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 Aslam vs Divisional Engineer, Pak. Railways and 4 others1993 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-18
  service matterdisciplinary proceedingsrailway employeecharge-sheetcompetent authorityArticle 212public importance
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged the dismissal of a railway employee, contending that the charge-sheet issued by a Grade-18 Divisional Engineer was without jurisdiction, as the Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 required the Deputy Head (Grade-19) to act as the Authorized Officer. The core legal question was whether this procedural irregularity warranted Supreme Court interference. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue was a mixed question of law and fact specific to the appellant's case, lacking the 'public importance' required to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, regarding the appellant's contention of unequal treatment compared to colleagues who received lesser punishment, the Court held that the remedy for such disparity is not to grant the appellant relief, but to ensure proper disciplinary action is taken against other guilty parties. The judgment reaffirms that the Supreme Court will not entertain service appeals that do not raise questions of general public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to interfere in a service matter where the question raised is a mixed question of law and fact not involving public importance?
  • Is a Divisional Engineer competent to issue a charge-sheet to a Grade-12 railway employee under the Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975?
  • Can an appellant claim relief in disciplinary proceedings on the ground that colleagues received lesser punishment for similar conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Shah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 704 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-20
  murderres gestaeocular evidenceforensic evidencecriminal appeallife imprisonmentadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Aslam Shah, for the murder of Suleman Shah under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, along with a fine, based on ocular evidence, medical testimony, and forensic reports linking the crime weapon to the scene. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused, particularly regarding the admissibility of testimony under the doctrine of res gestae. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and consistent with the medical findings. The Court held that the statement made by a witness to another immediately after the occurrence, explaining the event, was admissible under Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 as part of the res gestae. The Court affirmed that the evidence, corroborated by the forensic report of the crime weapon, established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while maintaining the life sentence due to the appellant's advanced age.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statement made by a witness to another person immediately after a crime admissible as part of the res gestae?
  • Does the doctrine of res gestae allow for the admission of contemporaneous declarations made under the influence of an event?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence corroborated by forensic reports of a crime weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Special Education and Social Welfare, Islamabad and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-31
  Wafaqi MohtasibOmbudsman jurisdictionservice grievanceouster clauseconstitutional petitiontermination recommendationdirect appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Acting Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) recommending the termination of the petitioner's appointment as Associate Professor of Microbiology and subsequent re-advertisement of the post, as well as a consequential show-cause notice issued by the Ministry of Health. The complaint before the Ombudsman had been lodged by a colleague seeking the same post. The primary legal questions concerned whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 to entertain a public servant's service-related grievance and recommend termination of employment, and whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction was barred. The High Court held that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction was barred by Article 9(2) because the complaint concerned a personal service grievance against the Agency where the complainant worked. Furthermore, under Article 11, the Ombudsman could only recommend disciplinary proceedings, not direct termination. The statutory bar under Article 29 does not preclude judicial review when an order is ultra vires. The petition was accepted, and the impugned order and notice were declared void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint from a public servant regarding a personal grievance relating to service in the Agency where they are employed?
  • Can the Wafaqi Mohtasib recommend the termination of a public servant's appointment under Article 11 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983?
  • Does Article 29 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 bar the High Court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the Ombudsman's order is ultra vires or without jurisdiction?
  • Is a constitutional petition against an Ombudsman's order barred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the dispute concerns direct appointment rather than terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Gujar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1389 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Butt vs Returning Officer Gujramvala1993 MLD 2496 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Baig vs The State1993 MLD 567 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs The State1993 MLD 375 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Pakistan Railways and others1993 MLD 150 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 2342 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The Superintendent of Police and 2 others1993 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-13
  service appealnecessary partynon-impleadmentdismissal in limineservice tribunalremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal in limine on the ground of non-impleadment of the Reporting Officer as a necessary party. The core legal question examined was whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police was a necessary party whose non-impleadment warranted the dismissal of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of dismissal was not sustainable, noting that the competent authority was duly impleaded and that the Tribunal had ample power to direct the impleadment of any necessary party rather than dismissing the appeal outright. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded to the Tribunal for a re-hearing. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal should direct the impleadment of a necessary party rather than dismissing an appeal in limine for such an omission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police was at all a necessary party when the allegation is that he was not the Reporting Officer?
  • Whether the non-impleadment of Deputy Superintendent of Police could entail dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State and 3 others1993 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), KarachiPTCL 1993 CL. 178 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Syed Ghulam Murtaza and others1993 CLC 185 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03
  civil revisionappellate court judgmentremand of caseburden of proofdocumentary evidencenon-production of original document
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the applicant's suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning an immovable property. The core legal question revolves around whether the lower appellate court properly evaluated the evidence, particularly regarding an unexhibited photocopy of a settlement authority's order, and whether it fulfilled its legal duty to properly discuss evidence and findings on all issues. The Sindh High Court held that the first appellate court failed to properly scrutinize the evidence and record adequate reasons while reversing findings on certain issues, thereby violating appellate adjudication principles. The Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, specifically requiring compliance with procedural rules for appellate judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reverse findings of the trial court without discussing the relevant evidence and recording proper reasons?
  • Can a document not formally produced in evidence, but available on the record, be looked into by the court?
  • Whether an appellate judgment that fails to comply with the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Duarriyaman and another1993 PLD Peshawar 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-14
  bail cancellationprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemQisas and DiyatDamannotice to complainantprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition moved under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad. The core legal question was whether an accused person whose offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) can be granted bail upon an offer of depositing 'Daman' without serving notice upon the State and the complainant. The Peshawar High Court held that while bail may ordinarily be granted for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the principles of natural justice—specifically the maxim audi alteram partem—require that both the State and the complainant be given notice and an opportunity of being heard before any favourable order regarding bail is passed, particularly under the legal dispensation introduced by the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance 1992. The Court accordingly cancelled the bail order passed without notice, remanded the accused to custody, and permitted him to file a fresh bail application to be decided after notice to the opposing parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the State and the complainant are entitled to a notice before bail is granted to an accused whose offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to issue notice to the complainant and the State vitiate an order granting bail upon the deposit of 'Daman' under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance?
  • Are principles of natural justice applicable to judicial proceedings that result in consequences affecting the liberty or rights of parties even if not expressly mentioned in the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs District Judge, Lahore and 6 others1993 PLD Lahore 566 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Abdur Rehman1993 CLC 1875 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14
  refereearbitratorstatement of refereeevidence act section 20qanun-e-shahadat article 33civil revisionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of consolidated judgments of the lower courts decreeing suits based on the statement of a referee appointed under Section 20 of the Evidence Act/Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The core legal question was whether the appointed advocate acted as a referee or as an arbitrator when he inspected the spot, examined witnesses, perused records, and divided the disputed property. The Lahore High Court held that a referee is only authorized to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief and cannot conduct a roving inquiry, examine witnesses, or render an adjudicatory decision akin to an arbitrator. Since the referee exceeded his mandate by conducting an inquiry and deciding title, the lower courts acted with material illegality. The revision petitions were accepted, the judgments and decrees were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the trial court for a decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to abide by the statement of a particular person amounts to a reference to arbitration or a compromise?
  • Can a referee appointed under Section 20 of the Evidence Act examine witnesses and conduct a roving inquiry to decide a dispute?
  • What is the distinction between the functions of a referee and an arbitrator under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Abdul Majid and others1993 MLD 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Sheikh vs Messrs Aeroflot Air Lines, Lahore and another1993 CLC 555 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Sheikh vs (M/s.) Aeroflot Air Lines WAPDA House,K.L.R.1993 Civil Cases 292 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 8 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faryad vs Muhammad Asif1993 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicesummonsprocess-serverlimitation perioddate of knowledgewrit jurisdictionadjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges concurrent orders of the lower courts setting aside an ex parte decree passed against respondent No. 1 in a suit for possession. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 1 was duly served with summons, justifying substituted service and ex parte proceedings, and whether his application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was within time. The Lahore High Court held that the process-server's failure to independently verify the defendant's identity or affix summons to the outer door invalidated the substituted service, meaning the limitation period started from the date of knowledge rather than the decree date. Upholding the lower courts' findings, the High Court emphasized that law favors adjudication on merits and declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a process-server to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door vitiates substituted service?
  • Does the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree run from the date of the decree or the date of knowledge when proper service is not established?
  • Can a high court interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of service of summons?
  • Is a want of due and proper service a sufficient ground by itself for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Other vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Local Government & Rural Development Department, Lahore And 2 To 267 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 51 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and another vs Inayat Ali1993 CLC 576 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29
  civil revisiondamages for civil suitcondonation of delaylimitationvoid decreemalicious prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a judgment and decree passed by the trial court awarding damages to the respondent for the filing of a previous frivolous civil suit by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a time-barred appeal before the District Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, which the lower appellate court dismissed on the grounds of insufficient cause and unexplained delay. In the revision petition, the petitioners contended that the trial court's decree was void and without jurisdiction as a civil suit for damages for filing a civil action is not maintainable, and thus limitation does not bar its challenge. The Lahore High Court held that even a void order must be challenged within the period of limitation, and the petitioners failed to cross the bar of limitation. The Court further clarified that a suit for damages arising out of the filing of a civil suit is maintainable under certain conditions, specifically requiring allegations of false and malicious prosecution and special damages. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Must a void order or decree be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages on account of the filing of a previous civil suit?
  • What are the essential conditions for maintaining a suit for damages arising out of the institution of a civil suit?
  • Does the failure of a counsel to inform a client about the passing of a judgment constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf alias Ashram vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 686 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-19
  summoning of accusedcolumn 2 of challanpolice reportrelease under section 169 Cr.P.C.criminal revisiontrial court powerscognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Sessions Court summoning the petitioner, who was placed in column No. 2 of the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during investigation, to stand trial alongside his co-accused in a case under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused placed in column 2 and released by the police can be legally summoned by the trial court to face trial. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a Sessions Judge is fully competent to summon an accused person placed in column 2 of the challan upon taking cognizance and receiving the case, regardless of whether the police released them under section 169 or whether the release was challenged by the complainant or the State. The key principle laid down is that police release during investigation is a provisional arrangement, and the trial court retains the legal authority to summon any accused whose name appears in the police report if a prima facie case is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person placed in column No. 2 of the report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be legally summoned by the Sessions Judge to stand trial?
  • Does the release of an accused by the police under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the trial court from summoning him to face trial?
  • Is the State or the complainant legally required to challenge an accused's release under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the trial court can summon him?
  • Whether the Sessions Judge is required to pass a detailed speaking order when summoning an accused placed in column No. 2 of the challan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Raja and others1993 CLC 344 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Rafiq1993 CLC 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1993 MLD 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2460 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashaq vs Azizurrahman and 2 others1993 CLC 2293 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-07-06
  rent restrictionstriking off defencewilful defaultconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationrent depositejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the appellate order upholding the Rent Controller's decision to strike off the petitioner's defense for failing to deposit rent by the 10th of the month. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller correctly interpreted the deadline for rent deposits under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent on time constituted "wilful default." The Court held that the Rent Controller erred by mandating the 10th, as the statute specifies the 15th of the succeeding month. Furthermore, the Court determined that the tenant's delay was not "wilful default" because administrative obstacles beyond the tenant's control prevented the deposit. The judgment establishes that "default" requires an element of negligence or fault, not mere non-compliance. Additionally, it affirms that legal questions going to the root of a case, such as statutory interpretation, may be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction, even if not previously argued before lower tribunals. The impugned orders were declared to be of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'rent due' in Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 refer to the 15th of the succeeding month?
  • Can a tenant's failure to deposit rent due to administrative delays and bank closure be classified as 'wilful default' warranting the striking off of their defence?
  • Is a legal question that goes to the root of a case permissible to be raised for the first time in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the word 'default' in the context of rent legislation require proof of negligence or fault beyond mere non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1909 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-06-24
  counterfeit currencypossession of heroinProhibition Orderdestruction of contrabandexpert evidencecriminal appealsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for possessing counterfeit currency and under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing heroin, receiving concurrent sentences. The core legal questions addressed were whether a certificate issued by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of Pakistan regarding counterfeit notes is admissible without examining the maker, and whether the destruction of bulk contraband without the trial court's specific permission vitiates the conviction for the remaining proven quantity. The Federal Shariat Court held that the State Bank Chief Manager's certificate is not covered by section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and requires formal testimony to be admissible, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction under section 489-C. However, the Court held that seeking destruction permission from a magistrate rather than the trial court was a mere irregularity that did not vitiate the proceedings regarding the remaining heroin. Consequently, the conviction for narcotics possession was upheld, though the sentence was reduced.

  Questions settled

  • Is a certificate issued by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of Pakistan regarding counterfeit currency admissible in evidence without examining him as a witness?
  • Does the destruction of bulk contraband narcotics without the express permission of the trial court vitiate the trial and proceedings for the remaining seized quantity?
  • Whether obtaining permission for the destruction of contraband from a magistrate instead of the trial court is an illegality or a mere irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Habibullah and 2 others1993 MLD 554 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar alias Kala vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 661 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Shabbir Ahmad and another1993 PLD Revenue 41 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 753 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs Nawab Ali1993 SCMR 1318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-19
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionowner of the estateland revenuecompulsory acquisitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises out of a pre-emption suit decreed through all courts in favor of the respondent. The petitioners challenged the respondent's right of pre-emption on the ground that the bulk of his land in the estate had been acquired by the Government for a housing scheme, leaving him with only a fraction of 5 marlas adjacent to the scheme, which they argued did not qualify him as an owner of the estate. The core legal question was whether an owner left with a small remaining holding of 5 marlas, still recorded in the jamabandi as an owner paying land revenue, retains the status of an owner of the estate for pre-emption purposes. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent remained an owner paying land revenue, distinguishing the cited case law where the small plots in question were unassessed to revenue and uncultivated. The principle laid down is that ownership and assessment to land revenue in the record of rights determine the status of an owner of the estate, regardless of the smallness of the remaining holding following compulsory acquisition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an owner of land whose holding is largely acquired by the Government retain the right of pre-emption based on a remaining fraction of land?
  • Whether owning a small parcel of land unassessed to land revenue disqualifies a person from being regarded as an owner of the estate?
  • Does a pre-emptor recorded as an owner in the jamabandi and paying land revenue maintain their status as an owner in the estate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2384 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1953 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-10
  criminal appealnarcoticsheroin recoverychemical examiner reportsafe custody of contrabandbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-11-1992 passed by the Section 30 Magistrate, Sheikhupura, whereby the appellant was convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years along with stripes and fine. The core legal question in the case relates to the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding the safe custody and delayed transmission of the recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner. The Federal Shariat Court held that where prosecution witnesses are silent regarding the safe custody of the contraband during the period between its recovery and its transmission to the expert, and there is unexplained delay in sending the same, the Chemical Examiner's report cannot be relied upon, casting grave doubt on the prosecution case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained when the chain of custody of the recovered substance is unproven?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt arising from missing links in prosecution evidence entitles the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Obaidullah Khan1993 MLD 2227 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Muhammad Raza1993 PLD Lahore 121 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22
  default in rent depositchallan form errorcontumacystriking off defenceurban rent restrictionlandlord and tenanteviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance challenges the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge directing the appellant-tenant's eviction for allegedly defaulting on an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The appellant had regularly deposited the rent in the government treasury as ordered, but mistakenly filled in his own name in both column 1 and column 2 (designation of person on whose behalf money is paid) of the challan forms instead of the landlord's name. The core legal question was whether an incorrect entry in column 2 of a rent deposit challan form constitutes a contumacious default warranting the striking off of the defense and summary eviction. The Lahore High Court held that default under section 13(6) requires an element of negligence, fault, or contumacious intentional disobedience rather than mere clerical or technical non-compliance. The Court ruled that since the tenant admitted the landlord's title and had no motive to conceal it, the error was attributable to the scribe and was a mere technical irregularity rather than a deliberate default, especially as deposits are subject to the Rent Controller's final orders. The appeal was accepted and the matter remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an incorrect entry in column 2 of a rent deposit challan form automatically constitutes a contumacious default under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does a tenant's failure to mention the landlord's name in the challan form warrant the striking off of the defense without a finding of deliberate disobedience?
  • Whether the term 'default' in section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance imports an element of negligence or avoidable fault?
  • Can a clerical or technical error committed by a scribe in filling out a rent deposit challan form be excused as a mere irregularity rather than a penal non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and 2 others1993 CLC 2468 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and anothers vs The State and another1993 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-15
  coram non judicetemporary statuteexpiry of legislationspecial courtspending proceedingsstatutory interpretationsaving clausejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment declaring a Special Court's conviction coram non judice due to the expiry of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987. The core legal question was whether pending criminal proceedings could continue after the expiry of the temporary legislation governing the Special Court. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was invalid, as the Special Court lacked jurisdiction once the Act and its extending Ordinance expired. The Court established a critical distinction between permanent and temporary statutes. While Article 264 of the Constitution preserves pending proceedings upon the repeal of permanent laws, temporary statutes expire by their own force. In the absence of an express saving clause within the temporary legislation to preserve pending matters, all proceedings instituted under such an Act ipso facto terminate upon its expiry. Because the Act in question lacked such a provision, the Special Court’s authority ceased upon the lapse of the Ordinance, rendering subsequent judgments void. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of a permanent statute under Article 264 of the Constitution affect pending legal proceedings?
  • Do proceedings instituted under a temporary statute continue after the statute expires in the absence of a specific saving clause?
  • Is a judgment rendered by a Special Court after the expiry of the temporary legislation establishing it considered coram non judice?
  • What is the legal effect of the expiry of an Ordinance that was not approved by the Parliament within the four-month period prescribed by Article 89 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arbi vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Rawalpindi1993 SCMR 2091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-21
  contractual penaltyliquidated damagesbreach of contractreasonable compensationforest department agreementSection 74 Contract Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a contractual dispute between the appellant and the Forest Department regarding the imposition of a penalty for the unauthorized felling of trees. Under the terms of the agreement, the appellant was liable for penalties for illegally cut trees, which the Forest Department assessed at ten times the sale price. The appellant challenged this penalty in a suit for declaration and injunction, arguing that the clause was punitive and unenforceable under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld the decision while reducing the penalty to five times the sale price. The High Court affirmed this judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to provide evidence regarding actual damages or to demonstrate that the penalty was unreasonable. The Court found that in the absence of evidence to prove actual loss, the courts below had correctly exercised discretion in fixing reasonable compensation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as no substantial point of law was established.

  Questions settled

  • Is a penalty clause in a contract automatically void if it stipulates a sum significantly higher than the actual loss?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the party challenging a penalty clause to demonstrate that the stipulated amount is not reasonable compensation?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a penalty stipulated in a contract if the actual damages are difficult to ascertain?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 900 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Syed Muhammad Sadiq1993 CLC 1819 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-29
  default in rentelectricity billsSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceevictionrent appealdeposit of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant on various grounds including default in payment of rent and electricity bills. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant committed a default in the payment of monthly rent and electricity bills. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant was regularly depositing rent in the office of the Rent Controller due to strained relations and refusal of the landlord, and therefore no default was established regarding rent or electricity bills. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside. The key principle laid down is that where landlord-tenant relations are strained and rent has been regularly deposited in the Rent Controller's office, a tenant cannot be termed a defaulter simply because rent was not tendered personally, absent a demand or willingness by the landlord to accept it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be held to be a defaulter in payment of rent when depositing the same regularly before the Rent Controller due to strained relations with the landlord?
  • Does the failure to tender rent personally to the landlord constitute a default in rent when the landlord previously refused to accept it?
  • Whether electricity charges payable through a shared meter can form the basis of a valid eviction order on the ground of default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad and others1993 CLC 1851 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07
  constitutional petitionstatus quo orderillegal dispossessioncontempt of courtalternative remedycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by the petitioner alleging illegal dispossession from a plot in Katchi Abadi by the Municipal Corporation during the subsistence of status quo orders issued by civil courts in pending civil suits. The core legal question was whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 could be invoked for restoration of possession when alternate civil remedies and contempt proceedings for violation of status quo orders were already pending before the trial court. The Court held that since the petitioner had already availed an adequate and efficacious remedy by filing civil suits and contempt applications before the civil court, the constitutional petition was not maintainable for the same dispute. The key principle laid down is that where a party has already sought relief through civil suits and proceedings for the violation of status quo orders, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court will not be invoked to agitate the identical grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable when alternate civil suits and contempt proceedings regarding the same dispute are already pending?
  • Can a petitioner invoke writ jurisdiction for illegal dispossession in violation of a status quo order when the trial court is competent to grant relief?
  • Is a civil suit considered an adequate and efficacious remedy against dispossession during the subsistence of a status quo order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Masood Akhtar and others1993 MLD 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Bashiran Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Mengal, Manager Accounts and 13 others vs Privatisation Commission, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1993 PLD Queeta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-12-16
  privatisationconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaster and servanttermination of serviceemployment contracttransferee organization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of Chiltan Ghee Mills against the Privatisation Commission and a private transferee organization challenging their termination from service prior to the expiry of the twelve-month protection period stipulated in the privatisation agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the transferee organization was under a legal obligation to retain the employees for a minimum period of twelve months, and whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against a private limited company for the alleged breach of employment terms. The Balochistan High Court held that although the transferee organization was bound by the contract and statutory provisions to retain the employees for twelve months, a writ petition under Article 199 cannot be maintained against a private limited company or to remedy a breach of contract governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, the High Court declined the writ, leaving the petitioners to seek their remedy before a forum of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transferee organization of a privatized industrial unit is legally obligated to retain existing employees for the mandated minimum period?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 be maintained against a private limited company?
  • Does the principle of master and servant bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction for remedying wrongful termination of employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and anothers vs The State1993 SCMR 1991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-31
  review applicationsentence computationcriminal proceduresupreme court appealformal order correction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon review applications filed by the petitioners seeking the correction of a formal order to include the benefit of section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code in the computation of their sentences, which had been orally announced during the previous hearing of their petitions for special leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the rectification of a formal order to reflect the oral pronouncement granting the statutory benefit of sentence computation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that the review applications are to be allowed, converting the petitions into appeals and formally directing that the petitioners be granted the benefit of section 382-B in the computation of their sentences. The key principle laid down is that a formal judicial order may be corrected upon review to accurately reflect the pronouncement made regarding statutory sentence computation benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a formal order be corrected upon review to include the benefit of section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code when it was orally announced during the hearing?
  • Whether review applications are maintainable for the correction of formal orders regarding sentence computation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar alias Nanimar vs The State1993 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-26
  jail appealcriminal appealpendency of appealright of audienceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his jail criminal appeal by the Federal Shariat Court, while his separate appeal filed through an advocate remained pending. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of a jail appeal during the pendency of an appeal filed through counsel in the same court operates as a bar, and whether such dismissal is illegal. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the procedural propriety and jurisdictional impact of disposing of a jail appeal while a counseled appeal is pending, noting conflicting principles regarding the maintainability and hearing of multiple appeals filed by the same convict. The key principle revolves around ensuring adequate opportunity of hearing through counsel when concurrent appeals are on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether during the pendency of an appeal filed through an Advocate, the order dismissing a jail appeal will operate as a bar to hear the pending appeal filed through Advocate?
  • Whether the order of dismissal of a jail appeal passed during the pendency of an appeal filed through an Advocate in the same Court is illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ans and 4 others vs Akbar Ali and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ans And 4 Other vs Akbar Ali And 5 OtherK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1632 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31
  murderocular testimonycapital punishmentcommutation of sentenceres gestaecounter-reportcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of three appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the admissibility of a counter-report lodged by one of the accused as corroborative evidence, and whether the absence of previous enmity warranted a reduction in sentence. The Court held that the ocular testimony was credible, as minor contradictions and improvements did not undermine the core facts, and the presence of the witnesses was corroborated by the counter-report. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a counter-report, being part of the same transaction, is relevant under the doctrine of res gestae. While maintaining the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, establishing that the absence of previous enmity and the inability to ascribe the fatal blow to a specific individual are extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser penalty. The Court also granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a counter-report lodged by an accused be used as corroborative evidence against co-accused?
  • Does the absence of previous enmity between the accused and the deceased justify a lesser sentence than death?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when it is unclear which specific accused delivered the fatal blow?
  • Does the principle of falsus uno falsus in omnibus apply to criminal justice in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and others vs Allah Bakhsh and others1993 MLD 1510 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and others vs Abdul Hameed and others1993 MLD 1929 · Board of Revenue · 1993-05-27
  cooperative farming schemeconveyance deedinheritancenomineeboard of revenuecancellation of sale-deedpast and closed transactionfraud or misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a revision petition before the Board of Revenue seeking the cancellation of a conveyance deed under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, regarding state land originally allotted under a Cooperative Farming Scheme. The core legal question is whether the Board of Revenue should cancel a conveyance deed issued to a nominee after long delay where the petitioners allege the inheritance should have devolved under Muslim Law, and whether fraud or misrepresentation tainted the original allotment and nomination. The Board of Revenue held that the matter had been settled through multiple tiers of revenue authorities decades prior, that no fraud or misrepresentation was established, and that the petitioners had acquiesced and remained silent for twenty-four years, rendering the transaction past and closed. The key principle laid down is that while inheritance matters under Muslim Law are not strictly subject to limitation, the extraordinary revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under section 30(2) to cancel a conveyance deed cannot be invoked after decades of unexplained delay and acquiescence where the respondent's eligibility was duly validated through judicial and revenue forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Board of Revenue exercise its powers under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to cancel a conveyance deed after a prolonged delay of twenty-four years?
  • Does a nominee under the Cooperative Farming Scheme acquire valid tenancy rights when confirmed through appellate revenue authorities?
  • Whether the principle of limitation applies to matters of inheritance governed by Muslim Law when challenged through a revision petition for cancellation of a conveyance deed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs Government of Pakistan and others1993 PLD Karachi 656 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir represented by his Legal Heir vs Mst. Gaman Bibi and 81993 CLC 734 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 527 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Maqbool Ahmad1993 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-06
  pre-emptioncollusive suitbenami transactionwaiver of pre-emptionminor plaintiffburden of proofconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by a minor son against his uncle, the vendee, regarding agricultural land sold by the minor's father. The defendant contended that the suit was collusive and benami, alleging it was orchestrated by the father to renege on the sale, and that the plaintiff had waived his right of pre-emption by his presence at the transaction. The trial court, affirmed by the appellate courts, decreed the suit, rejecting the defendant's claims due to lack of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that allegations of collusion and benami transactions in pre-emption suits must be established by strong, incontrovertible evidence. The Court affirmed that a minor plaintiff's lack of personal income or financial support from a parent does not, by itself, prove collusion or render the suit benami. Additionally, the Court clarified that mere presence at the time of a sale does not constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption. The judgment underscores that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the absence of collusion will not be disturbed without compelling evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit filed by a minor be dismissed as collusive simply because the litigation is financed by the minor's parent?
  • Does the mere presence of a potential pre-emptor at the time of a sale transaction constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish that a pre-emption suit is a collusive or benami transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Ghulam Muhammad1993 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08
  leave to defendpromissory noteexecution of documentconsiderationsummary suitsettlement of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby the appellant's application for leave to appear and defend a recovery suit based on a pronote was dismissed and the suit decreed. The core legal question is whether the mere admission of signatures on a promissory note constitutes an admission of its execution and passing of consideration so as to justify refusing leave to defend under summary procedure. The Lahore High Court held that the expression 'execution' requires proof that the executant signed after understanding the contents, and where a specific plea of lack of consideration and ongoing business dealings (poultry feed accounts) is raised, an admission of mere signatures does not warrant an outright decree without inquiry. Furthermore, an admission must be considered as a whole. The court laid down the principle that mere presence of signatures does not equal execution when consideration is disputed, and cases requiring settlement of accounts necessitate granting leave to defend to allow evidence to be recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere admission of signatures on a promissory note amount to an admission of its execution?
  • Whether an admission made by a party can be used piecemeal to pass a judgment and decree?
  • Is a defendant entitled to leave to appear and defend a summary suit when a bona fide plea regarding lack of consideration and ongoing business dealings is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. vs Administrator of Karachi1993 MLD 849 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03
  octroitransit passcustoms bonded warehousere-exportmunicipal taxationnoscitur a sociisinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners imported goods into Pakistan under valid import licenses for the express purpose of re-exporting them to Iran. These goods were held in a Customs bonded warehouse upon arrival. The petitioners sought a transit pass from the respondent municipal authorities to move the goods out of the warehouse for re-export without paying octroi. The respondents refused, arguing that the contract of sale between the petitioners and the Iranian buyers, having been concluded in Karachi, constituted a 'sale' within the octroi limits, thereby attracting the tax. The Court held that the definition of 'octroi' in the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, refers to a tax on goods imported for consumption, use, or sale within octroi limits. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, the Court determined that 'sale' in this context implies actual delivery and consumption within the limits, not merely a contract of sale executed therein. Since the goods were destined for export and not for local consumption or use, the respondents lacked the authority to levy octroi. The Court declared the refusal to issue a transit pass without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract of sale executed within municipal limits for goods destined for export constitute a 'sale' for the purposes of levying octroi?
  • Under the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules 1964, does the term 'sale' in the definition of octroi imply actual delivery and consumption within the octroi limits?
  • Can municipal authorities levy octroi on goods held in a Customs bonded warehouse that are intended for direct re-export?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Khan and 6 others vs The Central Government of Pakistan through Central Board of Revenue_Chief Land Commissioner, Islamabad and 18 others1993 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-16
  civil revisionland reformsouster of jurisdictionconsent decreereturn of plaintLand Commissionbona fide transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from two suits where the plaintiffs claimed ownership of land based on consent decrees passed in 1969. They challenged the subsequent resumption of the land under Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 115) and the mutations attested in favor of private respondents. The trial court and the appellate court returned the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that civil courts lacked jurisdiction due to the bar contained in Paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The Peshawar High Court, in dismissing the revision petitions, held that the Land Commission possesses exclusive jurisdiction to determine the bona fides and validity of land transactions under the Regulation. The Court ruled that even where a transaction is backed by a civil court consent decree, the final authority to decide its validity under the land reform laws rests solely with the Land Commission. Consequently, the civil courts' jurisdiction was completely ousted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 in respect of matters within the exclusive domain of the Land Commission?
  • Is the Land Commission bound by a consent decree passed by a civil court when determining the validity of a land transaction under the Land Reforms Regulation?
  • Under what conditions can the statutory ouster of civil court jurisdiction be bypassed when an order of a special tribunal is challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and others vs Malik Makhdoom Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 3 others vs Muhammad Usman Khan and 4 others1993 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-01
  pre-emptionvendee statusimprovement of titlepre-emption suitexchange of landcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of land. The appellants, as successors-in-interest to the original pre-emptor, challenged the respondents' ability to defeat the pre-emption claim by improving their status through a subsequent acquisition of land. The appellants contended that because the original vendees had exchanged the suit property with a third party before the pre-emption suit was filed, they lost their status as vendees and could no longer rely on improvements to their title to defeat the pre-emption claim. The Supreme Court held that the original vendees retained their status as 'vendee-defendants' under Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, regardless of the subsequent exchange. The Court reasoned that the vendees maintained a vital interest in protecting the original sale to fulfill their obligations to the transferee. Consequently, the vendees were entitled to improve their status before the suit's institution to defeat the pre-emptor's claim. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the vendees could validly resist the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vendee who transfers the pre-empted property via exchange before the institution of a pre-emption suit lose their status as a 'vendee-defendant'?
  • Can a vendee improve their status to defeat a pre-emption claim after transferring the property to a third party?
  • Is a subsequent transferee from an original vendee a necessary party to a pre-emption suit concerning the original sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 3 others vs Gulab and another1993 CLC 98 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06
  pre-emptionTalb-i-IshhadTalb-i-Muwathibatcivil revisionstatutory interpretationmandatory requirementsattestation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed a pre-emption suit due to the plaintiffs' failure to properly perform Talbs and establish Zaroorat. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement under Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance/Act, mandating that a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad be "attested by two truthful witnesses," could be satisfied through oral attestation or if it required written attestation on the document. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the requirement for a notice attested by two truthful witnesses is mandatory and necessitates written attestation by the witnesses on the document itself. The Court emphasized that the right of pre-emption is a "feeble right," and statutory formalities for its exercise must be strictly observed. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established legal principle that where a statute prescribes a specific method for performing an act, that method must be followed exclusively, and failure to comply with such mandatory requirements is fatal to the enforcement of a pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of attestation by two truthful witnesses for a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption laws permit oral attestation?
  • Is the requirement of sending a registered notice attested by two witnesses for Talb-i-Ishhad mandatory for the enforcement of a pre-emption claim?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to strictly observe the formalities required for the exercise of the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 2025 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin alias Sher Agha vs Haji Muhammad Din1993 PLD Queeta 105 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-23
  evictionlandlord-tenant relationshipdenial of titlerent defaultremandtenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an eviction order passed by the Civil Judge/Controller, Quetta, directing the appellant to vacate a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal use. The appellant contested the eviction, denying the respondent's ownership while admitting to paying rent to the respondent on behalf of a third party. The core legal question was whether the appellant's denial of the respondent's ownership in the written statement constituted a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship, thereby justifying immediate eviction. The High Court held that the appellant did not deny the liability to pay rent or the respondent's status as a landlord for rent collection purposes, but merely sought clarification regarding ownership. Relying on the principle that a tenant's denial of a landlord's title is not malicious if the tenant admits the liability to pay rent with an explanation, the Court found the Controller's findings on the relationship issue unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the eviction order set aside, and the case remanded for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's denial of a landlord's ownership in a written statement automatically constitute a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Under what circumstances does a tenant's denial of a landlord's title not constitute a malicious act warranting eviction?
  • Is a tenant liable for immediate dispossession if they admit the liability to pay rent while questioning the landlord's ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin & Etc. vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Shariat Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aman alias Pino vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 690 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf and others vs Muzaffar Hussain and others1993 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-26
  criminal appealmurder convictionsentence enhancementmitigating circumstancesacquittal of co-accusedappellate interferencere-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved four criminal appeals arising from a murder trial where eleven individuals were initially charged. Following a trial, nine were convicted, but the Lahore High Court subsequently acquitted six of them, citing grave doubts regarding their participation, while maintaining the convictions of the remaining three appellants. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants were entitled to acquittal because co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, and whether the complainant was entitled to an enhancement of the sentence for the principal accused. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellants was well-founded based on the evidence, and the High Court’s re-appraisal of the evidence was proper. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed the commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment for the principal accused, noting his young age at the time of the occurrence. The key principles laid down are that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless misreading of evidence is demonstrated, and that age is a valid mitigating factor for sentencing in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence automatically entitle the remaining convicts to acquittal?
  • Is the young age of an accused at the time of the occurrence a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 234 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 497 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Superintendent Jail and others1993 P Cr. L J 1145 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Sikandar Hayat and 2 others1993 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-15
  culpable homicideintention to killenhancement of sentencecriminal appealmurder convictionnon-vital injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a criminal matter where the High Court had altered the convictions of the respondents from murder (Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860), reasoning that the firing at non-vital body parts (thighs) indicated a lack of intent to kill. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was legally justified in reducing the conviction when the evidence showed the assailants fired with lethal weapons at victims on a motorcycle. The Supreme Court held that the fact that the shots struck the thighs was a matter of chance and did not negate the clear intention to kill. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the original convictions under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 307/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while modifying the death sentence of one respondent to life imprisonment. The principle established is that firing with lethal weapons at victims, even if striking non-vital parts, demonstrates an intent to kill, precluding a reduction to culpable homicide.

  Questions settled

  • Does firing at a non-vital part of the body with a lethal weapon necessarily negate the intention to commit murder?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be reduced to Section 304, Part II, solely because the injuries were inflicted on the thighs?
  • Is the appellate court justified in restoring a trial court's conviction when the High Court's reduction of the charge was based on an erroneous inference regarding the assailant's intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Jamil Ahmed1993 MLD 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs District Council, Gujrat and another1993 MLD 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07
  auction bidconcluded contractwithdrawal of biddelegation of powersearnest moneyconstitutional petitionlocal council
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the retention of the petitioner's earnest money by the District Council, Gujrat, following an auction for collecting fees on the transfer of immovable properties. The core legal questions revolved around whether a concluded contract came into being when the bidder retracted his offer before acceptance, and whether the power to accept an auction bid could be delegated by a local council to its chairman under the relevant local government laws. The Lahore High Court held that a bid at an auction is merely an offer that does not mature into a binding contract until its acceptance is communicated by a competent authority, and that the bidder is entitled to withdraw the bid prior to such communication. Furthermore, the Court held that under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990, the power to accept or reject an auction bid vests exclusively in the Zila Council itself and cannot be delegated to the Chairman. Consequently, since the bid was never accepted by the competent authority and was validly retracted by the petitioner before any purported approval, no concluded contract was formed, rendering the retention of the earnest money unlawful. The petition was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bid made at an auction constitutes a completed contract before its formal acceptance and communication by a competent authority?
  • Can a bidder legally retract or withdraw an auction bid prior to the communication of its acceptance?
  • Does the power to accept or reject an auction bid under the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990 vest in the Zila Council or can it be lawfully delegated to the Chairman?
  • Are local authorities justified in retaining earnest money when no concluded contract has materialized between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Abdul Hamid and others1993 CLC 510 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs A.C./Registration Officer and others1993 CLC 1845 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Hashmi vs Syed Sultan Ahmed Rizvi and others1993 CLC.935 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Butt vs Azhar Ahmad and others1993 CLC 613 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam and anothers vs Azizurrehman and others1993 CLC 2279 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 109 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Municipal Corporation, FaisalabadK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Customs Cases 31 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmed1993 SCMR 1355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-05
  landlord and tenantejectmentconcurrent findingsrent restrictionleave to appealvacation of premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed in limine the petitioner's Second Appeal against concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, given the petitioner's claim of ownership based on a rent receipt for ground rent paid to the Lahore Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the three lower courts regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship were supported by the evidence on record. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the ground rent receipt, noting it was obtained during the pendency of proceedings and failed to disprove the respondent's case. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. However, by consent of the parties, the Court granted the petitioner six months to vacate the premises, subject to specific conditions regarding the payment of rent and arrears, and the surrender of possession without further litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship by producing a ground rent receipt obtained during the pendency of ejectment proceedings?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs A.S.P.1993 P Cr. L J 2246 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Boora vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 329 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →