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 Sharif vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23
  narcoticsheroin possessionbail applicationcognizable offencechemical examinationProhibition Ordersearch and seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, who was arrested following the recovery of eighty grams of heroin from his possession during a raid at the house of a co-accused. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of false implication, lack of commercial intent, non-cognizability of the alleged offences, and procedural violations under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the possession of eighty grams of heroin attracted the provisions of Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, whether the offence was cognizable, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the quantity sent for chemical examination. The Court held that the quantity recovered militated against the argument of personal consumption, thereby attracting Article 3, which is a cognizable offence. The Court further held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to this search and that the prosecution is not limited to the quantity sent for chemical analysis. The petition for bail was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of eighty grams of heroin fall under Article 3 or Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
  • Are searches conducted under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 subject to the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused liable only for the quantity of narcotics sent for chemical examination, or for the total quantity recovered?
  • Is the offence of possessing narcotics under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 a cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Returning Officer1992 CLC 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Sharif1992 SCMR 1129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-02
  pre-emptionsaving clausestatutory interpretationremandrepeal of statutecivil procedurepending proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the plaint was rejected for deficient court fees. The High Court had set aside a remand order, relying on Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali. The core legal question was whether the suit could proceed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act IX of 1991, specifically interpreting the saving clause in Section 34(2). The Supreme Court held that Section 34(2) applies to pre-emption cases where judgments and decrees were passed before August 1, 1986, and proceedings remained pending upon the enactment of the 1991 Act. Crucially, the Court determined that the term 'judgments and decrees' in Section 34(2) is not restricted to those favoring the pre-emptor but encompasses all such orders, including those against the pre-emptor. Consequently, the Court ruled that the suit could be governed and continued under the provisions of the repealed 1913 Act. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, establishing that new statutory provisions override previous judicial interpretations regarding the scope of saving clauses.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act IX of 1991 apply to pre-emption cases where judgments and decrees were passed before August 1, 1986?
  • Does the term 'judgments and decrees' in Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act IX of 1991 include orders passed against the plaintiff pre-emptor?
  • Can a suit for pre-emption, where the plaint was rejected for deficient court fees, be continued under the provisions of the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, if proceedings were pending when the 1991 Act came into force?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Shafique and 2 others1992 CLC 2476 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mehbub Alam and 4 others1992 MLD 37 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sheikh vs District Health Offi( .R, Mi Tan And 4 Other1992 PLD Lahore 415 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-17
  fundamental rightsfreedom of tradedrug sale licensequalified dispenserpharmacist registrationunreasonable restrictionlicensing regulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Secretary-General of the Dispensers Association, Punjab, challenging the validity of Rule 20 of the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988. The petitioner sought a declaration that the requirement for dispensers to be registered as pharmacists under the Pharmacy Act, 1967, to obtain a drug sale license was unconstitutional. The core legal question was whether mandating that a person must be a registered pharmacist to obtain a license for the simple sale of drugs constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to engage in a lawful trade or business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the business of selling drugs does not involve manufacturing or administration, and requiring a dispenser to qualify as a pharmacist imposes an unreasonable, arbitrary restriction. Consequently, the Court declared Rule 20(2) of the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988, void as violative of Article 18. The principle established is that while the state may regulate trade through licensing, it cannot impose qualifications that effectively deprive citizens of their right to earn a livelihood by conflating the requirements of a profession with those of a trade.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for a drug seller to be a registered pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act 1967 constitute an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the state impose professional qualification requirements on a trade or business under the guise of licensing regulations?
  • Is a rule requiring a dispenser to become a registered pharmacist to obtain a drug sale license violative of the fundamental right to enter upon a lawful profession or business?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Khan vs Muhammad AliK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Khan vs Mst. Manzoora Begum1992 CLC 22 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-02-14
  restoration of suitdismissal for defaultlimitation periodexclusion of timeinherent powersbona fide mistakeproclamation fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the order of the Sub-Judge, Dhirkote, which restored a suit previously dismissed for non-appearance and failure to deposit proclamation fees. The core legal question was whether the trial court could condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the dismissal order by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, despite the absence of a separate, formal application for such condonation, and whether the time spent in pursuing an incompetent appeal before the District Judge and the High Court could be excluded. The High Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion. The ratio is that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is a mandatory provision, and its benefits are available to a party upon a mere reference to the subject matter in the main application, without requiring a separate formal application. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the trial court has the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to ensure justice and rectify procedural errors, particularly where the initial dismissal was based on a bona fide mistake of law regarding the remedy available.

  Questions settled

  • Is a separate application required to invoke the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, or is a reference in the main application sufficient?
  • Does the court have the authority under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restore a suit dismissed for default when the dismissal order was based on a procedural misunderstanding?
  • Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent appeal be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application to set aside a dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-23
  Special Courtsuppression of terrorist activitiesjurisdictionKlarnikovright of private defenceattempted culpable homicidesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Judge of the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Special Court over the alleged offence and whether the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence. The Sindh High Court held that the Special Court had jurisdiction because the appellant was armed with a Klashnikov, bringing the case within the schedule of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. On the merits, the Court found that although the appellant had a right to resist the forcible closure of his shop by a procession, he exceeded the right of private defence by resorting to indiscriminate firing when there was no apprehension of death or grievous hurt. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from section 307 to section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a prohibited bore weapon like a Klashnikov during an incident confer jurisdiction on a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence under section 96 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the plea is supported by circumstances proved by the prosecution even if not specifically raised?
  • Does a shopkeeper have the right to resist an attempt by a mob to forcibly close his shop?
  • When does the use of a firearm in response to a non-violent protest exceed the right of private defence and fall under section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham Alias Sona vs Thestate .1992 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1476 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft vs The State1992 P Cr: L J 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft Khan and another vs Ghulam Din and 4 others1992 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 58 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft and others vs Sher Muhammad through his Legal Heirs1992 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft and 19 others vs Muhammad Arshad and 3 others1992 CLC 639 · Board of Revenue · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 326 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Khan and others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)1992 CLC 372 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The. State1992 P Cr. L J 2232 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2606 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1992 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-07
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailsuo motutheftcriminal appealWAPDA property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the petitioner's bail on suo motu notice. The petitioner, Muhammad Shafi, was implicated in a case involving the theft of WAPDA transformers, allegedly involving other WAPDA employees and a contractor. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the cancellation of the petitioner's bail by the High Court was justified given the circumstances of his alleged involvement. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R. and no recovery was made from him. While acknowledging the allegations involving sections 380, 411, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 14 of the Offence of Theft (Hadd) Ordinance 1979, the Court held that the petitioner's culpability required determination through trial evidence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's cancellation order, and confirmed the petitioner's bail, emphasizing that for the purposes of pre-trial release, the petitioner was entitled to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court cancel bail on suo motu notice without cogent reasons?
  • Is a person entitled to bail if they are not named in the F.I.R. and no recovery is made from them?
  • Does the absence of recovery and non-naming in the F.I.R. justify the grant of bail pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Sultan Mahmood and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Qazi Imtialulhassan and others1992 CLC 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muniran Bibi and others1992 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15
  custody of minorconstitutional jurisdictionpast and closed transactionfamily courtconsolidation of holdings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the Additional District Judge, Okara, which had set aside a Family Court order regarding the custody of a minor, Mst. Kashmiran. The dispute arose following the divorce of the petitioner and respondent, with the respondent seeking custody of the minor child. However, the judgment text provided is highly fragmented and appears to conflate the custody matter with unrelated observations regarding the 'Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance' and the concept of 'past and closed' transactions. The Court observed that the possessions had changed and the operation had concluded, rendering it unfair and unjust to reopen the case at this stage. Consequently, the Court held that the principles underlying the relevant Ordinance had been complied with, and no case was made out to warrant interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed on the basis that the matter was a past and closed transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in a custody matter where the underlying transaction is considered past and closed?
  • Does the principle of 'past and closed' transactions apply to custody disputes under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an appellate order of an Additional District Judge in a custody case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Deputy Superintendent of Police (Malik Gul1992 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-23
  forged documentcriminal procedurejurisdiction of policebar to cognizancepurposive constructioncivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Lahore High Court involved a reference to a larger Bench concerning the interpretation of section 195, subsection (1), clause (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically whether its bar against private complaints or police investigation applies to a document forged before the institution of a suit or proceeding in which it is subsequently produced or given in evidence. Reviewing conflicting judicial authorities from pre-partition India and various High Courts, Justice Fazal Karim examined both literal and purposive approaches to statutory construction. The Court held that section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies only to cases where the offence of forgery is committed by a party to a proceeding while that proceeding is pending, possessing a close nexus with the judicial process, and does not extend to documents forged prior to the institution of the suit. Consequently, the first referred question was answered in the negative, establishing that the police are not barred from registering and investigating a case regarding a pre-forged document simply because it was later produced in a civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 195, subsection (1), clause (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court but which had been forged before the institution of the suit or proceeding?
  • Does section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar the police from registering a case and investigating offences relating to documents forged prior to the commencement of judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Akbar Ali and 3 others1992 SCMR2462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-17
  leave to appeal against acquittalappraisal of evidencechance witnessgrave and sudden provocationalteration of convictionocular accountrecoveries
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the trial court's conviction of the respondents under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, acquitted Asghar Ali, and altered Akbar Ali's conviction to Section 304-II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought leave to challenge the acquittals and the reduction of the charge. The Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's findings, which had rejected the ocular account of chance witnesses, disbelieved the recoveries, and found the FIR to be belated following preliminary investigation. The core legal question was whether the High Court's reappraisal of evidence leading to acquittal and alteration of conviction warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusions were reasonable and based on the record, and since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings, leave to appeal must be refused. The established principle is that an appellate court's findings of fact leading to acquittal will not be interfered with unless no reasonable judge could have reached them.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in disbelieving the ocular testimony of chance witnesses?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  • Can a conviction be altered to a lesser charge based on the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Others vs The State1992 PCr. LJ 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Other vs Muhammad Arshad, Major And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 185 · Board of Revenue · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State1992 SCMR 2063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-01
  Hudood OrdinanceZinaConsentMedical ExaminationCriminal AppealSpeedy Trials CourtReduction of Sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 16 of the same Ordinance, rendered by a Special Court for Speedy Trials. The core legal question concerns whether the victim was a consenting party, thereby altering the nature of the offence from zina-bil-jabr to consensual zina, given her age and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence and conduct of the prosecutrix established she was a consenting party, making the offence fall under section 10(2) rather than section 10(3) of the Hudood Ordinance. The principle laid down is that where medical examination and attending circumstances indicate consent on the part of the prosecutrix in a zina case, the conviction is to be converted from subsection (3) to subsection (2) of section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, with a corresponding reduction in sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be converted to section 10(2) when consent is established?
  • Does the medical evidence of a prosecutrix showing she is sui juris and accustomed to sexual intercourse affect the determination of consent?
  • Can concurrent sentences and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be granted upon modification of a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 825 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Khan, In Re vs Not1992 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Alias Akhtar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1857 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1992 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-12
  interested witnessescorroborationcriminal appealmurder convictionappraisal of evidencemotivetestimony credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his step-uncle under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question concerned whether the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses, lacking independent corroboration, could sustain a conviction for murder. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts, which had accepted the testimony of prosecution witnesses despite the absence of proven motive and the rejection of recovery evidence. The Court held that while the rule of criminal jurisprudence generally requires corroboration for interested witnesses, such testimony may be relied upon if it rings true and is consistent throughout the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the appraisal of evidence regarding the presence of witnesses at the crime scene is a finding of fact and, absent illegality, is not subject to interference. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment, establishing that the failure to prove motive does not automatically invalidate the testimony of credible witnesses who are otherwise disinterested in the outcome of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested witnesses sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Is the failure to establish a motive for murder sufficient to invalidate the testimony of credible prosecution witnesses?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the presence of witnesses at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 35 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Superintendent of Police, Sialkot And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-19
  Service Tribunal jurisdictionsuo motu powersback benefitsdismissal from servicemisconductlimitationequitable jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the scope of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction to suo motu set aside an order not challenged before it. The appellant, a police officer dismissed for misconduct, was reinstated by the Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) following an acquittal in criminal proceedings. When the appellant approached the Service Tribunal regarding the calculation of back benefits, the Tribunal suo motu set aside the DIG’s reinstatement order, effectively restoring the original dismissal. The Supreme Court noted that while the Service Tribunal generally lacks jurisdiction to suo motu set aside an order not challenged before it, the Court declined to interfere. The Court reasoned that the DIG’s reinstatement order was patently illegal, time-barred, and based on an acquittal that did not exonerate the appellant of the underlying misconduct. Invoking the principle that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to perpetuate injustice or restore an illegal order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision to maintain the dismissal despite the procedural irregularity in the Tribunal's exercise of power.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal, while hearing an appeal regarding back benefits, suo motu set aside an earlier reinstatement order that was not challenged before it?
  • Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically entitle a civil servant to reinstatement in service?
  • Should the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction to restore an order that is patently illegal even if the lower forum exceeded its jurisdiction in setting it aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Messrs Metro Garments Industries, Karachi1992 PLC 1128 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Hamid Baig and others1992 CLC 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Director-General, K.D.A.1992 PLC 1253 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Administrator, Market Committee, Jampur1992 P Cr. L J 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid Taunt vs Messrs Shaheen Airport Services, Terminal1992 PLC 317 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir Anwar vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others1992 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-09
  leave to appealservice tribunalseniority listconsolidation staffappointment and confirmationestablishment merger
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against the recall of his confirmation order as a Junior Clerk. The core question was whether an employee appointed to the Consolidation Wing could be confirmed by the Commissioner as part of the permanent establishment of the Commissioner's office and included in its seniority list. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's findings of fact—that the petitioner remained an employee of the Consolidation Staff and that the Commissioner lacked the authority to confirm consolidation staff into the Commissioner's office establishment—were unexceptionable and justified the recall of the confirmation order. The Court laid down the principle that temporary service in a different wing does not merge an employee's cadre or establishment status with a separate permanent office, and no question of law of public importance arising, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the Consolidation Wing can be confirmed as a permanent employee of the Commissioner's Office?
  • Does temporary work in the Commissioner's office merge a Consolidation Wing employee's establishment with that of the Commissioner?
  • Whether the recall of an erroneous confirmation order by a competent authority is justified under service law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Waseer vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2533 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Chairman, PIA Corporation , .1992 PLC 810 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 11 others vs Municipal. Corporation, Bahawalpur1992 CLC 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadique And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2163 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Mian Ehsan-Ul-Haq CH.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 471 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Deputy Director, Food Department, Hyderabad1992 PLC 704 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Faqir Muhammad1992 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and anothers vs Muhammad Nawaz and 5 others1992 CLC 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadio vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2179 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Syed Musharraf Ali1992 SCMR 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14
  rent controlejectmentpersonal needleave to appealprocedural fairnessappellate jurisdictionjudgment of variance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of the landlord's personal need. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the landlord's application, finding the claim of personal need and bona fides unsubstantiated. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the tenant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, presenting documents suggesting the landlord had acquired alternative accommodation. The High Court dismissed this application without issuing notice to the landlord, reasoning that the documents lacked evidentiary value and no request was made to summon additional evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's refusal to consider the tenant's application or issue notice to the landlord regarding the new developments was potentially overly technical. The Court emphasized that in rent control proceedings, such procedural rigidity might be unjustified, especially when a judgment of variance is recorded for the first time on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court in rent control proceedings dismiss an application regarding new evidence without issuing notice to the opposing party?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to adopt a strictly technical approach to procedural applications in rent control cases where a judgment of variance is being considered?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir Qureshi vs Nadeem Armed Qureshi And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1503 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2532 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 334 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Other vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Education, Islamabad And Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-08
  service tribunalad hoc appointmentregularisationseniorityretrospective regularisation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal which had accepted an appeal filed by respondent No. 3 regarding seniority. The appellants were initially inducted as Trained Graduate Teachers on an ad hoc basis in 1976-77, regularised in 1980, and subsequently given retrospective regularisation linking it to their original date of induction in 1983, which adversely affected the seniority of respondent No. 3. The core legal question involved whether ad hoc appointees can be regularised with retrospective effect from their original date of induction, subject to vacancies and service conditions. The Supreme Court declined to enter into factual controversies regarding the existence of vacancies, holding that the Service Tribunal is the proper forum for resolving such factual and legal controversies. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the Service Tribunal to thoroughly examine and decide the issues framed by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there is any prohibition in law in regularising ad hoc appointees with effect from their original date of induction?
  • Is the Service Tribunal the proper forum for resolving factual controversies regarding the availability of vacancies for regularisation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Alias Billoo vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2258 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 342 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza- vs Haji Abdul Ghaffar And 6 Other1992 PLD Karachi 17 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-09
  temporary injunctionbreach of contractpecuniary compensationspecific performanceinterlocutory reliefcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from breaching a contract and to preserve leveling work performed on specific plots pending the final disposal of the suit. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction to prevent the alleged breach of contract and preserve the status quo of the work performed. The Court held that the application lacked merit and dismissed it. The ratio of the decision is that where a plaintiff has already quantified their alleged losses and damages in monetary terms, pecuniary compensation constitutes adequate relief, thereby precluding the necessity for an injunction. The Court laid down the principle that the grant of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is governed by the principles set forth in Sections 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, specifically regarding the adequacy of pecuniary compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Are temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 governed by the principles of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can an injunction be granted where the alleged loss or damage is quantifiable in monetary terms?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to an injunction to prevent a breach of contract when pecuniary compensation provides adequate relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf Khan vs Mir Sahib KhanK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf Anwar vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 729 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02
  summoning of witnessesadditional evidencefilling lacunajust decision of the casefair trialcriminal revisiondischarge orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed an application filed under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a murder trial. The application sought to bring on record attested copies of two First Information Reports and related discharge orders concerning a conspiracy allegation against certain accused persons. The trial judge had dismissed the application on the ground that it would fill a lacuna in the prosecution's case. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon or admit documents essential for a just decision under Section 540, Cr.P.C., on the pretext of filling a lacuna. The Lahore High Court held that Section 540 consists of a discretionary first part and a mandatory second part requiring the court to summon evidence if it appears essential for a just decision of the case. The High Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the primary duty of a court is to discover the truth, technicalities should not hinder justice, and the admission of such documents did not prejudice the defence since the facts were already part of the police report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose a mandatory duty on the court to summon evidence if it appears essential for a just decision of the case?
  • Whether the production of documents mentioned in a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prejudices the defence of the accused?
  • Can a trial court refuse to invoke its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground that it would fill a lacuna in the prosecution case?
  • Is the primary duty of a criminal court to seek the truth and arrive at a just decision notwithstanding technicalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Haji Abdur Rahim and 2 others1992 CLC 568 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid BUTTPetttioner vs Government of Pakistan1992 CLC 2219 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2372 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed Khan vs Sardar Sajawal Khan1992 CLC 1966 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1058 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-28
  Zina-bil-JabrQatal-i-Amdpubertyadultocular testimonymedical evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kasur, convicting the appellant under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death alongside a reference for its confirmation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony, the corroboration of medical and circumstantial evidence, the applicability of the law regarding the definition of an adult and puberty, and the validity of recoveries made during investigation. The Federal Shariat Court held that the eyewitness testimony of the complainant and another witness was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and promptly lodged, leaving no room for false implication. The Court held that an accused is considered an adult under the Ordinance upon attaining the prescribed age or puberty, which was medically established. The appeal was dismissed, the convictions were upheld, and the death sentence was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies between the statements of the complainant and an eye-witness are sufficient to discard trustworthy ocular testimony?
  • What constitutes an 'adult' for the purposes of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 in the absence of conclusive age proof?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from an open cattle-shed upon the pointation of an accused require strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a pre-emption suit decided in favour of a complainant's family establishes a motive for false implication by the complainant against the accused party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Nasim Akhtar and 2 others1992 PLD Azad J & K 12 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs M. Ashraf Bhatti And Others1992 P Cr. L J 276 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Deputy Commissioner, Attock And Another1992 PLD Lahore 322 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25
  quo warrantopublic officeprivate compromisepeasant seatUnion Councildisqualificationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was instituted as a writ of quo warranto challenging the election and entitlement of respondent No. 2 to a peasant seat of Union Council Qatbal, Fateh Jang, on the ground of disqualification. During proceedings, a compromise between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was reported. The core legal questions were whether a writ of quo warranto concerning usurpation of a public office can be disposed of or compromised by private settlement, and how judicial discretion must be exercised upon proof of disqualification. The Lahore High Court held that a public office cannot be the subject matter of barter or private compromise. As it was conceded that respondent No. 2 held land disqualifying him from being a peasant member, the Court retained a duty to prevent an unqualified person from holding public office. Declaring the election illegal, the Court laid down that judicial discretion must be exercised reasonably and not to perpetuate an unlawful usurpation of public office.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition in the nature of quo warranto be dismissed or settled on the basis of a private compromise between the parties?
  • Whether the High Court has a duty to proceed with an inquiry in quo warranto proceedings once an unqualified person is shown to hold a public office, irrespective of a private settlement?
  • Can the judicial discretion of the High Court in a writ of quo warranto be exercised to decline interference where usurpation of a public office is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1992 CLC 543 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif1992 CLC 557 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim and 6 others vs Board of Revenue, Sindh and 4 others1992 CLC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raft vs Municipal Committee, Wazirabad and others1992 CLC 945 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2119 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16
  circumstantial evidenceSection 164 statementSection 265-J Cr.P.C.right to cross-examinationbenefit of doubtmurder convictionadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be admitted as substantive evidence under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused was not provided with prior notice or an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It ruled that for Section 164 statements to be admissible as substantive evidence under Section 265-J, the accused must receive prior written notice and a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine, which did not occur in this case. The Court further affirmed that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the failure of one link in the chain destroys the entire case. Consequently, the Court found the evidence insufficient, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and ordered his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as substantive evidence under Section 265-J without prior notice to the accused?
  • Is the mere presence of a dead body in the house of the accused sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the failure of one link in a chain of circumstantial evidence invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Is a prior written notice required for the accused to effectively exercise the right of cross-examination during the recording of statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1992 SCMR 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-16
  criminal petitionleave to appealdeath sentencecommutation of sentencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Rafique against his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death, which was confirmed by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the petitions should proceed on merits despite the petitioner already serving a commuted sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to orders passed by the President of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner is currently undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment due to presidential commutation, the petitions stand dismissed. However, the Court ruled that the dismissal is subject to the condition that if the commutation orders are subsequently varied and execution of the death sentence is sought, the petitioner may revive the petitions for disposal on merits. The key principle laid down is that where a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment by executive order, leave to appeal petitions may be dismissed while preserving the petitioner's right of revival should the commutation be challenged or varied.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner revive a dismissed petition for leave to appeal against a death sentence if a presidential commutation order is subsequently varied?
  • How does the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment by the President affect pending petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Messrs Al-Karam Textile Mills, Karachi1992 PLC 707 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Khan vs Province of Punjab through Collector1992 CLC 1775 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-30
  land acquisitionmarket valuelocus standi of beneficiarycompensation awardreference court jurisdictionpotential valueappellate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves regular first appeals arising from an award rendered by the Senior Civil Judge/Reference Court concerning the determination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the construction of a building for Radio Pakistan, Bahawalpur. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of appeals by the beneficiary corporation, the proper assessment of market value for large tracts of urban agricultural land with potential for building purposes, and the powers of the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant relief to non-appealing claimants. The Lahore High Court held that the beneficiary corporation has no locus standi to file an appeal against the compensation award, that the market value must be assessed based on comparable genuine sales with appropriate deductions for large tracts, and that appellate courts possess ample power under Order XLI Rule 33 to grant relief to co-claimants. The court enhanced the compensation rate and allowed statutory benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the beneficiary of land acquisition has the locus standi to file an appeal against the award of the Reference Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does the Reference Court possess the jurisdiction to determine the question of limitation regarding a reference application sent by the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • How should the market value of a large tract of urban agricultural land be assessed when relying on sale instances of smaller plots?
  • Whether an appellate court can grant relief under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to a party who has neither filed an appeal nor a cross-objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Khan vs Mumtaz Ahmad Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique And 5 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 935 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Qasso vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 576 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Fiqa vs The District Magistrate, Mansehra1992 PLD Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-11
  preventive detentiondetention orderapplication of mindgrounds of detentionright of representationwrit jurisdictionpublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the preventive detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Mansehra, against the petitioner under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions were whether the detaining authority had applied its mind to the necessity of detention and whether the mandatory statutory requirement to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu had been fulfilled. The Court held that the detention orders were illegal and without lawful authority. It observed that the District Magistrate had merely used stereotyped, cyclostyled forms without applying his mind to the specific facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court held that the failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu, as required by law, rendered the detention order invalid. The key principle laid down is that preventive detention powers must be exercised with due application of mind, and the mandatory statutory duty to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu must be performed without delay to enable the detenu to exercise the right of representation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a preventive detention order valid if it is based on a stereotyped, cyclostyled form without the detaining authority applying its mind to the specific facts?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to communicate the grounds of detention to a detenu under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Within what timeframe must the grounds of detention be communicated to a detenu to satisfy the requirements of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Sh: Muhammad Gulzar And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-01
  ejectment petitionsecond appealrent controlretrospective operation of lawmaintainability of appealnon-residential building
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of a second appeal in an ejectment petition filed under rent laws. The petitioner, Muhammad Rafiq, was ordered to be ejected from a shop by the appellate court. He filed a second appeal before the High Court, which dismissed it on the grounds that the right of second appeal was not available for petitions instituted prior to the commencement of the amending Ordinance XIII of 1990. The Supreme Court, relying on its decision in a connected case (Haji Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Surrayia-un-Nisa, PLD 1992 SC 637), held that the right of second appeal is indeed available for cases pending before the promulgation of Ordinance XIII of 1990, provided the first appellate court had not passed a final order before that date, or if such an order was passed, the 30-day limitation period had not expired before the Ordinance came into force. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of second appeal available in rent cases instituted prior to the commencement of Ordinance XIII of 1990?
  • Does the right of second appeal apply to cases where the first appellate court had not passed a final order before the promulgation of Ordinance XIII of 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Divisional Engineer, P.W. Railway and others1992 CLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-08
  civil revisionconcurrent findingsrailway landencroachmentdeclaration and permanent injunctionhumanitarian grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a piece of railway land where he had raised a hutment. The petitioner, a former railway employee who lost both legs in an accident during duty and was declared unfit for service, claimed he was permitted by a railway official to occupy the land and use it as a shop for livelihood. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the petitioner had no legal title or valid allotment order for the disputed land. The core legal question was whether the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the lack of title could be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in revision unless they are perverse or contrary to the record, and since the petitioner admittedly held no allotment order, the judgments were maintained. The High Court, however, granted the petitioner one year to vacate and suggested he approach railway authorities for humanitarian accommodation.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be disturbed in a civil revision petition without showing them to be perverse or contrary to the record?
  • Does a person occupying railway land without a valid allotment order have a legal title to maintain a suit for declaration and permanent injunction?
  • May a court grant time to vacate premises on humanitarian grounds while dismissing a revision petition against concurrent judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Butt And 6 Others vs Mukhtar Ahmad And Another1992 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq And Other vs Hashmat Ali And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-12
  land allotmentGrow More Food SchemeIslamabad Oustees Schemevoid ab initioproprietary rightstenancy rightscivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two civil petitions for leave to appeal arising from disputes over land allotments under the Grow More Food Scheme and the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. In the first petition, the petitioners challenged the lower courts' dismissal of their claim, which was based on the finding that the disputed land was never included in the schedule of the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, rendering the subsequent allotment to the petitioners' predecessor void ab initio. In the second petition, the petitioners challenged a High Court decision granting proprietary rights to the respondent, who had remained in continuous possession of the land under the Grow More Food Scheme without any valid cancellation of his lease or resumption order. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions. The Court held that where land was not part of the schedule for a specific scheme, its allotment under that scheme was void. Furthermore, a tenant who remains in possession and complies with the terms of tenancy without a valid cancellation order is entitled to proprietary rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is an allotment of land under a government scheme void if the land was not included in the schedule of that scheme?
  • Is a tenant entitled to proprietary rights if they have remained in continuous possession of the land without any valid order of cancellation or resumption of the lease?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafioue vs Abdul Ghafoor1992 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-13
  inheritance disputecivil court jurisdictionfraudres judicataacquiescencesettlement lawsdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a long-standing dispute over inheritance rights to land abandoned by a deceased right-holder during the 1947 disturbances. The appellant claimed inheritance through mutations, while the respondent asserted he was the rightful heir. After extensive litigation before revenue and settlement authorities, the respondent filed a declaratory suit in a Civil Court. The appellant challenged the Civil Court's jurisdiction and the suit's limitation. The Civil Court, in an earlier remand order, had determined that because the case involved allegations of fraud in the mutation process, it possessed jurisdiction. The appellant failed to challenge that remand order, instead participating in the proceedings on the merits. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, having acquiesced to the remand order and participated in the subsequent proceedings, could not later challenge the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Civil Courts possess plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving fraud, particularly after the repeal of specialized settlement laws. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondent's status as the rightful heir.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute involving allegations of fraud in mutation proceedings?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a court after participating in remand proceedings without previously contesting the remand order?
  • Does the repeal of settlement laws restore the plenary jurisdiction of Civil Courts to determine inheritance disputes?
  Read full judgment →