmity, party factionalism, and significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's own statements. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the investigating officer had opined the petitioners were not connected to the offence, and that the prosecutrix's testimony regarding the sequence of events was contradictory. The Court held that these factors raise substantial doubt regarding the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony as the sole basis for conviction. The key principle established is that where a conviction rests solely on the testimony of a prosecutrix, such testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution, particularly when there is evidence of motive for false implication, poor reputation of the witness, and material inconsistencies in the narrative presented at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can the uncorroborated statement of a prosecutrix form a sound basis for conviction in a Zina-bil-Jabar case?
  • Does evidence of party factionalism and enmity between parties impact the reliability of a complainant's testimony?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the investigating officer has opined that the accused were not connected to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And Another vs Mst. Firdausia Begum And 4 Other1994 CLC 1967 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-17
  partition suitres judicataamendment of plaintimproper joindernecessary partycivil revisionrecurring cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a partition suit concerning immovable property. The petitioners contested the suit by relying on a registered conveyance deed executed by their mother, and also raised the plea of res judicata based on an earlier dismissed partition suit. During the current proceedings, one of the co-plaintiffs withdrew from the suit, and the remaining plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to challenge the conveyance deed on the grounds of fraud and to implead the withdrawing co-plaintiff as a defendant. The trial court allowed the amendments and the impleadment, prompting the petitioners to file the revision. The Lahore High Court held that a suit for partition involves a recurring cause of action, meaning that the dismissal of a prior suit or the unconditional withdrawal by a co-plaintiff does not bar a subsequent partition suit by another co-sharer. The Court further ruled that procedural rules must be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, that a co-sharer is a necessary party in a partition suit, and that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action since the plaintiff only acquired knowledge of the conveyance deed during the proceedings. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for partition is barred by the principle of res judicata due to the dismissal of a previous partition suit?
  • Can a co-plaintiff unconditionally withdraw from a suit and be transposed as a defendant?
  • Whether an amendment of the plaint to challenge a conveyance deed on the grounds of fraud introduces a new cause of action?
  • Does a partition suit give rise to a recurring cause of action so long as the property remains jointly held?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and 4 others vs The State1994 MLD 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And 2 Others vs Muhammad Aslam And 5 Other1994 CLC 1964 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 481 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs S.H.O., City Police, Depalpur and 5 others1994 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Rahim Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 573 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Rahim Khan and 4 others1994 MLD 1947 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs M/s. Union Industries, Karachi1994 PLC 588 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Muhammad Aslam1994 CLC 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Local1994 PLC (C.S.) 798 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 16 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 447 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqeel Alias Aqeel Ahmad vs Sardar Muhammad1994 CLC 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 512 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 1547 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Registrar, Trade Unions1994 PLC 407 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Rafique and others1994 MLD 852 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Masood Akhtar And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 486 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs Muhammad Hussain and others1994 MLD 1913 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And 5 Other vs Ministry of Interior And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 816 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And 5 Other vs Fateh Weaving Mills Ltd., Hyderabad1994 PLC 649 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ansar vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis and others vs Abdul Haseeb and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-06
  service tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictioneligibility versus fitnesspromotionterms and conditions of serviceupgradation of postscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals against a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had entertained a writ petition filed by customs department employees challenging promotion notifications and seniority determinations. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the matter in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and specifically whether the dispute pertained to 'eligibility' (triable by the Service Tribunal) or 'fitness' (excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction). The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the controversy involved terms and conditions of service, specifically the determination of eligibility for promotion. The Court clarified the distinction between eligibility and fitness, ruling that eligibility relates to objective qualifications and terms of service falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, whereas fitness involves subjective evaluation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the Service Tribunal to be treated as a pending service appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction in service matters in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the distinction between eligibility and fitness for promotion regarding the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the question of a civil servant's eligibility for promotion relate to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether an aggrieved civil servant can challenge promotion and seniority matters through a constitutional petition in the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis And Other vs Abdul Haseeb And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis And Other vs Abdul Haseeb And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-06
  service tribunal jurisdictioneligibility versus fitnessterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionpromotioncivil servantupgradation of posts
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal arises from a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning a writ petition filed by customs department employees challenging the promotion of certain Assistant Collectors to Grade-18. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the service dispute in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, or whether the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, turning particularly on the distinction between a civil servant's 'eligibility' for promotion and their 'fitness' for a post. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the controversy regarding promotion eligibility and terms and conditions of service fell exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that while the question of a civil servant's 'fitness' for promotion is excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under proviso (b) to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the question of 'eligibility' relates to terms and conditions of service and falls squarely within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain service matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Is there a legal distinction between a civil servant's eligibility for promotion and their fitness to hold a higher post or grade?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the question of a civil servant's eligibility for promotion?
  • Does proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 bar an appeal to the Service Tribunal regarding the fitness or otherwise of a person to be promoted to a higher post?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Hussain Shah and another1994 MLD 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad and others vs The State and others1994 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-04
  criminal appealleave to appealsentence modificationappraisal of evidenceprivate complaintmurder convictionenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal petitions arising from a private complaint for murder. In the first instance, the petitioners, Muhammad Amjad and Mehmood, were convicted of murder and sentenced to transportation for life, which the High Court subsequently modified to imprisonment for life with a fine, allegedly without providing notice to the convicts regarding this modification. The second petition, filed by the widow of the deceased, challenges the acquittal of other respondents and seeks the enhancement of the sentences imposed on the convicts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court erred in modifying the sentence without notice to the convicts and whether the lower courts adhered to established principles governing the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases. The Court ordered that both appeals be heard together to address these issues, specifically examining the procedural fairness of the sentence modification and the evidentiary standards applied by the trial and appellate courts in the underlying murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court modify a criminal sentence to the detriment of the convict without providing prior notice?
  • What are the established principles governing the appraisal of evidence in criminal murder trials?
  • Should separate petitions challenging conviction and acquittal in the same case be heard together?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1994 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  murderocular evidencemedical evidenceidentificationmoonlit nighteyewitness testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involve the credibility of eye-witnesses, identification in moonlit nights, and the reliability of medical evidence regarding stomach contents versus ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the presence and credibility of natural eye-witnesses were unexceptionable, that prior acquaintance with the accused and sufficient moonlit light ensured proper identification, and that calculations of time of death based on stomach contents are a mere guesswork and cannot outweigh consistent ocular evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of natural eye-witnesses can be discarded merely on the ground that they are related or interested witnesses?
  • Is identification made on a moonlit night reliable when the accused was previously known to the witnesses?
  • Can the calculation of the time of death based on stomach contents override consistent ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Muhammad Amin and others1994 MLD 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir and anothers vs G Ul Muhammad alias Gulla and 41994 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-15
  double murderleave to appealacquittalbenefit of doubtgrave and sudden provocationappellate interferencecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a double murder case. The petitioner, Ahmed, was convicted of murdering two individuals, while his co-accused were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by acquitting the co-accused and upholding the petitioner's conviction. The petitioner argued he acted under grave and sudden provocation, claiming his brother committed the acts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were supported by the record and that the petitioner's presence and role were established, distinguishing his case from the acquitted co-accused. The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the petitioner could not evade liability by suppressing his own role or fabricating a defense. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is demonstrated that there was no evidence to support the view taken by the court recording the acquittal, adhering to established appellate restraint.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Can a convict avoid liability for murder by suppressing their own role and attributing the act to a third party?
  • Does the admission of presence at the scene of a crime, coupled with a failed defense of grave and sudden provocation, sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S) 913 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Muhammad Ishaque Through Legal Heirs1994 CLC 482 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin alias Muhammad Yamin vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Irshad Bibi and others1994 MLD 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Additional Revenue Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other1994 CLC 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Qureshi And 18 Other vs Secretary, Home Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 449 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan vs Shah Nawaz1994 MLD 1815 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Another vs Jan Muhammad And Other1994 CLC 225 · Board of Revenue · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 9 others vs Muhammad Sharif and 4 others1994 SCMR 1715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-16
  abatement of suitsuccession under customagricultural landremand orderlast male holderMuslim Personal Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Lahore High Court’s order declaring that a civil suit regarding agricultural land succession had abated under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983. The appellants, claiming as collaterals, disputed the rights of the respondents, who claimed through the sister of the deceased last male holder. The core legal question was whether the 1983 Ordinance, which mandates the abatement of pending proceedings involving succession under custom, applied to this specific case. The Supreme Court held that the applicability of the Ordinance depended entirely on the date of the last male holder's death, a fact not yet established on the record. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Additional District Judge’s decision to remand the case for the framing and determination of specific issues, including the date of death. The principle established is that where a suit's abatement under the 1983 Ordinance hinges on a disputed factual timeline, a remand for evidence and adjudication is the appropriate legal course.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit involving succession under custom automatically abate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, without establishing the date of death of the last male holder?
  • Is a remand order by an appellate court appropriate when a trial court has failed to frame a necessary issue regarding the date of death of the last male holder?
  • Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 apply to cases where possession of land has already been delivered under a past decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And 25 Other vs Hassan Muhammad And 6 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-07
  land resumptionco-sharerlimitation periodrevenue recorddeclaration suitadverse possessionallotment cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over land originally allotted jointly to three brothers in 1934. The core legal question was whether the resumption of a brother's share by the Government in 1938 and subsequent long-standing revenue entries and registered sale deeds barred a declaratory suit filed by his successors in 1983, and whether such resumption order could be deemed void. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the High Court declaring the 1938 resumption order void were unsustainable, as the burden of proof under the Qanun-e-Shahadat was not discharged, and the challenge brought after 45 years was barred by limitation. The Court established that where a property's title is substantially denied through resumption, successive mutations, and a registered sale deed to the exclusion of a co-owner, the possession of other co-sharers cannot be deemed to be on behalf of the excluded party, and a declaratory suit must be brought within the statutory limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the resumption of a land grant by the Government can be challenged in a civil court after a lapse of over forty years?
  • Does a presumption of regular performance attach to official and judicial acts under the Qanun-e-Shahadat regarding historical revenue orders?
  • Whether the possession of co-sharers operates on behalf of an excluded co-owner when title has been openly denied through successive mutations and registered sale deeds?
  • What is the applicable limitation period for filing a declaratory suit to challenge an order that deprives a person of their proprietary rights in land?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akshad Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Azad1994 PLC (C.S.) 34 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1992-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State and 3 others1994 SCMR 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-28
  court witnessesdying declarationcriminal procedureleave to appealtrial stageprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition challenging the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge to summon additional court witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complainant sought to summon several individuals to prove an alleged dying declaration of the deceased, which the investigating agency had not recorded, and to introduce records from writ petitions filed by the parents of the deceased. The trial court and the High Court rejected the application, noting that the investigating agency denied the existence of such a dying declaration, the alleged recorder of the declaration had not mentioned it in his previous statements, and the application was filed at a belated stage after eighteen witnesses had already been examined. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding the orders well-reasoned and free from legal error. The Court held that there was no justification for interference, as the complainant was attempting to build a new case at an advanced stage of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court refuse an application to summon additional witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the application is filed at a belated stage?
  • Is the refusal of a trial court to summon witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to interference if the order is well-reasoned?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1994 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealreappraisal of evidencediscretionary powercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's application for suspension of sentence and bail following his conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the bail application solely on the ground that it required a reappraisal of evidence, which the High Court deemed inadmissible at that stage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was legally flawed, as the Court is obligated to consider and dispose of bail applications on their merits even when they do not fall under the statutory criteria of Section 426(1-A)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. While the Supreme Court declined to bypass the High Court by deciding the bail application itself, it established the principle that a court must exercise its discretion to decide such applications on merits rather than summarily dismissing them based on the necessity of evidence reappraisal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a High Court required to decide an application for suspension of sentence on merits even if it does not fall under the criteria of Section 426(1-A)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court dismiss an application for suspension of sentence solely on the ground that it requires a reappraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Sha Zia and others1994 MLD 157 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Revising Authority, M.Da., Mirpur and 2 others1994 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad Siddique1994 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad Siddiqlue1994 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad SiddiqK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 286 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1994 MLD 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Bunda And 3 Other vs Pakistanieelevision1994 PLC 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-17
  trade unionfundamental rightsfreedom of associationconstitutional petitionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of Pakistan Television, filed a petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the enforcement of their Fundamental Right under Article 17(1) to form trade unions, alleging that the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 and the consequent cancellation of the registration of the Pakistan Television Corporation Employees Union violated this right. The core legal question involved the constitutional validity of the 1978 Ordinance taking away trade union activities for Pakistan Television employees. The Supreme Court noted that a similar question of law had been raised in another pending matter and that leave to appeal had been granted in a connected petition. Consequently, the Court admitted the present petition for regular hearing to be fixed along with the appeal arising from the connected petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 taking away the right of Pakistan Television Corporation employees to form a trade union are repugnant to Article 17(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Whether the cancellation of the registration of the Pakistan Television Corporation Employees Union pursuant to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 violates the fundamental right to form a union guaranteed by Article 17(1) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1994 MLD 62 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Others vs Sikandar (Deceased) And Other1994 CLC 185 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Other vs Slkandar Deceased And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 491 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 3 others vs Muhammad Rashid and 2 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-14
  Pre-emptionRight of pre-emptionVendeeStatus improvementInheritanceSuccessionPunjab Pre-emption Act 1913Appellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the vendees sought to defeat the pre-emptors' claim by asserting an improved status acquired through inheritance during the pendency of a second appeal. The core legal question was whether a vendee can defeat a pre-emption decree by improving their status via succession after the trial court has already adjudicated the matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the vendees could not rely on status improvements occurring after the trial court's decree. The Court affirmed that while Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, permits improvements via inheritance or succession to be pleaded as a defense, such improvements must be perfected before the decree is passed by the trial court. The principle laid down is that the rights of the parties in a pre-emption suit are to be determined based on their status at the time of the trial court's decree, and subsequent improvements during the appellate stage cannot be invoked to displace a vested right established by that decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendee defeat a pre-emption suit by improving their status through inheritance after the trial court has passed a decree?
  • Does Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, permit a vendee to use status improvements occurring during the appellate stage to defeat a pre-emption claim?
  • Is an appellate court required to consider status improvements of a vendee that occur after the trial court's decree in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 517 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And 3 Other vs Muhammad Rashid And 2 Other=1994 PLD Supreme Court 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-14
  pre-emptionimprovement of statusinheritance and successionsecond appealpunjab pre-emption actcrucial dates
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether a vendee in a pre-emption suit can defeat a pre-emptor's claim by improving their status through inheritance or succession after the passing of a decree by the trial court, specifically during the pendency of a second appeal before the High Court. The core legal question involves the interpretation and temporal application of section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, regarding when a vendee can successfully set up an improved status. The Supreme Court held that while a vendee may improve their status through inheritance or succession after the institution of a suit, such an improvement must occur before the passing of a decree in the pre-emption suit by the trial court. An improvement occurring post-decree, during the appellate stage, cannot be utilized to defeat the pre-emptor's claim. The key principle established is that improvements in a vendee's status via inheritance or succession are limited by the temporal threshold of the trial court's decree, aligning with the general rule that appellate courts evaluate the correctness of the trial court's decision based on the circumstances existing at the time of adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendee defeat a pre-emption claim by improving their status through inheritance or succession after the passing of a decree by the trial court?
  • Up to what stage of proceedings can a vendee effectively improve their status to defeat a suit for pre-emption under section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Does an appellate court take into consideration circumstances or status improvements that arise during the pendency of an appeal in pre-emption litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 264 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Siddiqui vs The State1994 MLD 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Khan vs Fahimuddin1994 MLD 442 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Khan vs Executive Officer, Multan Cantonment1994 CLC 919 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The State1994 MLD 1289 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 303 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Etc vs Sher Muhammad Etc(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 129) · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Cheema, Advocate vs Chairman, Punjab Bar1994 PLD Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Cheema vs Superintendent Jail Kot LakhpatK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 459 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and Anoihbr vs Allah Ditta1994 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 238 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsen vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 11 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1737 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad and 7 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)/1994 MLD 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 521 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Another1994 MLD 673 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Aslam1994 CLC 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Messrs Karachi Development Authority, Karachi1994 PLC 442 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and1994 CLC 218 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Shah vs Mazhar Hussain Shah and 3 others1994 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-21
  murderappeal against acquittalcorroboratory evidencerecovery of weaponsinterested witnessreappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of murder charges under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondents, along with others, attacked the deceased Nazar Shah resulting in numerous injuries and death, supported by an eyewitness account, prompt FIR, motive, and subsequent weapon recoveries. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in discarding the corroboratory recovery evidence and eyewitness testimony, leading to an arbitrary acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly scrutinized the interested nature of the recovery witness, noted significant discrepancies between the testimonies of the witness and the investigating officer, and correctly identified the selective reliance on related witnesses when independent ones were available. Finding the High Court's assessment unexceptionable and noting that a mere difference of opinion does not warrant setting aside an acquittal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can set aside an acquittal merely on the basis of a difference of opinion regarding the appreciation of evidence?
  • Does the reliance on a related and interested witness for weapon recoveries without independent attestation affect the credibility of the recovery evidence?
  • Whether discrepancies between the testimony of an eyewitness and the investigating officer regarding the pointation and recovery of weapons warrant discarding the recovery evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Arain vs Secretary, Communication and Works1994 PLC (C.S.) 1266 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Others vs Ch. Abdul Rehman Wahla And Other1994 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22
  suspension of sentencecriminal appealmedical contradictionocular evidencebail pending appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing their application under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for suspension of the sentence of life imprisonment passed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal in view of the apparent contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence, coupled with the acquittal of all co-accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition should be converted into an appeal and allowed, thereby suspending the sentence of the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where ocular allegations regarding specific firearm injuries attributed to the accused are contradicted by the medical report, and co-accused have already been acquitted, a fit case is made out for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of life imprisonment can be suspended under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when medical evidence contradicts the ocular account?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused furnish a ground for the suspension of sentence of the remaining convicts?
  • Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and grant interim relief based on contradictions in the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And 7 Other vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Balochistan And 7 Others1994 PLC 735 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And 40 Others vs Border Area Committee And Other1994 CLC 1416 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 998 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs The State1994 SCMR 2051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-27
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausesection 324 PPCBadi'ahfurther inquirysimple injuryattempt to commit Qatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in an FIR under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fired a rifle shot hitting the victim on his ankle, causing a simple injury during a court-premise altercation between two rival groups. The core legal questions pertained to whether an injury falling under Section 337-F(ii), PPC attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under the amended law, and whether the case called for further inquiry regarding who the aggressor was. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail. It held that under the amended Section 324, PPC, when hurt is caused, the penalty is dictated by the specific hurt caused, which in this case amounted to 'Badi'ah' under Section 337-F(ii), PPC carrying up to three years' imprisonment. Consequently, the offence fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and the existence of counter-allegations rendered it a case of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury falling under Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How does the penalty under the amended Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when a simple, non-vital hurt is caused during an attempted Qatl-i-amd?
  • Does an exchange of firing between rival parties present a case of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan Cheema vs Principal, Federal Covernment Degree1994 CLC 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Zaheer Ud Din Babar And Other1994 CLC 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01
  Constitutional petitionClosure of evidenceProduction of witnessesRent ControllerExecution of decreeCivil procedureRevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a Rent Controller and an Additional District Judge, which resulted in the partial closure of the petitioner's evidence in an objection petition. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction by closing the evidence due to the petitioner's failure to produce witnesses, specifically whether the court was legally obligated to employ coercive measures to secure their attendance despite the petitioner having undertaken the responsibility to produce them. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned orders contained no jurisdictional error. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents like Mst. Bashir Bibi and M/s. Naeem Engineering Corporation, noting that those cases involved situations where parties had requested the court's assistance to summon witnesses, whereas here, the petitioner had explicitly undertaken the responsibility to produce the witnesses. The key principle laid down is that where a party voluntarily undertakes to produce witnesses, they cannot later fault the court for failing to use coercive measures when that party fails to fulfill their undertaking.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court close a party's evidence if that party fails to produce witnesses they explicitly undertook to produce?
  • Is a court required to issue coercive processes for witnesses when a party has voluntarily undertaken the responsibility to produce them?
  • Does the failure of a court to use coercive measures to secure witness attendance constitute a jurisdictional error when the party failed to fulfill an undertaking to produce said witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 146 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Nawaz vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 55) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Mumtaz vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 54) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Iqbal vs The State1994 MLD 1046 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali & Sons vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution And Others1994 PLC 686 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22
  writ petitionstatutory remedyexhaustion of remediesEmployees' Old-Age Benefits Actcompetency of petitionregistration dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the registration of the petitioner under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The petitioner contended that the respondents misinterpreted Section 33 of the Act regarding the competency of complaints against registration. Conversely, the respondents argued that the petition was incompetent because the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available under Chapter VII of the Act, asserting that complaints must be directed to the Board of Trustees rather than the court. The Court, relying on established precedent, held that a writ petition is rendered incompetent if a party has not first availed themselves of the statutory remedies provided under the Act. Drawing parallels to the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, the Court affirmed that the statutory adjudication mechanism must be exhausted before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as incompetent, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue their remedies through the appropriate statutory channels under Chapter VII of the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition competent if the petitioner has not exhausted statutory remedies provided under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  • Are the provisions of sections 57 to 59 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 in pari materia with sections 33 to 35 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq And Others: vs Taj Bibi1994 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali Khan And Other vs Government of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda and 5 others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan and 2 others1994 SCMR 2026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-08
  leave to appealsettlement lawsagreement of associationfunctus officioremandwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court whereby a writ petition filed by respondent No. 3 was allowed and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer for decision afresh. The core legal question concerns the competency of a revision petition and the jurisdiction of settlement authorities to entertain applications for the cancellation of an agreement of association following the repeal of settlement laws. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the order of remand passed by the High Court accords with the established guidelines and case-law regarding the functus officio status of settlement authorities after the repeal of the relevant laws. The court held that leave should be granted to examine the correctness of the High Court's remand order in light of the cited precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revision petition is maintainable before a Settlement Commissioner after the repeal of settlement laws?
  • Does a Settlement Commissioner become functus officio after the repeal of settlement laws when no case is pending on or before the specified date?
  • Is the High Court's order of remand in accordance with the guidelines laid down in past case-law regarding repealed settlement statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Khatoon vs Kanwar Sarbuland Khan And Other1994 CLC 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Khatoon and others vs Controller of Estate Duty1994 PTD 77 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Imran vs Ch. Abdul Sattar and others1994 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-24
  review petitionspecific performancelimitationcondonation of delaynecessary partygross negligenceimpleadment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's failure to implead a necessary party (one of the decree-holders) within the period of limitation was an inadvertent error subject to condonation, or the result of gross negligence. The petitioner had erroneously impleaded her husband instead of the necessary respondent in her first appeal before the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking to implead the correct party. The Court affirmed its previous finding that the omission constituted gross negligence rather than a mere inadvertent mistake. Consequently, the Court held that no grounds existed to review the earlier judgment, as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient cause to condone the delay under the relevant limitation laws.

  Questions settled

  • Can a failure to implead a necessary party within the period of limitation be condoned if the omission is found to be the result of gross negligence?
  • Does the inadvertent misidentification of a respondent in an appeal constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Bibi and others vs Mst. Majidan and another1994 SCMR 1978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-01
  Nikahnamapublic documentMuslim Family Lawsinheritance mutationNikah Registraradmissibility of documentsres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding inheritance and the validity of a marriage. The appellants challenged a lower court's reliance on a Nikahnama to establish the respondent's status as a widow, arguing that the document was not properly proved and that a previous judgment dismissing the respondent's dower suit could not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court examined the status of a Nikahnama under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that because the Nikah Registrar is remunerated for public duties, they qualify as a 'public officer' and the Nikahnama constitutes a 'public document' under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, a certified copy of the Nikahnama is admissible as proof of its contents without requiring the examination of the Nikah Khawan or witnesses, absent effective rebuttal. While acknowledging that the previous dower suit judgment did not operate as res judicata, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the production of the Nikahnama sufficiently proved the respondent's claim.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Nikahnama considered a public document under the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Does the status of a Nikah Registrar as a public officer permit the admission of a certified copy of a Nikahnama without examining the Nikah Khawan?
  • Can a finding in a suit that was ultimately dismissed operate as res judicata in subsequent litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Mst. Irshad Bibi1994 CLC 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11
  declaratory suitplaint rejectionejectment proceedingsobjection petitionwaiver of remedyfraud and misrepresentationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, which rejected the petitioners' plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners, claiming ownership of a property, had previously filed an objection petition under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before the Rent Controller, which was dismissed. Instead of challenging that dismissal, the petitioners filed a separate declaratory suit, leading to the rejection of their plaint. The core legal question was whether a separate declaratory suit is maintainable after a party has already unsuccessfully pursued an objection petition before a Rent Controller regarding the same subject matter. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the suit was barred under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court affirmed the principle that once a litigant elects a particular legal remedy, other remedies are deemed waived. Furthermore, the Court noted that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is the appropriate mechanism to challenge orders obtained through fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Is a separate declaratory suit maintainable when a party has already unsuccessfully pursued an objection petition under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the doctrine of waiver apply when a litigant elects to pursue one specific legal remedy over others?
  • What is the appropriate legal mechanism for a stranger to proceedings to challenge an order allegedly obtained through fraud?
  Read full judgment →