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 Irfan Khan and 3 others vs Muhammad Rafique Kanpur alias1993 P Cr. L J 426 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Sadiq and 9 others1993 CLC 1001 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Manager (Auqaf) East and 3 others1993 MLD 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Government of Balochistan and others1993 SCMR 2053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which dismissed his constitutional petition challenging his dismissal from service on the ground that the relationship between the petitioner and the employer was governed by the principle of master and servant, making a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 non-maintainable. The petitioner originally served as a Cashier and was later promoted as Manager in the Divisional Cooperative Bank Limited, Quetta, which was subsequently dissolved following the promulgation of the Federal Bank for Cooperative and Regulation of Cooperative Banking Ordinance, 1976. After various rounds of litigation, reinstatement, suspension, and subsequent dismissal, the petitioner contended that his dismissal was not an independent action of the management but was carried out under the directions of the Provincial Government, relying on his suspension order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the government's direct involvement in the dismissal requires detailed examination, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against the dismissal of an employee of a cooperative bank governed by the principle of master and servant?
- Does an action taken against an employee under the directions of the Provincial Government alter the master and servant status to attract writ jurisdiction?
- Whether the dissolution of a cooperative bank under the Federal Bank for Cooperative and Regulation of Cooperative Banking Ordinance, 1976 affects the service rights of the employees?
- Muhammad Iqbal Lakhani vs The State and 2 others1993-P Cr. L J 1386 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Kocub vs Judge Family Court, Lahore and another1993 CLC 699 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1993 MLD 139 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs Mst. Saeeda Bano1993 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court which had set aside the Rent Controller's orders and allowed the landlady's eviction applications regarding two shop premises on the ground of personal bona fide need for her son to establish a lathe machine and mechanical workshop. The core legal questions were whether the failure of the landlady to examine her son as a witness proved fatal to the claim of personal need, whether a shop could be used for a lathe machine when the plot was leased for commercial purposes, and whether multiple shops could be simultaneously recovered without proving need for both. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the law does not strictly require the examination of the person for whose benefit the premises is sought as a witness, provided the bona fide need is established through other competent evidence such as the husband and attorney of the landlady. The Court further held that running a lathe machine in a shop does not constitute industrial use, and tenants cannot object to lease covenant breaches enforceable only by the lessor. However, where the landlady failed to prove the necessity of both shops, the Court restricted eviction to only one shop based on her preference. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a landlord to examine as a witness the person for whose benefit premises are sought is fatal to a claim of personal bona fide need?
- Can a tenant object to the use of a shop for a purpose allegedly contrary to the original lease granted by the municipal corporation?
- Is a landlord entitled to obtain possession of multiple shops simultaneously without proving the necessity for all the demanded premises?
- Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs Hassan Din and others1993 SCMR 2369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a civil dispute concerning the validity of a registered gift deed executed by Khair Din in favour of Mehraj Din on 30-9-1955. The original donor's son challenged the gift through a suit, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate court on the ground that delivery of possession had not been established, as the tenant was allegedly cultivating the land under the donor at the time of the gift. However, the Lahore High Court in second appeal reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the lower courts' reliance on revenue records was based on a gross misreading of evidence, since the revenue document showed the tenant only from 1957 onwards. The core legal question was whether the High Court rightly interfered with the concurrent findings of fact based on misreading of evidence regarding delivery of possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence and that delivery of possession was validly established. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on a gross misreading of evidence are open to interference and correction in second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact based on a misreading of revenue records can be set aside in second appeal?
- Is delivery of possession established when findings regarding a tenant's cultivating possession at the time of the gift are found to be based on a gross misreading of evidence?
- Muhammad Iqbal and another vs The State1993 MLD 2344 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Alias Ballu vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 391 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1993 SCMR 1987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a Lahore High Court judgment, which had relied on the precedent in Mst. Sakina Begum's case. The High Court had held that the incorporation of Article 2A into the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 effectively stripped the President of Pakistan of the power to commute death sentences for murder, notwithstanding the authority granted under Article 45 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether Article 2A curtailed the President's constitutional power of mercy. The Supreme Court, referencing its earlier Full Bench decision in Hakim Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1992 SC 595), noted that the Sakina Begum judgment had already been set aside by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the current petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter to the High Court with directions to dispose of the case in accordance with the legal principles established in the Hakim Khan decision, which affirmed the President's constitutional powers.
Questions settled- Does the incorporation of Article 2A into the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 strip the President of the power to commute death sentences under Article 45?
- Is the judgment in Mst. Sakina Begum's case regarding the President's power of mercy still valid law?
- Muhammad Iobal and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1192 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Imtiaz and anothers vs Station House Officer, Police1993 P Cr. L J 2585 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Imran vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2487 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas Suleri and anothers vs Muhammad Naseem Khan and 21993 CLC 417 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas and another vs The State1993 MLD 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas and another vs Beqar Hussain and 2 others1993 CLC 15 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 626 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iltaf vs Muhammad NawazK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ikram and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentence under section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellants challenged their conviction. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution established its version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the sequence of occurrences, the presence of eye-witnesses, the truthfulness of the alleged motive, and the applicability of the right of private defence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution version suffered from serious infirmities, inconsistencies, and contradictions, notably contradicted by medical evidence demonstrating that one of the accused was hospitalized at the alleged time of the second incident. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case honestly and that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence bristles with improbabilities and conflicts with medical testimony, and where the accused's version regarding self-defence and a sudden scuffle is more plausible, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether medical evidence takes precedence over ocular testimony when eye-witnesses' presence is doubtful?
- Does an accused person acting to rescue an abducted relative and facing aggression acquire a right of private defence?
- Is the prosecution obliged to present a consistent and honest version of events free from major infirmities to secure a conviction?
- Whether discrepancies regarding the timing of incidents and hospital admissions entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Muhammad Idrees vs The State1993 MLD 2248 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Idrees vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 410 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Idrees vs Atta Muhammad1993 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Idrees Shah and 4 others vs District Judge, Jhelum and 21993 CLC 143 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and 4 others1993 PLD Karachi 478 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged orders of the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board declaring certain transferred property (Khatri Panchayat Bathing Ghat/Ashnan Ghat) as Evacuee Trust Property. The Settlement Department had previously transferred the property to original allottees who subsequently sold it to the petitioners. The respondents contended that official survey records and evidence established the property as a religious and charitable endowment (Ashnan Ghat) under Hindu Law. The High Court affirmed the lower authorities' decisions, holding that findings of fact based on legal evidence regarding the evacuee trust character of property cannot be re-agitated or interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. Additionally, the court held that transferees cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 against evacuee property actions, as their remedy lies solely against their vendors.
Questions settled- Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 interfere with a finding of fact regarding evacuee trust property recorded by statutory authorities where supported by evidence?
- Does entry in property register records describing property as an Ashnan Ghat create a presumption of religious endowment under Hindu law?
- Can a purchaser of transferred evacuee property claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Rashid Ahmad, D.S.P. and others1993 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim Chowkidar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 89 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1930 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim and 6 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 623 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application by Muhammad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 336, 337-A, and 337-F of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for causing injuries during a dispute over Shamlat Deh. The core legal question is whether an accused person sustaining serious injuries in a cross-version case, where the complainant party's injuries are unexplained and the opposite side has already been granted bail, is entitled to further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that where both sides sustain injuries and a cross-case is registered, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, making the accused equally entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that in cross-version cases involving mutual injuries and challans against both parties, if one party is released on bail, the other party is similarly entitled to bail so they may pursue their defense, pending trial determination of who acted as the aggressor.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person sustaining injuries in a cross-version case is entitled to bail when the opposite party has already been released on bail?
- Does a case fall under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when both the accused and the complainant party are seriously injured and registered cross-cases against each other?
- Is the failure of the complainant to explain injuries on the person of the accused a relevant ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Muhammad Hussain vs The State And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs S.H.O., P.S., Bikhi and others1993 MLD 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Younas and 2 others1993 CLC 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain Memon vs Chief Secretary to Govt. of Sindhh, Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 130 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 366 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs Mumtaz Ali and others1993 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs The State1993 SCMR 1614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that had reduced the death sentences of two appellants to life imprisonment for the murder of one Iqbal. The appellants, brothers, were alleged to have attacked the deceased with knives. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred by prioritizing the evaluation of the defence plea over the prosecution's case, and whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the first appellant, Akhtar, through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of a weapon stained with human blood, the case against the second appellant, Muhammad Hussain, was insufficient. Specifically, the absence of a recovered weapon from Muhammad Hussain and the lack of clarity regarding his arrest created a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding Akhtar, upholding his conviction, but allowed the appeal for Muhammad Hussain, setting aside his conviction and sentence based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an accused to prove their defence plea relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a conviction be sustained against an accused in a joint murder charge if no crime weapon is recovered from them and the ocular evidence is not fully corroborated?
- Is the testimony of related eye-witnesses credible if they have no personal enmity against the accused?
- Should a complainant be joined as a recovery witness during a criminal investigation?
- Muhammad Hussain and another vs The State1993 MLD 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and 6 others vs Malik Allah Ditta and 4 others1993 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order which set aside concurrent judgments of the courts below and dismissed the petitioners' declaratory suit as not maintainable. The core legal question was whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a pre-emption decree passed by revenue authorities under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115) in tenancy matters. The Supreme Court held that paragraphs 25 and 26 of MLR 115 exclusively vest jurisdiction to hear pre-emption suits based on tenancy in the Collector and explicitly bar the jurisdiction of civil courts from calling in question any order or proceeding of the revenue authorities under the Regulation. Consequently, the civil courts lacked jurisdiction to examine the validity of the pre-emption decree, and the High Court's dismissal of the suit was upheld. The key principle established is that the jurisdiction of civil courts is completely barred in respect of matters which revenue authorities are empowered to determine under paragraphs 25 and 26 of MLR 115.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred to entertain a suit challenging a pre-emption decree passed by revenue authorities under MLR 115?
- Does a Civil Court have the power under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interfere with orders passed by Revenue Authorities in pre-emption matters arising from a tenancy?
- What is the combined effect of paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 regarding pre-emption suits?
- Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammad Yar vs Sardar Khan and 11 others1993 PLD Lahore 575 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this regular second appeal concerned the inheritance rights of the appellant, who claimed to be the son of the deceased propositus, Ismail. The lower courts had dismissed his suit, finding him to be an illegitimate child born while his mother was married to another man. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant successfully established his paternity through evidence of treatment by the deceased, which raised a presumption of legitimacy under Muslim Law. The Court emphasized that where direct evidence of marriage is absent, acknowledgment of paternity serves as substantive proof of a valid marriage, unless disproved by clear evidence of an insurmountable impediment, such as an existing prior marriage. The respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving the illegitimacy of the appellant. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that succession opens immediately upon the death of a Muslim owner, and inheritance rights cannot be defeated by unsubstantiated claims. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the appellant’s suit for inheritance was decreed.
Questions settled- Under Muslim Law, can acknowledgment of paternity establish the legitimacy of a child and a valid marriage in the absence of direct proof?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the party denying legitimacy once an acknowledgment of paternity is established?
- Can a claim for inheritance be defeated by the argument that the heir is in possession of only a portion of the estate?
- Does succession to the estate of a deceased Muslim open immediately upon death without the intervention of state functionaries?
- Muhammad Hayat Etc. vs Muhammad Akram Etc.K.L.R 1993 Revenue Cases 9 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassan and others vs Mithu1993 MLD 683 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hasan through Legal Heirs vs Abdul Ghani and 4 others1993 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Haroon vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 524 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed to seek the quashment of proceedings arising from a complaint under section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused before the framing of a charge without recording prosecution evidence, and whether the revisional court erred in setting aside such an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that while a Magistrate does possess the inherent power under section 249-A to acquit an accused prior to the framing of a charge if the charge is groundless, the trial Magistrate erred in this case by acquitting the accused without examining witnesses despite a prima facie disclosure of an offence. The key principle laid down is that although section 249-A can be invoked before framing a charge, premature acquittal is impermissible where the complaint and initial statements disclose a prima facie case requiring proper trial evaluation.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the framing of a charge?
- Whether an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A can be sustained when a prima facie case under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is disclosed on the face of the complaint?
- When is the High Court justified in interfering with an order passed by a competent court issuing process against an accused?
- Muhammad Hanif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed by Muhammad Hanif against his conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay arsh. The appellant had confessed to causing the death of the deceased under grave and sudden provocation. During the pendency of the appeal, the legal heirs of the deceased—the father, mother, and widow—filed a compromise, stating they had forgiven the convict and waived their right of Qisas. The core legal question was whether a compromise could be accepted and the conviction set aside, particularly regarding the rights of the deceased's minor children. The Court, noting that the State and complainant counsel agreed the matter was governed by Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rather than provisions relating to Qisas, allowed the compromise. The Court held that the compromise was valid and voluntary, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant. The judgment affirms that where Qisas is not applicable, a compromise between parties is permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a compromise be allowed in a murder case where the conviction is under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a compromise valid when entered into by the legal heirs of a deceased who left minor children?
- Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit the acceptance of a compromise in a murder case where Qisas is not applicable?
- Muhammad Hanif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1338 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif Shah vs The State1993 MLD 514 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif and others vs Nazir Ali and others1993 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an inheritance dispute originating from the estate of a last male owner who died in 1924, initially governed by custom. The core legal question involved the application of the Islamic Law of Inheritance to the estate, specifically regarding the status of the widow as a limited owner and the entitlement of the sister of the deceased. The parties agreed that the matter should be resolved in accordance with Islamic Law, setting aside previous technicalities such as abatement and the finality of prior orders. The Supreme Court held that the case should be remanded to the High Court to determine the factual question of whether the claimant was indeed the sister of the deceased. The Court established the principle that where parties agree to resolve inheritance disputes based on Islamic Law, the estate should be distributed according to Shariat, treating the widow's prior alienation of property as void and distributing the shares of the heirs—the sister, the widow, and the daughter—in accordance with Islamic Law.
Questions settled- Can parties agree to resolve an inheritance dispute based on Islamic Law regardless of prior technicalities like abatement?
- Should a gift made by a widow holding property as a limited owner be treated as void under Islamic Law of Inheritance?
- Does the devolution of an estate held by a limited owner follow Islamic Law upon the application of the Shariat Act?
- Muhammad Hanif alias Bhutto vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 651 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Habibullah Siddiqui vs Haji Habib Jafferali and 2 others1993 MLD 1050 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Habib and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ghani vs Ali Ahmad and 3 others1993 MLD 772 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fiaz vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, PPC, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence to Section 302, PPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed the deceased following an earlier dispute. The defense contended that the appellant acted in self-defence after being attacked by the deceased and a prosecution witness, sustaining injuries during the incident that the prosecution failed to explain. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses had suppressed material facts, including the injuries sustained by the appellant and another individual, and that the recovery of the weapon and empties was highly doubtful. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defense version raised a reasonable possibility of a right of private defence, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the criminal revision.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence?
- Does the failure of an accused to fully establish a plea of self-defence disentitle them to the benefit of omissions and doubts in the prosecution case?
- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained upon doubtful ocular testimony and unverified weapon recoveries?
- Is an offence under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 triable exclusively by a Magistrate of the 1st Class?
- Muhammad Fiaz Abbasi and another vs Public Works Department1993 CLC 159 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fiaz Abbasi And Another vs Public Works Department And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 177 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 368 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil vs The State and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazal Karim vs Muhammad Khan Junejo and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 382 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq vs The Province of Punjab through Its Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Govt of Punjab And OtherK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 193 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Industries1993 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute regarding a lease for the excavation of ordinary sand in Chiniot, sanctioned by an authority stationed in Lahore. The petitioner's suit was initially rejected by the civil judge under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for lacking a cause of action, while the lower appellate court held that Lahore civil courts lacked territorial jurisdiction and ordered the return of the plaint. The Lahore High Court examined the question of territorial jurisdiction and the scope of Order VII, Rule 11. The Court held that since the lease was sanctioned and terminated by authorities whose principal offices are located in Lahore, the cause of action arose within Lahore, granting its courts territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between the non-disclosure of a cause of action, which warrants the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, and the non-availability of a cause of action, which requires framing issues and recording evidence. The civil revision was accepted, the orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was remanded for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether civil courts at the location of the principal office of a sanctioning authority possess territorial jurisdiction to try a suit arising from the termination of a lease?
- What is the distinction between non-disclosure of a cause of action and non-availability of a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action without framing issues and recording evidence?
- Muhammad Farooq Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 310 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Etc. vs Abdul Hameed Etc.K.L.R 1993 Revenue Cases 112 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ejaz Anwar vs The State1993 MLD 1749 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ehsan and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Mehboob Khan and 3 others1993 SCMR 2325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The petitioner had initially obtained a court order directing a deposit based on a sale price of Rs. 5,000 under Section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. Subsequently, the trial court, upon realizing the actual sale price was Rs. 80,000 and that the initial order was procured through fraud and misrepresentation, directed the petitioner to deposit the correct amount. The core legal question was whether the trial court could issue a revised deposit order beyond the 30-day period stipulated in the first proviso to Section 24 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the court is under an obligation to recall an order obtained through fraud. It further clarified that the 30-day limit does not preclude the court from correcting orders obtained by misrepresentation, especially when the initial order was passed subject to the respondents' objections. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the court retains the inherent power to rectify fraudulent proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a court recall an order regarding the deposit of sale price in a pre-emption suit if that order was obtained through fraud?
- Does the 30-day limitation period under the first proviso to Section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, prevent a court from correcting an order procured by misrepresentation?
- Is an order for the deposit of sale price passed in the absence of the respondents subject to subsequent objections regarding the actual sale price?
- Muhammad Din and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Allied Bank of Pakistan and others1993 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Company Judge of the Lahore High Court concerning an application for the reconstruction and reorganization of a company. The core legal question was whether an appeal against the Company Judge's order was maintainable before the Supreme Court under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, in the absence of a prior winding-up order. The appellants sought to challenge the refusal to re-examine bank accounts following a prior consent order. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was incompetent. It reasoned that the statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is strictly contingent upon the company having been ordered to be wound up. The Court clarified that proceedings for reconstruction or reorganization under Part IX of the Ordinance are distinct and separate from winding-up proceedings under Part XI. Consequently, because no winding-up order had been passed against the company, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could not be invoked. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Is an appeal against an order of a Company Judge maintainable before the Supreme Court if the company has not been ordered to be wound up?
- Are proceedings for company reconstruction under Part IX of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, distinct from winding-up proceedings under Part XI?
- Does the right of appeal under Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, apply to all orders passed by a Company Judge?
- Muhammad Din And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Allied Bank Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1993 CL. 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court concerning an application for the reconstruction and reorganization of a company. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order passed by the Company Judge during reorganization proceedings, rather than winding-up proceedings, is competent before the Supreme Court under the applicable corporate law. The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an order of the Company Judge lies only where the company has already been ordered to be wound up, as the statutory provisions governing reconstruction and those governing winding-up are separate and distinct. Since no winding-up order had been passed and the proceedings originated from an application for reconstruction, the appeal was held to be incompetent. The key principle laid down is that appellate jurisdiction under section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 is strictly contingent upon the existence of an order for the winding-up of the company.
Questions settled- Is an appeal against an order passed in company reconstruction proceedings competent under section 10 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 without a winding-up order?
- Whether the provisions for reconstruction and winding-up under the Companies Ordinance 1984 are separate and distinct.
- Can a party resile from a compromise or consent order entered into without reservation during company reorganization proceedings?
- Muhammad Boota vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1839 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Boota, who was found guilty by the trial court of committing Zina-bil-Jabr under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes. The prosecution case rested on the testimony of the victim, a minor girl, who alleged the appellant raped her in a field, supported by medical evidence confirming recent sexual intercourse and physical injuries consistent with resistance. The appellant denied the charge, citing false implication due to enmity and questioning the delay in reporting the incident and the nature of the injuries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical findings of semen and injuries, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the delay in reporting did not prejudice the defense, and discharged a suo motu notice regarding the enhancement of the sentence, affirming that sentencing remains within the trial court's discretion.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained on the solitary testimony of the victim if corroborated by medical evidence?
- Does a delay in filing an FIR necessarily invalidate a prosecution case in a rape trial?
- Is the failure to send the victim's clothing to a chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case when vaginal swabs test positive for semen?
- Does the appellate court have the discretion to interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial court in a suo motu proceeding?
- Muhammad Bashir and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2602 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir and another vs Muhammad Sharif and 5 others1993 MLD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir and 9 others vs Sultan and 3 others1993 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Lahore High Court which, in its constitutional jurisdiction, declared an order of the Board of Revenue regarding the allocation of land in consolidation proceedings to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with land allocation matters under consolidation schemes through writ jurisdiction and the correctness of the High Court's assessment of the revenue record. The Supreme Court held that matters relating to the allocation of land under consolidation schemes do not form an appropriate subject for the exercise of writ jurisdiction, and further found that the High Court's decision was based on an erroneous premise unsupported by the revenue record. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, thereby restoring the order of the Board of Revenue, laying down the principle that the High Court ought not to interfere with concurrent revenue forum findings in consolidation matters via constitutional jurisdiction where no jurisdictional defect is made out.
Questions settled- Do matters relating to the allocation of land under consolidation schemes form an appropriate subject for the exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court interfere with an order of the Board of Revenue regarding land allocation based on findings unsupported by the revenue record?
- Muhammad Bashir and 6 others vs Muhammad Yaqub and 11 others1993 CLC 1084 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court, which set aside the District Judge's ruling and restored the trial court's decree in favour of the respondents regarding a disputed gift and subsequent sale of land. The core legal questions involved whether a gift of undivided property (musha') without physical delivery of possession is void ab initio, whether a third party can challenge a gift on the ground of non-delivery of possession, and whether a vendee of a co-sharer is entitled to khas possession or joint possession. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that an objection regarding non-delivery of possession can only be raised by the donor or their legal heirs, not by a third party, and that the gift of undivided property is merely invalid rather than void ab initio and can be perfected. Furthermore, a purchaser from a co-sharer is entitled only to joint possession rather than khas possession prior to regular partition. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a modification restricting the decree to joint possession.
Questions settled- Can a third party who is not a legal heir challenge a gift on the ground of non-delivery of possession?
- Is a gift of undivided property (musha`) void ab initio or merely invalid?
- What kind of possession can be granted to a purchaser who becomes a co-sharer in joint property?
- Does the rule requiring delivery of possession for a valid gift apply strictly when the donor is not in actual physical possession of the gifted property?
- Muhammad Bashir alias Tania vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir Ahmad vs Syed Ali Abbas1993 CLC 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh and 3 others vs Khuda Bakhsh and 3 others1993 MLD 937 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the appellants regarding a shop situated in Dera Ghazi Khan. The appellants contested the petition by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting instead that appellant No. 1 is a co-sharer in the joint Khata who purchased a share prior to the initiation of proceedings and therefore possesses the shop as a co-owner. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petition, but the first appellate Court ultimately allowed the appeal and ordered ejectment, holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The core legal question is whether a tenant who purchases a share in a joint property and becomes a co-sharer can be subjected to ejectment proceedings under rent restriction laws. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the ejectment order, holding that the status of appellant No. 1 is that of a co-owner in possession rather than a tenant, rendering rent proceedings incompetent. The key principle laid down is that a purchaser of a share in a joint Khata becomes a co-owner and cannot be dispossessed through rent proceedings under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.
Questions settled- Whether a purchaser of a share in a joint Khata becomes a co-owner and ceases to be a tenant for the purposes of rent restriction laws?
- Can a co-sharer in possession of joint property be ejected through an ejectment petition filed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does the principle of estoppel under the law prevent a tenant who has acquired a share in joint property from asserting a co-owner's title in ejectment proceedings?
- What is the extent of jurisdiction of a Rent Controller when a bona fide question of title is raised in rent proceedings?
- Muhammad Azad vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur and 41993 CLC 1529 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-03-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azad Khan vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu1993 CLC 1648 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azad alias Jada vs The State1993 MLD 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs The State1993-MLD 86 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Muhammad Gul Zareen1993 CLC 384 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub Qureshi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 472 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Atiqur Rehman Usman vs Muhammad Siddiq1993 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Atique vs Muhammad Hanif Khan1993 MLD 871 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the quashment of an F.I.R. and subsequent trial proceedings regarding the alleged possession of heroin in a private residence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the police possess the authority to arrest an accused, conduct an investigation, and submit a challan for a non-cognizable offence under the Order without a search warrant or judicial order. The Court held that offences under Articles 4, 8, and 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, are non-cognizable unless committed in a public place. Consequently, the police lacked the authority to search the petitioner's private residence or conduct an investigation without a warrant issued by a competent authority, as required by Article 22 of the Order and Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that failure to comply with these mandatory procedural requirements renders the police action, including the recovery and subsequent investigation, a nullity, thereby justifying the quashment of the proceedings to prevent abuse of the court's process.
Questions settled- Are offences under Articles 4, 8, and 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, cognizable when committed in a private residence?
- Does a police officer have the authority to conduct an investigation into a non-cognizable offence without an order from a Magistrate?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to comply with the search warrant requirements under Article 22 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Can a trial Court take cognizance of an offence based on a police report filed in violation of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 749 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State (Copy)1993 P Cr. L J 914 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and another1993 PLD Karachi 440 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Station House Officer and others1993 MLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the high-handed action of police functionaries who illegally dispossessed him from his petrol filling station at the behest of private respondents, notwithstanding a pending civil suit and an operative status quo order passed by a civil court. The core legal questions centered on the competence of a constitutional petition against illegal police intervention in private property disputes and the blatant violation of a judicial status quo order. The Lahore High Court held that the police acted wholly without jurisdiction, exceeding their mandate by aiding in forcible dispossession under the guise of preventing a breach of peace. The court ruled that police intervention to oust a citizen from possession at odd hours without legal sanction is unlawful. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the police action was declared illegal, the respondents were directed to restore possession to the petitioner forthwith, and departmental action was ordered against the erring police officials.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the illegal action of police functionaries in dispossessing a citizen from property?
- Can police functionaries intervene to hand over possession of property to a private party without lawful sanction?
- What is the effect of police executing a dispossession despite an operative status quo order issued by a civil court?
- Muhammad Aslam vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through its1993 MLD 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →