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 Siddiq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq and 5 others vs Mst. Badar Munir and another1993 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-14
  quashment of complaintcriminal procedurefalse implicationalibiprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by Muhammad Siddiq and others against the judgment of the Lahore High Court rejecting their quashment petition concerning a private complaint filed against them for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves whether the criminal complaint was false and whether appellant Muhammad Siddiq was present in Rawalpindi rather than at the scene of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that while a prima facie case was made out against the other appellants allowing the case to proceed against them, the complaint against Muhammad Siddiq and Maqsood Ahmad should be quashed as police reports and official records established that they were falsely roped in to disable them from assisting in the defence. The key principle laid down is that where preliminary evidence and official records demonstrate that specific accused persons have been falsely implicated to prevent them from aiding the defence, the criminal complaint against them under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complaint can be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused were falsely roped in?
  • Does an official record showing an accused person's presence elsewhere during the alleged occurrence warrant quashment of the complaint against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat vs Fazal Khan through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 2185 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad SHARIFPetitioncr vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2510 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 2321 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 761 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Hussain and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 2053 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16
  acquittalcondonation of delaylimitation actprivate complaintproduction of evidenceappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint for offences under sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved were whether the delay in filing the special leave to appeal could be condoned under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 on the grounds of wrong legal advice and illness, and whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the appellant's failure to produce evidence. The Lahore High Court held that neither bad legal advice nor unsubstantiated illness constituted sufficient ground to condone the delay, and that an acquittal under section 249-A is justified when no evidence is available on record to support the charge. The court laid down the principle that the probability of conviction under section 249-A must be judged from the material on record rather than mere allegations in a complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Whether wrong legal advice and illness constitute sufficient grounds to condone delay under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 for filing an appeal against acquittal?
  • Is the personal appearance of an appellant required for filing a petition for special leave to appeal under section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the complainant fails to produce any evidence in support of the charge?
  • How is the probability or possibility of conviction to be judged for the purpose of an order under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Aslam and another1993 MLD 565 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar1993 CLC 95 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Nasrin and another1993 CLC 450 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-08
  additional evidenceappellate stagecivil revisionrestitution of conjugal rightsprocedural negligencelacuna
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order of the District Judge, Muzaffarabad, which rejected the petitioner's application to adduce additional evidence during the pendency of an appeal. The petitioner, who had previously sued for restitution of conjugal rights, sought to introduce a document executed during the trial proceedings which he had failed to tender before the trial Court. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in refusing to admit this additional evidence under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 cannot be admitted merely to fill lacunas or rectify a party's negligence in failing to produce evidence at the appropriate trial stage. The Court affirmed that such evidence is only permissible if the appellate court finds the existing evidence inherently defective or insufficient to pronounce judgment. The principle laid down is that a party cannot use the appellate stage to supplement a weak case or cure omissions that occurred due to their own negligence during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can additional evidence be admitted at the appellate stage to fill lacunas in a party's case?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a party entitled to produce evidence at the appellate stage that was within their knowledge and possession during the trial but not tendered?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Jamal Din and others1993 P Cr. L J 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Adalat Khan and 3 others1993 SCMR 2042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-09
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionco-sharerowner of the estateJamabandipossession through pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the appellant's suit for possession of land through pre-emption. The core legal questions relate to whether the appellant established a superior right of pre-emption as a collateral of the vendors or as a co-sharer in the Khata. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove he was a co-sharer, and that both the appellant and the respondents held equal status as owners of the estate based on the revenue records, thereby lacking any superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor must affirmatively establish a superior right of pre-emption over the vendee, and where both parties hold equal status as owners of the estate, the pre-emption suit cannot succeed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor claiming a superior right as a co-sharer must establish the same through reliable revenue records?
  • Does a pre-emptor maintain a superior right of pre-emption when both the pre-emptor and the vendees share an equal status as owners of the estate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs (Mst) Parveen AkhtarK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sheikh vs The District Health Officer And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Dhariwal and another vs Mst. Sofia Begum and 91993 MLD 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur and others1993 MLD 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 2 others vs Inayat Muhammad and 2 others1993 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 13 others vs Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alias Shafoo vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1948 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shajahat Raja vs Election Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad) and 2 others1993 CLC 116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shajahat Raja vs Election Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge), Islamabad And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid . vs Khalid Mehmood Tabassum and 4 others1993 MLD 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheen vs Miss Sultan Jehan1993 CLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Manzoor Hussain1993 P Cr. L J 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and others vs Muhammad Afzal and others1993 MLD 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2476 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Shah and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 483 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Shah And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 203 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 142 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Shahid Hafeez1993 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Younus and others1993 SCMR 2374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-22
  briberyacquittalbenefit of doubtSection 265-K Cr.P.C.prevention of corruptionevidence discrepancycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the trial court's acquittal of the respondent under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a bribery case. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in granting the respondent the benefit of doubt due to discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the financial transactions and the lack of proof connecting the respondent to the alleged public servant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts' assessment of the evidence was neither illogical nor perverse. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, as there was no evidence of communication with the public servant regarding the alleged bribe. The key principle laid down is that where evidence regarding the source of funds is contradictory and there is no proof of a nexus between the accused and the public servant, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, and appellate interference is unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order if the trial court's evaluation of evidence is not perverse?
  • Is an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justified when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case of bribery?
  • Does the failure to prove the source of funds in a bribery case entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Hanif and 8 others1993 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Moris Masih and others1993 P Cr. L J 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Member, Board of Revenue and another1993 CLC 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Hakim and others1993 P Cr. L J 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs District Collector and others1993 MLD 265 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Multan Range, Multan and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Latif and others1993 SCMR 1940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-03
  murdercommon intentiondeath sentence commutationpresidential amnestyacquittalbenefit of doubtself-defenceocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-appeals arising from a murder conviction. The complainant challenged the acquittal of two co-accused, while the sole convict, Abid Latif, appealed his death sentence. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused despite ocular evidence and whether the convict's death sentence warranted commutation under recent judicial precedents regarding Presidential Amnesty. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the primary assailant, Abid Latif, noting that the ocular evidence was consistent and credible. However, applying the principle established in Eid Muhammad's case, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, as the sentence was imposed prior to the relevant Presidential Amnesty Order. Regarding the acquittal of the co-accused, the Court found no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the High Court, affirming that the acquittal based on the benefit of doubt was justified. The Court reaffirmed the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the finding is imaginary, artificial, or based on a clear misconstruction of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal if no misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated?
  • Does a death sentence imposed before 7-12-1988 qualify for commutation under the Presidential Amnesty Order?
  • Is the plea of self-defence sustainable when the medical evidence contradicts the physical possibility of the accused inflicting the injuries described?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs L.D.A. and others1993 CLC 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30
  temporary injunctionstatus quoprima facie caseexecution proceedingsmultiplicity of proceedingscivil revisiontransfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restrain the Lahore Development Authority from auctioning a disputed plot during pending execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing interim relief by deeply delving into merits such as alleged record tampering and limitation while a title dispute and execution proceedings were near completion. The Lahore High Court held that where important questions of fact and law exist and proceedings are at a concluding stage, courts should not pre-empt trial issues like forgery or limitation at the interim stage, and status quo must be maintained to prevent irreparable loss and multiplicity of proceedings. The High Court established that a prima facie case is made out when arguable factual and legal questions are present, and a court hearing a stay application must avoid conducting a premature trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court hearing a temporary injunction application can delve deeply into the merits of forgery and limitation which form the core subject matter of the pending trial?
  • Does a party establish a prima facie case for interim injunction by showing arguable questions of fact and law rather than proving the case beyond doubt?
  • Is it proper to restrain a public authority from auctioning disputed property during the pendency of execution proceedings to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable loss?
  • Whether a suit for declaration of title and possession is maintainable when the plaintiff is not in physical possession of the vacant disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs Fateh Muhammad and others1993 CLC 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2640 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and another vs The State1993 MLD 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and another vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And 19 Other vs Muhammad Arshad And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 48 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State1993 MLD 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sanaullah vs Allah Din1993 MLD 399 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needres judicatachange of circumstanceslandlord and tenantSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenged the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlord's eviction application filed under section 15 of the Ordinance. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on grounds of default, reconstruction, and personal requirement for his children. During the hearing, the appellant pressed only the ground of personal requirement for his family. The respondent raised a preliminary objection of res judicata, citing a prior dismissed ejectment application, and alleged mala fides regarding rent enhancement. The court held that the needs of children are distinct from the landlord's personal needs under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that changed circumstances such as marriages and a growing family permit subsequent ejectment applications. The court found the landlord's need to be in good faith, noting that the landlord is the sole judge of his family's accommodation sufficiency. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Rent Controller's order was set aside, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application filed on the ground of personal need of family members is barred by res judicata when a previous application filed by the landlord was dismissed?
  • Can a landlord file a subsequent ejectment application for personal requirement in the event of changed circumstances such as the growth and marriage of family members?
  • Is the landlord considered the sole judge regarding the suitability and sufficiency of residential accommodation for his family?
  • Does the use of the word 'or' in section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, make the needs of a spouse or children independent from the needs of the landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salimul Shafi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salimul Shafi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs Lahore Development Authority and others1993 MLD 2312 · Lahore High Court
  civil revisionclosing of evidencesufficient causeadjournmentpermanent injunctionland acquisitionprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two civil revision petitions arising from a common set of facts involving a suit for permanent injunction against the Lahore Development Authority regarding the acquisition of land. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the plaintiffs' evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and dismissing their suit for failure to produce evidence on the date fixed, without considering the sufficient cause shown for adjournment. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed a substantial error by failing to consider the sufficient cause advanced by the petitioners, namely that their counsel was busy with a competitive examination, and that dismissing the suit on a technicality without granting sufficient opportunity to lead evidence caused injustice. The Court laid down the principle that courts should avoid deciding matters on technicalities, must consider grounds for adjournment showing sufficient cause, and should ensure that disputes are resolved on their merits rather than defeated by procedural defaults.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is justified in closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without considering the sufficient cause shown for adjournment?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit on technical grounds without providing adequate opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with concurrent findings of fact when the lower courts have committed a substantial error or jurisdictional defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1612 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 880 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs S.H.O. and others1993 P Cr. L J 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Ullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan and another vs Member, Board of (Revenue), Punjab Lahore and others1993 CLC 864 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Seema and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghiruddin vs S.M. Qadir1993 MLD 2553 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Fauji Fertilizer and others1993 CLC 696 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs United Bank Limited, Karachi1993 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 509 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2018 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Muhammad Saeed and 3 others1993 MLD 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Khan and another vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Pakpattan Sharif and another1993 CLC 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and others vs The State1993 MLD 288 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Gul Frosh vs Syed Umer and another1993 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1993 MLD 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State and others1993 MLD 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Aslam and others1993 CLC 828 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Additional District Judge and others1993 CLC 2426 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Umrani vs Government of Sindh through Chief1993 PLD Karachi 735 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-01
  illegal detentionquashment of proceedingsabuse of processadmissibility of confessionanti-state activitiesremandcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their arrest and detention by law enforcement agencies, followed by their subsequent prosecution for anti-state activities. The core legal questions concerned the legality of detention without remand, the admissibility of confessions obtained during such custody, and the validity of FIRs registered after prolonged illegal confinement. The Court held that the initial detention was illegal as it lacked remand orders or registration of cases. Furthermore, the confessions recorded during this period were inadmissible due to procedural irregularities and the absence of a valid investigation. The Court observed that the FIRs were managed affairs and verbatim copies across different districts, indicating a pre-planned scheme rather than genuine investigation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the Court, as they were based on hearsay and lacked any tangible evidence for conviction. The Court laid down the principle that courts possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings that are demonstrably false, based on hearsay, and constitute an abuse of the judicial process, thereby ordering the immediate release of the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court quash criminal proceedings if they are based on hearsay and constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Is a confession recorded while an accused is in illegal custody of a law enforcement agency admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to comply with mandatory procedures under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a judicial confession valueless?
  • Can law enforcement agencies detain individuals without obtaining remand orders from a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Bhutta vs Special Judge, Anticorruption, Punjab, Lahore and another1993 P Cr. L J 876 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 85 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1185 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs Nasir Ali1993 PLD Revenue 56 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1993 CLC 2078 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs The State1993 MLD 575 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2155 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Sakina and another1993 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14
  revision petitionpermanent injunctionadverse possessionpleadingsadmissionfrivolous litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner who obstructed them from using property purchased by their predecessor through a registered sale-deed. The core legal question was whether a suit could be decreed without framing issues or recording evidence when the written statement failed to raise any real controversy and admitted the plaintiffs' title. The Lahore High Court held that where material propositions of fact or law are not denied and no valid controversy exists in the pleadings, the trial court is justified in decreeing the suit straightaway, and further held that a plea of adverse possession cannot be raised or considered without being specifically pleaded. The petition was dismissed in limine as wholly frivolous with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial Court can decree a suit straightaway without framing issues or recording evidence when the written statement raises no material controversy?
  • Is it necessary to specifically plead adverse possession in the written statement before it can be raised or considered?
  • Can an unpleaded question of fact become capable of being proved through evidence?
  • Whether a revision petition filed without any substantive legal ground is liable to be dismissed in limine?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs District Judge, Sialkot and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Munna vs The State1993 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-16
  post-arrest baildelayed F.I.R.criminal appealevidentiary gapswitness statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case, which the Supreme Court of Pakistan converted into an appeal and subsequently allowed. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the significant evidentiary gaps and procedural delays present in the prosecution's case. The Court observed that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged with a delay of nearly twenty days, and notably, the alleged eyewitnesses were not named in the initial report. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the police statements of these witnesses were recorded twenty-one days after the incident occurred. Based on these factors, the Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted the grant of bail. The principle laid down is that unexplained, substantial delays in lodging an F.I.R. and recording witness statements, coupled with the omission of key witnesses from the initial report, constitute valid grounds for the grant of bail to an accused person pending trial, as these factors cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events.

  Questions settled

  • Does a twenty-day delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Does the failure to name eyewitnesses in an F.I.R. justify the grant of bail to an accused?
  • Is the recording of police statements twenty-one days after an incident a factor that supports the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Mst. Irshad Begum1993 MLD 707 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Aslam vs Muhammad Akhtar and 2 others1993 CLC 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07
  court-feead valorem court-feedeclaratory suitcancellation of documentgift-deedconstitutional petitionsubstance of the plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute regarding the computation of court-fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act versus Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act. The petitioner, a disinherited son, filed a civil suit for a declaration that registered gift-deeds executed by his father in favor of his brother were null and void qua his right to inherit, along with a consequential relief for partition and separate possession of his share. The core legal question was whether the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) allowing the plaintiff's arbitrary valuation for court-fee, or whether it required ad valorem court-fee on the value of the subject-matter. The Lahore High Court held that when a party seeks to establish title to property and cannot do so without removing an obstacle such as a registered deed by which they are bound, the suit in reality is one for cancellation of a document rather than a mere declaration, necessitating payment of ad valorem court-fee. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing that the substance of the plaint governs court-fee assessment rather than its ostensible form.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit framed as a declaration to avoid registered gift-deeds is in reality a suit for cancellation of a document requiring ad valorem court-fee?
  • Does Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act give a plaintiff absolute discretion to value a suit for court-fee purposes regardless of the true substance of the plaint?
  • Is a plaintiff seeking partition of property bound to pay ad valorem court-fee when an insuperable obstacle like a registered gift-deed stands in the way of establishing title?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz alias Nanna vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1456 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz alias Kala vs The State1993 MLD 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz , vs District Judge, Sialkot and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Syed Muhammad Aqil and others1993 MLD 492 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Aamar Khaliq and another1993 P Cr. L J 2311 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs District Judge, Okara and others1993 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1589 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others vs Mst. Masooda Hasan and 2 others1993 PLD Queeta 88 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-08
  limitation actcondonation of delaywrong forumpecuniary jurisdictionappellate courtcourt feecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves regular first appeals arising from civil suits for possession, cancellation of documents, and injunction, which were initially decreed by the trial court, subsequently appealed before the District Judge, and later returned for presentation before the High Court due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate court. The core legal questions relate to whether the time spent pursuing an appeal before a wrong forum can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether a bona fide mistake or ill-advice of counsel constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Balochistan High Court held that section 14 does not apply to appeal proceedings and time spent before a wrong appellate forum cannot be condoned thereunder, and further reiterated that a bona fide mistake or wrong legal advice by a counsel does not constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay under section 5. The key principles laid down are that section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 is restricted to suits and cannot be utilized for appeals, and that ignorance of law or counsel's negligence does not excuse delay, while failure to explain each day's delay or to pay requisite court fees renders an appeal time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 can be invoked in appeal cases for excluding the period spent pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum?
  • Does a bona fide mistake or ill-advice by a counsel constitute a sufficient ground to condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Whether an appeal filed without the requisite court-fee can be deemed to have been validly instituted within the period of limitation?
  • Is it mandatory for an applicant seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 to explain the delay of each and every day?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2636 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan & Etc vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 320 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →