Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The Police Surgeon and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1115 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs Muhammad Khurshid KamalK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs Malik Muhammad Shafi1991 MLD 668 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad and others vs Noor Muhammad1991 PLD Lahore 282 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad and others vs Commissioner, Sargodha Division and others1991 CLC 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad Alias Bholi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad alias Bholi vs The State1991 MLD 527 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
- Muhawar Alam Leghari Inspector Police vs I.G. of Police Punjab, Lahore and 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service 128) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammaduaz vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammadnawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 133 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammada Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Maula Dad And Other1991 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a civil dispute concerning whether the sale of a share in a well along with proprietary land in 1882 automatically conveyed a proportionate share in the village Shamilat. The appellants, legal heirs of the vendor Azmat, filed a suit for possession of the Shamilat land, arguing that it was not included in the original sale. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court and the High Court dismissed it. The core legal questions involved whether a sale of proprietary land without explicit mention of Shamilat conveys village common land, and the application of the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts, holding that the Shamilat was not sold under the original sale deed and that, under section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959, a share in the Shamilat is not conveyed along with the sale of land unless specifically stated. The key principle laid down is that the sale of land does not carry with it a conveyance of Shamilat rights in the absence of an explicit stipulation to that effect in the instrument of sale.
Questions settled- Does the sale of a share in a well and proprietary land automatically convey a proportionate share in the village Shamilat?
- Whether the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959 applies retrospectively to affect prior sales under custom?
- Can a civil suit for possession of land be barred under section 26 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act when it is based on title rather than challenging the partition order?
- Does a share in the Shamilat pass with the sale of land when the sale deed is silent regarding the Shamilat?
- Muhammad. Boota vs Haji Ghulam Mustafa and others1991 MLD 2385 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zulfiqar vs Gulab Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of agricultural land in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, claiming a right of pre-emption, challenged the sale made to respondents who were displaced persons due to the construction of the Capital at Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the statutory bar against pre-emption, provided under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, applied to the respondents, given the specific notification issued by the Board of Revenue exempting sales to displaced persons certified by the Capital Development Authority. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which determined that the respondents were indeed displaced persons holding valid certificates. The Court held that the mandatory exemption under Section 8(2) extinguished the right of pre-emption against such certificate holders. The key principle laid down is that where a sale falls within the scope of an exemption notification issued under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the right of pre-emption is effectively barred, and the doctrine of sinker does not override this statutory exemption.
Questions settled- Does the right of pre-emption exist against a sale of land to a person certified as a displaced person by the Capital Development Authority under the notification issued pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Can the doctrine of sinker be applied to override the statutory exemption provided under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Is a certificate issued by the Capital Development Authority sufficient to establish the status of a displaced person for the purpose of claiming exemption from pre-emption?
- Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali Khan vs Province of the Punjab And Another1991 SCMR 1803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged his seniority position relative to respondent No. 2, who had been placed senior to him in the seniority list. The petitioner had previously been senior to respondent No. 2 while serving as a Civil Judge. However, the Provincial Selection Board, on May 8, 1979, declared the petitioner unfit for promotion to the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge due to an indifferent service record, while approving respondent No. 2 for promotion. Consequently, the petitioner was superseded by respondent No. 2 and was not approved for promotion until March 10, 1981. The petitioner's departmental representation and subsequent appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim seniority over respondent No. 2 despite having been formally superseded by him during the promotion process. The Supreme Court held that because the petitioner was specifically superseded by respondent No. 2, he could not claim seniority over him in the higher grade. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim seniority over a colleague who was promoted to a higher grade earlier due to the civil servant's own supersession?
- Does a formal supersession by a selection board preclude a claim of seniority in the promoted grade?
- Muhammad Zubair vs Abdul Munaf And 3 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2242 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair Qureshi vs Munir Hussain Shirazi and 4 others1991 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for the recovery of damages for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and physical and mental torture. The plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully arrested and prosecuted under the Defence of Pakistan Rules due to a conspiracy involving government officials and private defendants. During the proceedings, the plaintiff withdrew the suit against the provincial government, which was initially impleaded as defendant No. 5. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for damages for misfeasance or malfeasance against government officers acting in their official capacity is maintainable without joining the government as a necessary party, and whether the claims were barred by limitation. The Sindh High Court held that the provincial government is a necessary party in a suit for damages against government officials for acts done in their official capacity, and dropping the government renders the suit incompetent against the official defendants. Furthermore, the court held that the claims for false imprisonment and personal injury were barred by limitation under Articles 19 and 22 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the claim for malicious prosecution was premature as termination of prosecution in the plaintiff's favour was not established. The suit was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the provincial government a necessary party in a suit for damages for misfeasance or malfeasance against government officers acting in their official capacity?
- Does a suit for damages against government officials abate or become incompetent if the government is dropped as a party?
- What limitation period applies to a suit for compensation for false imprisonment under the Limitation Act 1908?
- When does time begin to run for filing a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution?
- Can a suit for malicious prosecution proceed without proof that the prosecution terminated in the plaintiff's favour?
- Muhammad Zubair and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs, (Camp Office at Karachi), Islamabad and 2 others1991 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zohrab vs Conservator of Forests and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 143 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq vs Admission Board of Medical Colleges of the Punjab, through Chairman (Principal), King Edward Medical College and 8 others1991 MLD 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zardad vs Commissioner Karachi & Other(K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 213) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs Manager, Jubilee Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd1991 PLC 678 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs Inayat Ali And Another1991 SCMR 1901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of their share in the suit land as co-allottees, alleging they and the defendant were members of the same family and the land was allotted jointly. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court as well as the High Court maintained the decree. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that since the jurisdictional objection was not raised in the written statement before the trial court and no issue was framed regarding it, and given that the allotment chit established the parties belonged to the same family, interference was unwarranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that a belated objection to civil court jurisdiction will not be entertained when the matter was contested on merits below.
Questions settled- Can a party raise the objection of lack of civil court jurisdiction for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal when it was not pleaded in the written statement?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding joint allotment of evacuee land when the objection to jurisdiction was never raised or framed as an issue before the trial court?
- Muhammad Zaman vs Hasb UN Nisa And Another1991 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to determine whether a landlady can eject her tenant under Section 17(4)(5)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 to establish a joint business with her husband or family member, particularly when she is an illiterate housewife. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the landlord's right to seek ejectment for personal use involving family members. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the issue is no longer res integra as it has already been settled by this Court in previous jurisprudence, specifically establishing that a co-owner or landlord can take advantage of the relevant statutory provisions for personal or joint business needs. The key principle laid down is that a landlord or landlady is entitled to seek ejectment of a tenant for personal use or for establishing a business jointly with family members under the applicable rent restriction laws.
Questions settled- Can a landlady seek the ejectment of her tenant under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 to establish a joint business with her husband or family member?
- Whether a co-owner or landlord can take advantage of Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 for premises needed by one of the co-owners or landlords?
- Is the question of ejectment for establishing a joint business with a family member considered res integra before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Muhammad Zaman Khan And Others vs Muhammad Ramzan Khan1991 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, challenging the judgment of the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court misread the material evidence on record, specifically the testimony of Nazir Ahmad Patwari (P.W.1) regarding the petitioners' status as tenants in the suit land. The Supreme Court held that the case requires further examination as the contention regarding the misreading of the record has prima facie substance. Consequently, the Court granted leave for further examination, ordered security of Rs. 2,500, and directed that status quo be maintained in the meanwhile, thereby establishing the principle that leave to appeal will be granted when a credible allegation of misreading of evidence by the High Court is made out.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the High Court is alleged to have misread material evidence on the record?
- Can status quo be ordered by the Supreme Court while granting leave to appeal in a property dispute?
- Muhammad Zaman And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman and 8 others vs Abdul Malik Khan and 7 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit concerning the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The plaintiffs, as mortgagees, sought a declaration of ownership, claiming the mortgage remained unredeemed for over sixty years. The High Court had dismissed the suit, ruling that revenue mutations constituted an acknowledgment of the mortgage under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thereby extending the limitation period. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether revenue mutations, which record oral transactions, satisfy the requirement of an acknowledgment in writing signed by the party against whom the right is claimed. The Court held that mutations are not signed by the parties in the manner mandated by Section 19 and thus do not constitute a valid acknowledgment. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decision. The key principle laid down is that for an acknowledgment to extend the period of limitation under Section 19, it must be in writing and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed; mere revenue mutations of oral transactions do not satisfy this statutory requirement.
Questions settled- Do revenue mutations constitute a valid acknowledgment in writing under Section 19 of the Limitation Act?
- What are the essential requirements for an acknowledgment to extend the period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act?
- Does the creation of a sub-mortgage through mutation amount to an acknowledgment of the original mortgage?
- Muhammad Zaman and 4 others vs Sikandar Khan and 5 others1991 CLC 197 · Board of Revenue · 1990-09-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman And 2 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahoor vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1991 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court. The petitioner, Muhammad Zahoor, had challenged an order passed by the Settlement Authorities. The High Court had dismissed his writ petition primarily on the ground of laches, noting that the petitioner had failed to challenge the impugned order for a period exceeding six years. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that he was not a party to the original proceedings before the Settlement Authorities and, therefore, could not be held accountable for the delay, as he lacked knowledge of the order when it was passed. Upon reviewing the record and hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was, in fact, fully aware of the proceedings in which the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Court held that the finding of laches by the High Court was fully justified. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner claim ignorance of proceedings to excuse a delay of six years in challenging an administrative order?
- Is a finding of laches justified when a petitioner was aware of the proceedings despite not being a formal party?
- Muhammad Zafar Rai vs Lahore Development Authority and others1991 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenged land acquisition compensation awards issued by the Lahore Development Authority. The core legal questions concerned the validity of 'supplementary awards' issued by the Land Acquisition Collector after the original award, and whether the Tribunal’s determination of market value and compensation was subject to judicial review. The Court held that once a Land Acquisition Collector announces an award, they become functus officio and lack jurisdiction to issue supplementary awards; such disputes must be addressed through a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Court emphasized that the determination of market value is a mixed question of law and fact, and the Tribunal’s findings based on evidence are not subject to scrutiny in writ jurisdiction. Although the supplementary awards were legally invalid, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction because substantial justice had been achieved, and the Authority had not disputed the underlying facts regarding land ownership. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that courts will not interfere with factual findings on compensation unless there is a clear misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Can a Land Acquisition Collector issue supplementary awards after the original award has been announced?
- Is the determination of market value by a Tribunal subject to scrutiny in writ jurisdiction?
- What is the proper remedy for an aggrieved party to challenge the measurement or compensation amount in a land acquisition award?
- Does the principle of functus officio apply to a Land Acquisition Collector after the announcement of an award?
- Muhammad Zafar Alam vs Secretary, Establishment Division and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 868 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf vs Inspector-General of Police, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 327 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Sialkot and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 440 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf vs Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 574 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf Chauhan and another vs Sarfraz Khan Jadoon and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning a seniority dispute between civil servants. Appellant Muhammad Yusuf Chauhan, originally appointed in BPS-18 in the Ministry of Industries, was absorbed into the Ministry of Education in the same grade after his former department was phased out. Pursuant to Establishment Division Memorandum dated 7-6-1980, his past service in BPS-18 was counted toward his seniority, placing him senior to respondent Sarfraz Khan Jadoon, who was promoted to BPS-18 later. The Service Tribunal set aside this seniority placement, holding the memorandum lacked statutory backing. The Supreme Court reversed the Tribunal's decision and allowed the appeals, holding that Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 explicitly provides that seniority is not a vested right. The Court held that the Establishment Division, as the competent authority under Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973, possessed the statutory power to issue binding policy instructions determining seniority of surplus personnel upon absorption.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to a particular seniority position under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Do policy instructions issued by the Establishment Division regarding the seniority of absorbed surplus personnel carry statutory effect?
- Can the competent authority count the past service of an absorbed civil servant towards seniority in an equivalent grade upon transfer?
- Muhammad Yusuf and another vs Muhammad Ibrahim Khandwani1991 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellants' ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement. The core legal questions involve whether the tenant committed a default by depositing rent in the name of the deceased previous landlord prior to receiving statutory notice of devolution, whether the landlord's personal requirement was established in good faith, and whether the principle of res judicata applies to rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Sindh High Court held that the tenant was not in default as the deposits made without contumacy and prior to the statutory notice under section 18 of the Ordinance protected the tenant. Furthermore, the court held that the personal requirement lacked good faith and was barred by the principle of res judicata since the facts and circumstances remained identical to a previously dismissed ejectment proceeding between the parties. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a tenant commit a default in rent payment when depositing rent in the name of a deceased previous landlord before receiving formal notice of devolution under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a landlord's claim of personal requirement established in good faith when the facts and circumstances remain identical to a previously dismissed ejectment application?
- What is the obligation of a landlord regarding alternative accommodation falling vacant during the pendency of eviction proceedings based on personal requirement?
- Muhammad Yunus alias Baboo vs The State1991 PLD Azad J & K 31 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yunis vs Mirza Ghiasuddin Ahmed Beg1991 CLC 94 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yunis vs Additional Superintendent of Police and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 388 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-08-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose by leave against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302 and altered his conviction from Section 307/149 to Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and five years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The incident originated as a sudden dispute over irrigation water resulting in an exchange of lathi blows between both parties, causing multiple injuries on both sides and the death of one person. The Supreme Court examined whether the occurrence constituted a free fight or a sudden fight falling within Exception 4 to Section 300, PPC. The Court held that the absence of premeditation or pre-planning established that the clash was a sudden affair and a sudden fight, rather than a premeditated free fight, thereby attracting Exception 4 to Section 300, PPC. Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 302, PPC was converted to Section 304 Part I, PPC with ten years' rigorous imprisonment, and his conviction under Section 326, PPC was altered to Section 325, PPC.
Questions settled- Whether a sudden clash arising without premeditation qualifies as a sudden fight attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than a free fight?
- Under what circumstances can a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can liability for an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be fastened on participants when a sudden fight occurs without common premeditation?
- Muhammad Yousuf Malik vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 31991 PLC (C.S.) 1072 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf And 12 Others vs Abdul Khaliq And Other1991 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court. The core grievance of the petitioners was that the High Court failed to consider, dispose of, or address the efficacy and relevance of applications filed under Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure along with particulars of documents to produce additional evidence concerning the title to the disputed property, despite notices having been issued and there being no opposition at the hearing. The Supreme Court examined the record, found the grievance substantiated, and noted that respondent No.1 did not object to the matter being remanded. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh disposal after duly addressing and deciding the applications for additional evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is bound to dispose of pending applications for the production of additional evidence?
- Can a judgment of the High Court be set aside for failing to consider material documents and applications relating to additional evidence?
- What is the appropriate course of action when an appellate court omits to deal with an application for additional evidence filed under Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Muhammad Yousaf Zia vs Chief Settlement Commissioner1991 CLC 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The Government of Pakistan, Through The Chairman_Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry Of Railways And Another1991 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner, while holding Grade-16, was asked to perform the functions of an Assistant Personnel Officer in Grade-17 and claimed full pay of the higher post along with specific travelling allowances. The core legal question concerned whether an employee holding a current charge of a post is entitled to the full pay and perquisites of that higher post without being regularly promoted in the manner prescribed by the rules. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner was merely holding the current charge of the post on his own pay and was not regularly promoted, thus disentitling him to the claimed financial benefits. The Court ruled that no question of law of public importance arose, as the matter involved a question of fact determined by the Tribunal, while granting liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the petition within sixty days of the disposal of his pending service appeal if the outcome thereof affected his entitlement.
Questions settled- Is an employee holding the current charge of a higher post entitled to the full pay of that post?
- Does a service dispute regarding current charge versus regular promotion raise a question of law of public importance?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The Chairman, Railway Board_Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad And Other1991 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the petitioner's service appeal seeking pro forma promotion, re-designation, and associated back benefits was dismissed. The core legal question concerned the legality of the revocation of the petitioner's retrospective promotion to a selection grade and his entitlement to claim regular promotion and full pay while serving on an acting charge basis. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the revocation of the retrospective promotion was justified because the promotion order of the petitioner's junior, upon which it was pegged, had itself been rescinded, and that the Service Tribunal could not direct the department to fill promotion posts forthwith or claim full pay for acting charge duties. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Can an employee claim full pay and benefits while holding a post on an acting charge basis without regular promotion?
- Does a civil servant have the right to compel a department to fill a promotion post on a particular date?
- Whether the revocation of a retrospective promotion is justified when the promotion order of the employee's junior has been rescinded?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Sayed Ghayyur Hussain Shah And Other1991 SCMR 1697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Yousaf, challenging a common judgment of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had accepted two Regular Second Appeals, setting aside judgments of the Additional District Judge and restoring the original judgments of the Civil Judge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine several significant legal issues arising from the underlying litigation. The core legal questions involve whether a cause of action for malicious prosecution or libel exists under the specific facts, and whether a cause of action for damages for a tort survives the death of either the tort-feasor or the victim. Furthermore, the Court seeks to determine if civil liability for damages can be adjudicated based on concepts outside of English common law without retrospective legislation, and whether Islamic law principles regarding compensation can be applied by analogy to civil liabilities. Finally, the Court addresses whether such liability constitutes a charge on the estate of a deceased tort-feasor and whether an appeal abates upon the death of a party against whom no decree existed.
Questions settled- Does a cause of action for damages for malicious prosecution or libel survive the death of the tort-feasor or the victim?
- Can Islamic law concepts of compensation be imported by analogy to determine civil liabilities in the absence of specific legislation?
- Is a liability for damages arising from a tort a charge on the estate of a deceased tort-feasor under Muslim Law?
- Does an appeal abate upon the death of a party if no decree existed against them at the time of their death?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs P.O.F. Through Chief Administrative Officer And Another1991 SCMR 1502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which denied the petitioner back benefits following his reinstatement. The petitioner, an Assistant Foreman at Pakistan Ordnance Factories, was initially dismissed for unauthorized absence. Although the Tribunal previously ordered his reinstatement without back benefits, it granted the department liberty to hold a fresh inquiry. The department subsequently chose not to proceed with the charges. The petitioner argued that this decision not to press charges effectively exonerated him, thereby entitling him to back benefits under Fundamental Rule 54. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the employer's decision to abandon disciplinary proceedings against a reinstated employee creates an entitlement to back benefits under the specified rule. The Court held that the legal question regarding the applicability of Fundamental Rule 54 in such circumstances warrants further consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal, directing the parties to prepare the appeal on the existing record with the option to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does the decision of a department not to proceed with disciplinary charges against a reinstated employee entitle that employee to back benefits under Fundamental Rule 54?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal consider subsequent departmental orders that were not part of the original Service Tribunal judgment?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Mst. Manzoor Mai And 3 Others1991 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge, Attock and 2 others1991 PLD Lahore 251 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf Jamil vs Haji Shabbir Ahmad And Another1991 SCMR 1886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which had challenged concurrent orders of the lower forums directing the ejectment of the tenant. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the disputed premises for his son warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, do not merit interference. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact concurrently rendered by courts below regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement in rent matters will not be disturbed by the apex court in appellate jurisdiction unless shown to be suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement are open to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a landlord's requirement of the disputed premises for the use of his son constitute a valid ground for ejectment?
- Can a writ petition against an order of the District Judge in rent proceedings be maintained on questions of fact?
- Muhammad Yousaf Etc vs Deputy Adminstrator Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis and 3 others vs Imamuddin and 2 others1991 CLC 706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas vs Chief Controller, Imports and Exports And Another1991 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partly allowed the petitioner's appeal by converting his dismissal from service into removal. The petitioner, a Naib-Qasid, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings initiated after he was found physically fighting with a fellow employee on office premises over the division of money received from a visitor. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner could challenge the proof of the charge or the lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses despite having admitted to the incident and the core facts before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having admitted to the fight and the circumstances surrounding it, could not turn around and contest the proof of the charge. The Court concluded that engaging in an office fight amounting to unruly behavior constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action, regardless of any minor misunderstandings regarding ancillary findings in the enquiry report. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who admits to the factual basis of a disciplinary charge before a tribunal can subsequently challenge the proof of that charge?
- Does physical fighting between employees on office premises constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action?
- Whether a minor misunderstanding in the enquiry report regarding specific allegations changes the core complexion of a proven charge of unruly behavior?
- Muhammad Younas and another vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin vs The State1991 MLD 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin vs District Health Officer, Muzaffargarh and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 527 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin vs Allah Din1991 CLC 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22-3-1972. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation when no specific date for performance was fixed, and whether the findings suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that since time was not of the essence and the suit was filed within a week of the defendant's refusal to perform the contract, it was well within time. The Court further held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the agreement, possession, and tenancy showed no misreading of evidence, illegality, or jurisdictional defect. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance is time-barred when no specific date for performance is fixed in the agreement and the suit is filed within a week of the defendant's refusal?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in civil revision without demonstrating misreading or non-reading of material evidence?
- Whether a suit for specific performance is barred when the defendant fails to prove the alternative plea of tenancy?
- Muhammad Yasin vs Aleem Ud Din1991 SCMR 1871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the appellate order of the Lahore High Court directing the petitioner's ejectment from tenancy on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal bona fide need, and subletting. The core legal question concerns whether a plea regarding security deposit allegedly available for rent adjustment, which was neither pleaded in the reply nor deposed to during evidence, can be raised before the appellate or apex court. The Supreme Court held that a plea not taken in the reply or supported by evidence cannot be urged in proceedings, and finding no misreading of evidence or illegality in the High Court's reappraisal, dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that matters not pleaded or substantiated by evidence at trial cannot be raised as a ground of challenge in appellate or constitutional proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding a security deposit be raised for the first time in appellate proceedings if it was not pleaded in the reply or supported by evidence?
- Whether the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction can reappraise evidence to reverse a Rent Controller's findings?
- Does the non-payment of rent due to an unpleaded security deposit constitute a valid defense against ejectment?
- Muhammad Yasin Khan And Another vs Rehmat Khan And Another1991 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns review petitions filed against a Supreme Court order that had previously dismissed petitions for leave to appeal. The underlying dispute arose when the petitioners filed a civil suit challenging a compromise decree entered into by the respondents before the Supreme Court in a separate matter involving land allotment. The petitioners, who claimed title to the land through previous sales from one of the parties to the compromise, argued that the compromise was unlawful and prejudicial to their interests. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a decision upheld by the appellate and revisional courts. The Supreme Court held that once a compromise has been accepted and an appeal allowed by the Supreme Court, a subordinate civil court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a suit that essentially seeks to set aside or challenge the validity of that Supreme Court order. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the review petitions, affirming that the civil court correctly dismissed the suit as it constituted an impermissible collateral challenge to a final order of the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can a civil court entertain a suit that seeks to set aside a compromise order passed by the Supreme Court?
- Is a suit challenging a Supreme Court order liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a party claiming interest in land have the right to challenge a compromise decree between other parties in a separate proceeding through a fresh civil suit?
- Muhammad Yasin Khan and 4 others vs Azad Government of Jammu1991 MLD 2295 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit seeking the cancellation of a land mutation, which was rejected by the lower courts on the grounds of res judicata and lack of cause of action. The core legal question is whether a court may reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a full-fledged trial when the subject matter has been previously adjudicated. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was vexatious and clearly barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court established that a trial court is not obligated to proceed with a full trial if it is satisfied that the suit is barred by law or lacks a cause of action. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that litigants have a mandatory duty to disclose all material facts, including prior litigation; suppression of such facts constitutes a vexatious practice. Under Explanation IV to Section 11, matters that could have been raised in previous litigation are deemed to have been decided, thereby preventing the re-litigation of the same dispute.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without conducting a full-fledged trial?
- Does the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to matters that could have been raised in a previous suit but were not?
- Is a court empowered to reject a plaint if the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed facts regarding prior litigation concerning the same subject matter?
- Muhammad Yasin And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaseen And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 39 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar vs Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1ST Class,1991 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar vs Muhammad Sharif Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 93) · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar vs Muhammad Sharif and another1991 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar Ghori vs Maqsood Ali and 2 others1991 PLC 468 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar Alias Shaoon vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1991 MLD 2408 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs Wali Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee shop originally jointly transferred to the petitioner Muhammad Yaqub and respondent Wali Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge transfer findings and revive a claim after failing to challenge an adverse revisional order passed by the Settlement Commissioner for over fourteen years. The Supreme Court held that the unchalleged revisional order of 20-9-1972 had attained finality, sealing the fate of the petitioner, and that subsequent remand proceedings did not afford him a fresh cause of action. The ratio decidendi is that a party who acquiesces in an adverse administrative or quasi-judicial order by failing to challenge it within the prescribed time is estopped by conduct and barred by finality from subsequently re-agitating the matter upon a remand order arising from proceedings initiated by another party.
Questions settled- Whether a party failing to challenge a revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner can re-agitate the matter after a prolonged delay following remand proceedings?
- Does an order passed on remand in favor of another party furnish a fresh cause of action to a petitioner who accepted an earlier adverse finding?
- Whether an unchallenging party is estopped by conduct from reasserting an interest in disputed evacuee property?
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1991 MLD 2203 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs Muhammad Arif1991 SCMR 1783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed by a pre-emptor against a High Court order that accepted the respondent's civil revisions. The underlying dispute involved a suit for pre-emption regarding two Khasra numbers. While the trial court decreed the suit for one Khasra number but dismissed it for the other based on the respondent's superior right of tenancy, the appellate court reversed this regarding the second Khasra number. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the appellate findings, citing misreading and non-reading of essential evidence, specifically Khasra Girdawari entries. The petitioner challenged the High Court's interference with findings of fact and raised a legal argument regarding the applicability of the judgment in Malik Said Kamal Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1986 SC 360) concerning the cut-off date for decrees based on superior rights of tenancy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its intervention due to the lower courts' misreading of evidence. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's legal contention regarding the cut-off date, citing established precedent, and consequently refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the High Court set aside findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the judgment in Malik Said Kamal Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1986 SC 360) preclude the passing of a decree in favour of a vendee claiming a superior right of tenancy after 31 July 1986?
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs Haji Muhammad Siddique1991 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent orders of the lower courts which rejected the petitioner's suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner sought a declaration that he was the allottee in possession of the disputed shop. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were correctly applied by the courts below to reject the plaint. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner were arguable and warranted a comprehensive examination by the Court. The key principle laid down is that where the application of rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 raises substantial arguable points regarding the proper exercise of judicial discretion, leave to appeal should be granted to scrutinize the legality of the lower courts' concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Whether Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been rightly applied for the rejection of a plaint in a suit for declaration of allotment?
- Do the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the rejection of a plaint warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Are the points regarding the mechanical rejection of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 arguable for the grant of leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Yaqoob Khan vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 329 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob Bhatfi vs Azad Government of State of Jammu1991 PLC (C.S.) 315 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob And Others vs The State1991 SCMR 1459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from the High Court's rejection of an application for the suspension of sentences and grant of bail filed by the petitioners, who had been convicted of offences under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners' joint appeal had remained pending for over two years due to a misplaced record. The core legal question was whether the High Court could deny statutory bail under section 426(1A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording specific, cogent reasons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that merely stating that it was not a proper case for bail does not constitute a valid reason to deny the statutory benefit. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and directed the release of the petitioners on bail, establishing the principle that the statutory right to bail after two years of pending appeal for a life sentence cannot be withheld arbitrarily without recording specific justifying reasons.
Questions settled- Does a mere statement by a court that it is not a proper case for bail constitute a sufficient reason to deny statutory bail under section 426(1A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to bail if their appeal remains undecided for more than two years?
- Can the statutory benefit of suspension of sentence be withheld without recording specific justifying reasons?
- Muhammad Yaqoob And Others vs Ghulam Rasool And Other1991 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell state land allotted under the Chahi Scheme. The core legal questions involve whether the agreement of sale violated Martial Law Regulation No. 115 regarding subsistence holdings, and whether a decree for partial specific performance could be passed regarding a joint holding where one co-owner was not a party to the agreement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, ordering that status quo be maintained in the meanwhile upon furnishing security for costs. The key principle noted is that questions concerning the legality of alienating joint holdings under Martial Law Regulations and the permissibility of partial specific performance warrant a full hearing by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement of sale is violative of Martial Law Regulation 115 when it leaves the seller with less than the subsistence holding?
- Can a decree for partial specific performance be passed in respect of a joint holding when one co-owner was not a party to the agreement?
- Muhammad Yaqoob And 3 Others vs The State and 4 others-1991 P Cr. L J 564 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yamin vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1891 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yakoob vs Director, School Education, Sukkur and 161991 PLC (C.S.) 891 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ya000b vs Fazal Dad and others1991 PLD Lahore 197 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the appellant-vendee had purchased land, subsequently improved his status prior to the institution of the pre-emption suit by acquiring co-ownership, and later parted with that newly acquired land. The core legal question was whether a vendee, who has improved his status to equal that of the pre-emptor before the institution of the pre-emption suit, loses that equality by subsequently selling the property that brought about the improvement. The Lahore High Court held that a vendee is not required to maintain his improved status or qualifications after the institution of the suit, and the subsequent alienation of the property used for improvement does not defeat his defense. The Court laid down the principle that while a pre-emptor must maintain an unbroken chain of superior qualification up to the date of the trial court's decree, a vendee's defensive position is judged with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the sale or up to the institution of the suit, and subsequent loss of qualifications does not forfeit his rights.
Questions settled- Whether a vendee who improves his status to equal that of a pre-emptor before the institution of a pre-emption suit loses that equality by subsequently selling the property that brought about the improvement?
- Must a vendee maintain his qualifications or improved status after the initial sale or the institution of a pre-emption suit?
- At what crucial stages must a pre-emptor maintain his preference to successfully claim pre-emption?
- Muhammad Waseem vs Chief Post Master, G.P.O., Gujrat And Another1991 SCMR 1792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a temporary Postal Clerk, had his services terminated after failing to appear before a selection committee. Following the rejection of his departmental representation, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was time-barred. The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, citing vague 'unavoidable reasons,' which the Tribunal found insufficient. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to introduce new grounds for delay, specifically claiming illness supported by medical certificates. The Supreme Court held that it could not grant leave to appeal based on a ground (illness) that was never urged or pleaded before the Tribunal. Affirming the Tribunal's reliance on established precedent regarding the sufficiency of grounds for condonation, the Court ruled that the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner introduce new grounds for condonation of delay before the Supreme Court that were not raised before the lower Tribunal?
- Is a vague plea of 'unavoidable reasons' sufficient to justify condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the underlying service appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to time-barring and lack of sufficient cause for delay?
- Muhammad Waqar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 197 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a trial for a capital offense can proceed when the accused is effectively unrepresented during the examination of a material expert witness, thereby denying the opportunity for cross-examination. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial was vitiated by the lack of a fair trial, as the appellant was prejudiced by the absence of legal assistance during the testimony of a crucial medical witness. The Court established the principle that in cases punishable by death, the trial court is under a mandatory obligation to ensure the accused has legal representation. If defense counsel is absent, the court must adjourn proceedings and, if necessary, appoint counsel at State expense. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial, with specific directions to recall the medical witness for cross-examination and to properly record the accused's statements.
Questions settled- Can a trial for a capital offense proceed if the accused is unrepresented by counsel during the examination of a material witness?
- Is a trial court obligated to appoint defense counsel at State expense if the accused cannot afford one in a capital case?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of a material expert witness due to the absence of defense counsel constitute a negation of a fair trial?
- Does the court have the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall and re-examine a witness to ensure a just decision?
- Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad vs Baboo and another1991 CLC 999 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs Deputy Controller of Buildings and 4 others1991 CLC 1856 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman and 2 others vs The State1991 MLD 17 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by a Sessions Judge summoning three individuals as court witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court may exercise its discretionary power under Section 540 to summon witnesses who were neither named in the First Information Report nor the police challan, and whose presence at the incident was not established by existing evidence, merely to rectify prosecution lapses. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the trial court exceeded its authority. The court established that while Section 540 confers wide powers to summon material witnesses, it does not permit the trial judge to assume the role of an investigating officer or prosecutor. A judge must refrain from conducting a roving inquiry to fill gaps in the prosecution's case. Summoning witnesses is only justified when the record demonstrates their evidence is essential for a just decision, not to remedy investigative deficiencies or prosecution failures.
Questions settled- Can a trial court summon witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to fill gaps in the prosecution's case?
- Is a trial court permitted to act as an investigating agency while exercising powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances is a trial court obligated to summon a witness under the second part of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Usman alias Khoja and 5 others vs The State1991 MLD 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Umer vs Muhammad Qasim And Another1991 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute over land possession and ownership. The petitioner, an allottee under the Land Reforms Regulation 64 of 1959, sued for possession after a lease expired. The trial court dismissed the suit, relying heavily on an order by the Deputy Land Commissioner cancelling the petitioner's land allotment. During the appellate stage, the petitioner filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. to introduce a subsequent order by the Land Commissioner that had set aside the cancellation of the allotment. The appellate court and the High Court declined to consider this evidence, citing the petitioner's failure to present it earlier. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court erred by failing to adjudicate upon the application for additional evidence. Citing the principle that courts should exercise discretion to admit evidence to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and do complete justice, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court judgments, and remanded the case for a fresh decision, directing the trial court to consider the additional evidence.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court required to adjudicate upon an application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. before disposing of the main appeal?
- Can an appellate court refuse to consider additional evidence if that evidence was not available during the trial court proceedings?
- Does the principle of doing complete justice allow for the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
- Muhammad Tufail vs Muhammad Boota and 4 others1991 MLD 53 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail Danish vs Deputy Director, F.I.A. And Another1991 SCMR 1841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Constable, challenged his removal from service by the Deputy Director, F.I.A. After his departmental appeal was rejected, he approached the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed thirteen days beyond the statutory limitation period and held that incorrect legal advice provided by counsel does not constitute valid grounds for condoning delay. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the delay should have been condoned. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner admitted the appeal was time-barred and that the Service Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay based on the erroneous advice of counsel. Citing Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the Court affirmed that any appeal filed beyond the prescribed period must be dismissed. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no question of law was involved, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that wrong legal advice does not extend the period of limitation.
Questions settled- Does incorrect legal advice from a counsel constitute sufficient grounds to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
- What is the consequence under Section 3 of the Limitation Act when an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of limitation?
- Muhammad Tufail and anothers vs Ahmad Ali and others1991 MLD 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail and 2 others vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf and 21991 MLD 303 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tayyab vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 174 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, convicting the appellant, Muhammad Tayyab, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Akbari Bibi, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the eye-witness account. The Lahore High Court examined the medical evidence, which revealed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by both sharp and blunt weapons. Crucially, the medical expert testified that the alleged weapon of offence, a sickle, could not have caused the specific injuries found on the victim. Consequently, the court held that the medical evidence fundamentally contradicted the ocular account provided by the prosecution witnesses. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the appellant's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is irreconcilable with medical evidence, the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful, necessitating acquittal.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon of offence create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the medical report contradicts the prosecution's version of the incident?
- What is the effect of medical evidence proving that the alleged weapon of offence could not have caused the injuries sustained by the deceased?
- Muhammad Tariq vs Mirza Rashid Akhtar and others1991 CLC 1697 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment application filed by the petitioner against respondents under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, alleging default in rent payment. The Rent Controller initially found a landlord-tenant relationship existed and ordered eviction. However, the Additional District Judge, in appeal, reversed this finding, excluding certain exhibited documents on the ground that they were not proved in accordance with law. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can exclude documents from consideration that were previously exhibited without objection regarding the mode of proof. The High Court held that the appellate court's order was unsustainable. The ratio of the decision is that once documents are exhibited without objection to their mode of proof, they cannot subsequently be excluded by the appellate court. Furthermore, the court noted that no objection regarding these documents was raised in the memorandum of appeal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order, declaring it without lawful authority, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the appeal in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court exclude documents from consideration that were exhibited in the trial court without objection to their mode of proof?
- Is an appellate order sustainable if it ignores evidence that was admitted into the record without objection?
- Does the failure to raise an objection regarding the mode of proof of documents at the trial stage preclude such an objection at the appellate stage?
- Muhammad Tariq Chaudhry, Member Senate of Pakistan Islamabad vs Syed Masroor Ahsan and 3 others1991 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed constitutional petitions in the nature of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the election and title of the first respondent to hold office as a Senator. The petitioners alleged that the respondent was disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution due to his involvement in numerous criminal cases, anti-state activities, and for providing false information in his nomination papers. The High Court held that while it possessed territorial jurisdiction over the respondent as his public office was located in Islamabad, the petitions were not maintainable. The court ruled that disputes concerning the election process, including the filing of nomination papers, must be resolved exclusively via election petitions before an Election Tribunal under Article 225 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court held that newspaper reports, uncertified charts, and First Information Reports (FIRs) do not constitute legal proof of disqualification, as the presumption of innocence remains until a formal conviction is proved in accordance with the strict rules of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can entertain a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge an election dispute that falls within the scope of Article 225?
- Can newspaper reports, press statements, and First Information Reports (FIRs) be accepted as legal proof to establish the disqualification of an elected member of Parliament?
- Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against a Senator whose seat represents one province but whose public office is located in Islamabad?