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 Tariq CH vs Syed Masroor Ahsan EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 347 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq and 2 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Peshawar and another1991 MLD 2713 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanvir Alias Tanvir Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taj Alias Jalably vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 644 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06
  customs smugglingdeclaration of baggageSection 265-K Cr.P.C.attempt to smugglecustoms barrierstatutory interpretationcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application concerns the legality of a criminal prosecution under the Customs Act, 1969, where the accused was intercepted and searched while still on board an aircraft, before reaching the customs barrier. The core legal question was whether the mere possession of dutiable or prohibited goods in a passenger's baggage, without being afforded an opportunity to make a declaration under sections 139 and 142 of the Customs Act, 1969, constitutes the offence of smuggling under section 156(1)(8) of the same Act. The Court held that the offence of smuggling is not complete until a passenger has reached the customs point and failed to make a true declaration or refused to do so. Because the search occurred prematurely while the passenger was still on board, the statutory opportunity to declare goods was denied. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution could not be sustained. The principle laid down is that the mere presence of prohibited goods in baggage, absent an opportunity to declare them at the designated customs point, does not constitute an offence of smuggling or an attempt to smuggle.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of prohibited goods in a passenger's baggage on board an aircraft constitute the offence of smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is a passenger entitled to an opportunity to make a declaration of baggage under section 139 of the Customs Act, 1969, before being charged with smuggling?
  • Can a court acquit an accused under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's evidence, even if accepted, does not constitute an offence?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity to declare goods under section 139 of the Customs Act, 1969, vitiate a prosecution for smuggling?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Mir Etc vs M. Yousaf Hussain Dada EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan and others vs Faqir Ullah and others1991 CLC 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11
  pre-emptionnature of transactiongift vs salelocus standiconcurrent findings of factcolourable transactionregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenges a concurrent decree for possession through pre-emption, where the trial and appellate courts determined that a transaction disguised as a gift was, in reality, a sale. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor possesses the locus standi to assail the validity of a gift—specifically regarding non-delivery of possession—to demonstrate the transaction is subject to pre-emption. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a pre-emptor is not precluded from challenging the validity of a gift to establish its true nature as a sale. The Court affirmed that courts may look behind the deed and admit oral evidence to determine if an alienation is colourable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that factual arguments regarding the motive or consideration for the gift, which were not pleaded at the trial stage, cannot be introduced during appellate proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that the substance of a transaction prevails over its form in pre-emption matters, and that concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction are generally final.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-emptor have the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift to prove it is actually a sale?
  • Can a court admit oral evidence to determine the true nature of a transaction that purports to be a gift?
  • Can a party introduce new factual arguments regarding the motive or consideration for a gift at the appellate stage if they were not pleaded in the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Messrs Alvi Brothers1991 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-30
  ejectment applicationdefault in rentpersonal bona fide requirementproof of paymentbank draftmoney orderlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant regarding a shop, based on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The respondent claimed a practice of six-monthly rent payments and alleged remittance via money order and bank draft. The Sindh High Court examined the evidence, noting that the respondent failed to produce the money order coupon or bank encashment certificate to prove actual delivery and receipt of rent. The Court held that mere issuance of a bank draft or a remittance receipt does not constitute proof of payment unless delivery and encashment are established. Furthermore, the Court found the respondent's defense contradictory, as the bank draft attempted to cover periods allegedly already paid via money order. Regarding personal requirement, the Court accepted the appellant's need for the shop to expand his business, rejecting the respondent's reliance on unproven newspaper notices. Consequently, the Court set aside the Controller's order, allowed the ejectment application, and granted the respondent six months to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere production of a bank draft or money order remittance receipt constitute sufficient proof of rent payment?
  • Is a tenant required to prove the delivery and encashment of a bank draft to establish the payment of rent?
  • Can a landlord's personal bona fide requirement be established when the tenant alleges the landlord has rented out other premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Qureshi vs M/s. Pakistan National Shipping(K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 98) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Qureshi vs Messrs Pakistan National Shipping1991 PLC (C.S.) 366 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sirajul Haq vs Secretary, Aviation Division and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 845 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiquie And Others vs Rao Manzoor Ahmad And Other1991 SCMR 1534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26
  evacuee propertynecessary partyallotment of propertyleave to appealwrit jurisdictionpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The dispute concerns the allotment of specific units of evacuee property, namely shops, a Chobara, and a Deori, which were subject to competing claims by the petitioners and respondents. The Settlement Commissioner had previously determined the property was divisible and allocated portions accordingly. However, the High Court, in a writ petition filed by the respondents, transferred the disputed shops to the respondents while rejecting the petitioners' application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be impleaded as a necessary party. The petitioners contended that as occupants in physical possession who had submitted transfer forms, they were necessary parties whose entitlement was ignored. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners' case regarding their status as necessary parties and their entitlement to the property raised arguable points requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the petitioners' claim and the propriety of the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Are occupants in physical possession of evacuee property who have submitted transfer forms necessary parties in writ petitions concerning the allotment of that property?
  • Can a High Court dismiss an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without considering the applicant's claim of entitlement and possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 429 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs S.H.O., Police Station Nankana and another-1991 P Cr. L J 2390 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mst. Aziz Begum And 4 Other1991 SCMR 2407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-18
  equitable estoppelpromissory estoppelbona fide beliefimprovement on landcompensation for constructionTransfer of Property ActMesne Profits and Improvements Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves cross-appeals concerning a dispute over a plot of land where the appellant constructed a house under the bona fide belief of ownership, while the respondent held the legal title. The core legal question concerned the application of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855, regarding compensation for improvements made by a person in possession. The Supreme Court held that while these statutes provide specific options for compensation or purchase, the principle of equitable estoppel applies when the true owner has, by conduct, encouraged or acquiesced in the construction. The Court affirmed that where a party spends money on improvements under a mistaken but bona fide belief of ownership with the owner's knowledge, the owner is bound by equity to compensate the occupant. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant a compensatory decree, emphasizing that he who seeks equity must do equity, thereby overriding strict statutory options in favor of equitable relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of equitable estoppel override the statutory options provided in Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855?
  • Is a person who constructs a building on land in the bona fide belief of ownership entitled to compensation when evicted by the true owner?
  • Can a true owner who acquiesces in the construction of a building on their land by another be estopped from asserting strict statutory rights regarding the disposal of that property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mr. Basit, Additional Director, K.Da. and 2 others1991 MLD 1832 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs District Judge, Gujranwala and 2 others1991 CLC 1781 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Basit and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 522 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Majid and 3 others1991 PLD Azad J & K 73 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 630 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs Mst. Reshman Bibi And Another1991 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-30
  gift deedpower of attorneyconcurrent findings of factleave to appealburden of proofcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision filed by the petitioners. The petitioners claimed ownership of land based on a gift deed executed by respondent No. 1 through her agent, respondent No. 2, acting under a Power of Attorney. The core legal question was whether the Power of Attorney conferred the authority to make such a gift and whether the gift was validly executed. The trial court initially dismissed the suit challenging the gift, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Power of Attorney did not authorize the gift and that the donor lacked the intent to transfer the property to the petitioners. The High Court affirmed these findings, noting the burden of proof. The Supreme Court held that the validity and factum of the gift were questions of fact already concluded by concurrent findings against the petitioners. Finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' judgments, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact by lower courts are generally not subject to interference in this jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a general Power of Attorney automatically confer the authority to make a gift of property?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift?
  • Is the intent of the donor a material factor in determining the validity of a gift made through an agent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 others vs Lehr Din and 2 others1991 CLC 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1991 MLD 1762 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq Hashim vs Muhammad Anwar1991 CLC 1616 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddioue vs Mehr Muhammad Altaf And Other1991 SCMR 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20
  ejectmentdefault in rentconcurrent findings of facttenancy disputewrit jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding an ejectment application. The respondents had filed for the petitioner's ejectment from a plot of land and its superstructure on the grounds of default in rent payment and property damage. The petitioner contested the claim, asserting he was only a tenant of the plot and had constructed the superstructure himself, while also disputing the alleged rental rate. The Rent Controller found the petitioner to be a defaulter and ordered his ejectment, a decision upheld by the District Judge on appeal. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts. The Court held that there was no merit in the petition, as the findings regarding the petitioner's status as a tenant and his default were factual determinations properly adjudicated by the lower forums. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by lower courts in an ejectment matter?
  • Does the failure to pay rent constitute sufficient grounds for an ejectment order against a tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher vs Fateh Khan Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 99) · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Zulfiqar and 4 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ocular testimonyinterested witnessbenefit of doubtacquittal appealcorroborationcriminal appealmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents of murder charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's ocular testimony and granting the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was well-founded. It observed that the prosecution witnesses were highly interested and inimical towards the accused due to deep-seated election rivalry, and their testimony lacked necessary independent corroboration. The Court affirmed that when ocular evidence is tainted by partisanship and lacks corroborative support, it cannot sustain a capital conviction. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that it is loath to interfere with an acquittal unless the lower court's findings are artificial, shocking, or unreasonable, which was not the case here. The principle laid down is that in cases of severe enmity, ocular testimony from partisan witnesses requires corroboration in material particulars to be reliable, and appellate courts must exercise restraint in overturning acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony from highly interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who is a close relative of the deceased considered interested in the context of criminal evidence?
  • Does medical evidence provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony when the ocular evidence itself is found to be unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1991 P Cr. LJ 912 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 264 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1991 MLD 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2067 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Sardar And 8 Other1991 SCMR 1892 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-23
  consolidation matterconstitutional petitionquestion of factwithdrawal of appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a consolidation matter wherein the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his Constitutional Petition by the High Court. The core legal question involved was purely a question of fact, specifically whether the petitioner had withdrawn his appeal before the Collector. The High Court conducted an inquiry in which the Collector testified that the petitioner had indeed withdrawn the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the argument concerning the petitioner's motive or lack of justification for withdrawing the appeal was immaterial to the factual determination. Finding the concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court declined to make any observations regarding potential criminal or civil remedies involving allegations of falsification of record and perjury by the Collector without a proper hearing, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue independent legal remedies if so advised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding the withdrawal of an appeal in a consolidation matter?
  • Can a party agitate the motive or intention behind the withdrawal of an appeal when the actual fact of withdrawal is established?
  • Is it proper for the court to make observations regarding criminal or civil remedies for falsification of record against an official without a proper hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 506 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Sharif1991 SCMR 1651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-01
  pre-emption suitleave to appealco-sharershipcourt-feeremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit against the disposal of the respondent's First Appeal by the High Court. The High Court had held that the plaintiff's pre-emption suit stood dismissed as no decree had been passed in his favour before the cutoff date, following the rule laid down in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's suit, based on co-sharership and relationship, could survive or be continued in light of subsequent jurisprudence, particularly Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz (PLD 1989 SC 771), which allowed pre-emptors basing their suits on co-sharership to continue their proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the impact of subsequent case law on pre-emption suits based on co-sharership required detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that pre-emption suits involving co-sharership grounds warrant further examination when subsequent authoritative judicial pronouncements affect the applicability of earlier abatement or dismissal rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit based on co-sharership can continue after the rule laid down in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali?
  • Does a remand order passed by an appellate court lose efficacy if no decree was passed in favour of the pre-emptor before the critical date?
  • Whether pre-emptors who base their suits on co-sharership are entitled to continue their suits and appeals in view of the judgment in Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Ramzan And Other1991 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31
  leave to appealspecific performanceagreement to sellpriority of salecivil revisiongenuineness of transactioncomparison of signatures
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court accepting a civil revision filed by respondent No. 1, thereby setting aside the concurrent decrees of the trial Court and appellate Court and dismissing the petitioner's suit for specific performance. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell, claiming he had paid earnest money and taken possession, but the vendor subsequently colluded with respondent No. 1 to sell the plot. The Supreme Court observed that the first vendor's denial of the agreement was contradicted by a comparison of signatures showing them to be similar to the naked eye, and that the second transaction appeared non-genuine on its face. Holding that issues concerning the priority of sale and the genuineness of the transaction with the petitioner were questions worth consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to a security deposit of Rs. 5,000.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted where questions concerning the priority of sale and genuineness of a transaction require determination?
  • Whether a subsequent sale transaction can override a prior agreement to sell where the second transaction appears non-genuine on its face?
  • Whether the High Court in civil revision properly set aside concurrent findings regarding the execution of an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Malik Abdur Razzaq1991 MLD 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Government of the Punjab and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 557 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Additional District Judge, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31
  ejectmentpersonal requirementsecond ejectment applicationchanged circumstancesleave to appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from a commercial shop. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a subsequent ejectment application and the determination of genuine personal requirement by the landlord. The Supreme Court held that no fixed time limit applies to changed circumstances regarding personal requirement, and a second ejectment application is maintainable after a substantial lapse of time—in this case, seventeen years—provided the landlord establishes that the requirement is genuine. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the courts below properly satisfied themselves regarding the genuineness of the landlord's personal use requirement for himself and his son.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second ejectment application is maintainable after the dismissal of a prior application?
  • Can a fixed time limit be prescribed for changed circumstances regarding a landlord's personal requirement?
  • What is required for a court to determine the validity of a landlord's personal use requirement in ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Kalhoro vs Province of Sindh and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 930 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs The State1991 SCMR 1622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-08
  criminal appealcommon intentionocular evidencedeath penaltymurderappreciation of evidenceIslamic injunctionsmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment upholding the convictions of four appellants for the murder of Mst. Sakina. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish common intention and the propriety of the sentences awarded by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the ocular evidence provided by police officials, who were disinterested witnesses, was credible and sufficient to sustain the convictions. The Court affirmed that the murder was committed in a cruel, cold-blooded manner, rejecting the plea of provocation based on family honor. While the Court strongly criticized the trial and appellate courts for failing to impose the death penalty—emphasizing that the normal penalty for murder under both the law of the land and Islamic injunctions is death—it declined to enhance the sentences due to the absence of a formal petition for enhancement. The Court established that appellate interference is unwarranted unless there is a serious defect in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts, and that private revenge does not constitute a mitigating circumstance in cold-blooded murders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appellate court have the authority to interfere with the findings of the trial court regarding the appreciation of evidence absent a serious defect in the process?
  • Can a plea of family honor or private revenge serve as a mitigating circumstance in cases of cold-blooded murder?
  • Are police officials who witness a crime considered interested witnesses whose testimony requires corroboration?
  • Is the death penalty the normal penalty for murder under the law of the land and Islamic injunctions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs Nasir Ahmad And Other1991 SC M R1916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31
  temporary injunctionstatus quodiscretionary powerspecific performanceleave to appealpartnership dissolutionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' First Appeal Against Order (F.A.O.) regarding an injunction granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad. The underlying dispute arose from the dissolution of a partnership business involving flour mills, an ice factory, and cold storage. Following an alleged mutual division of assets, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance and challenged the petitioners' title to certain properties, obtaining a temporary injunction to restrain the petitioners from alienating the disputed property. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly affirmed the trial court's discretionary order granting a status quo injunction. The Supreme Court held that the injunction was merely regulatory in nature and that the lower courts had exercised their discretionary powers appropriately. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that such discretionary orders are rarely disturbed at the leave-to-appeal stage, especially when they can be recalled upon a final adjudication of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent discretionary orders of lower courts granting a status quo injunction?
  • Is a status quo order in a suit for specific performance considered a regulatory measure?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed when the lower courts have exercised their discretion in granting a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1991 CLC 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Abdullah and others1991 CLC 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs Chairman, WAPDA1991 PLC (C.S.) 779 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alias Sharabi vs The State1991 MLD 2539 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs Mst. Hakim Bibi1991 P Cr. L J 410 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs Messrs Star Textile Mills Ltd.1991 PLC 696 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2251 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs Shafiq Ahmed and 3 others1991 MLD 338 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and another vs The University of Peshawar through its Vice Chancellor, Peshawar and 3 others1991 PLD Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft Chaudhry and 4 others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department and 6 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 235 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Rent Controller, Faisalabad and 2 others1991 MLD 2358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Addl. District JudgeK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat and another1991 MLD 774 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Additional District Judge, Gmat and 4 others1991 CLC 719 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Raja vs Government of the Punjab, through Chief1991 CLC 617 · Lahore High Court
  quo warrantowrit petitionpardonreinstatement in servicepremature retirementpublic officecompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition in the nature of a writ of quo warranto was filed challenging the authority of Respondent No. 3 to hold the public office of Chief Engineer, Buildings North Zone, Lahore. Respondent No. 3 had been prematurely retired from service under CMLO 17 by the Governor/MLA. Subsequently, the Governor/MLA granted him a 'pardon' upon a mercy petition. Based on this pardon, Respondent No. 2 (Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department) issued a notification reinstating Respondent No. 3 into service. The core legal questions were whether an order of 'pardon' granted by the competent authority automatically amounts to or includes 'reinstatement' in service, and whether Respondent No. 2 had the jurisdiction to issue the reinstatement order. The Lahore High Court held that 'pardon' does not restore a person to public office or equate to reinstatement, but merely removes disabilities. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 misconstrued the pardon and exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the reinstatement notification without a specific order from the Governor/MLA. The court allowed the petition and restrained Respondent No. 3 from functioning as Chief Engineer.

  Questions settled

  • Does a grant of pardon by a competent authority automatically equate to or mandate reinstatement into public service?
  • Can a departmental secretary issue a notification of reinstatement when the power to reinstate is vested exclusively in the Governor or Martial Law Administrator?
  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be maintained to challenge an executive order reinstating a public officer passed without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Ahmad vs Mumtaz Hussain Lali, Additional1991 CLC 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1650 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and others vs State Life Insurance Corporation and others1991 CLC 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and 4 others vs The State1991 MLD 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Sakina Bibi and 6 others1991 CLC 544 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mian Taj Mahmood and others1991 MLD 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Chairman, Union Council and 2 others1991 MLD 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Hamid And Other1991 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-29
  civil revisionconcurrent findings of factsite inspectionco-ownershipleave to appealmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision regarding a dispute over the co-ownership of a staircase. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration asserting that the staircase located between the parties' shops was jointly owned, providing access to their respective upper portions, and that the petitioner had no right to obstruct its use. Both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently held that the staircase was commonly owned, a finding of fact supported by the personal site inspection conducted by the Additional District Judge, who observed a door connecting the staircase to the respondents' roof. The Supreme Court addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the alleged misreading of evidence. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact, grounded in the personal inspection of the site by the Additional District Judge, were well-founded and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that findings of fact based on judicial site inspection are not lightly disturbed in revisional or appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact based on a personal site inspection by a judge be challenged on the ground of misreading of evidence?
  • Is a finding of fact based on a judicial site inspection sufficient to sustain a decree in a suit for declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Khan vs Meher Sultan1991 CLC 351 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22
  fair rentenhancement of rentrent controllerdemised premisesremand of casestatutory factors
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the First Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East, which allowed an application for the enhancement of rent from Rs. 100 to Rs. 800 per month for a residential bungalow portion situated in Parsi Colony, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller determined the fair rent in accordance with the mandatory statutory factors prescribed by law. The Sindh High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was arbitrary, as it relied solely on the increase in water charges without considering other statutory determinants such as rents of similar premises, rise in construction and repair costs, and the annual value for property tax. The court laid down the principle that while determining fair rent, a Rent Controller must explicitly consider all statutory factors under the relevant rent restriction law, providing sound, proportionate, and reasoned findings rather than exercising unguided or arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller can determine fair rent by solely considering the increase in water charges while ignoring other statutory factors?
  • Is an order of a Rent Controller fixing fair rent without assigning cogent reasons and considering comparative locality rents sustainable?
  • What factors must a Rent Controller take into consideration when determining the fair rent of rented premises under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Butt And Others vs Khawaja Muhammad Naseem And Other1991 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-28
  ejectment petitionrent controllercompromise agreementapprobate and reprobateconstitutional jurisdictionlandlord and tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as an ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the petitioners regarding a residential property in Lahore. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioners' ejectment, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, arguing the matter should have been adjudicated by a Civil Court, and contested the validity of a compromise agreement relied upon by the lower courts, asserting it violated the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding that the compromise was entered into voluntarily and without undue influence. The Court held that the petitioners, having admitted the respondent's ownership and promised to surrender possession in the compromise, could not subsequently challenge the forum or the nature of the relationship to avoid their obligations. Emphasizing the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the Court ruled that parties cannot be permitted to take shelter behind technicalities to renege on voluntary agreements. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who has voluntarily entered into a compromise agreement subsequently challenge the jurisdiction of the forum that recorded it?
  • Does the doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevent a party from challenging the validity of a compromise they previously executed?
  • Is a compromise agreement admitting ownership and promising surrender of possession enforceable in ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Another vs Assistant Commissioner1991 SCMR 1837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29
  land settlementexcess landsurrender of landalienation of landsettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which upheld the refusal of Settlement authorities to allow the petitioners to exercise their right of choice in surrendering excess land. The core legal question was whether landowners who have already alienated the entirety of their entitlement land retain a statutory right to choose which specific parcels of land to surrender as excess. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court reasoned that the right to surrender excess land by choice presupposes the existence of land in the possession of the petitioner. Since the petitioners had already sold the entire land comprising their entitlement, no land remained for them to exercise any choice regarding surrender. Consequently, the claim was found to be legally untenable as the subject matter for the exercise of the right had been extinguished by the petitioners' own prior actions of sale.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landowner exercise a right to choose which land to surrender as excess if they have already sold their entire entitlement?
  • Does the right to surrender excess land exist when the petitioner no longer possesses any land?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabir Shah vs Mst. Dilshad Fatima and others1991 CLC 786 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Mst. Zahida and others1991 CLC 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Khan And Another vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi And Other1991 SCMR 1745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31
  inheritance mutationBoard of Revenuereview jurisdictionrevision petitionallotment of landrefugee propertyvexatious litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding the inheritance of land allotted to refugees following the 1947 migration. The core legal question was whether the Member, Board of Revenue, possessed the jurisdiction to review an order after a revision petition had already been dismissed on merits, and following the repeal of the relevant governing law. The Supreme Court held that the Member, Board of Revenue, lacked the jurisdiction or justification to reopen the matter through a review application after the revision petition had been dismissed on merits and the underlying law had been repealed. The Court emphasized that litigation cannot be utilized to pursue personal vendettas or unhealthy emotions against rightful heirs. The petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the review order was passed without lawful authority and was of no legal effect, thereby protecting the inheritance rights of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Member, Board of Revenue, have the jurisdiction to review an order after a revision petition has been dismissed on merits?
  • Can a matter be reopened through a review application after the repeal of the relevant governing law?
  • Is an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, in review without lawful authority if a revision petition on the same matter was previously dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1991PCr.LJ 150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1991 MLD 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Secretary, Finance Division and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 785 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Saeed vs The Director General, Pakistan Telegraph1991 SCMR 1733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-26
  service appealleave to appealmisconductannual statement of assetsbenamidarcivil servantdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld his dismissal from service for misconduct. The charges related to the acquisition of property and an insurance policy without departmental permission and failing to disclose them in his Annual Statement of Assets. The petitioner's defence was that he was merely a benamidar and not the actual owner of the properties. The Supreme Court considered whether a civil servant is required to declare assets held in his name even if he claims to be a benamidar, and whether failure to obtain permission and make such declarations constitutes misconduct. The Court held that assets in an employee's name must be declared, and if claimed to be held benami, explanatory facts must be provided. Finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusions and no question of law of public importance, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that failure to disclose assets standing in one's name in annual declarations or to seek prior permission, regardless of a benami plea, constitutes misconduct justifying dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant is obliged to disclose assets held in his name in the Annual Statement of Assets even if he claims to be a benamidar?
  • Does the failure to obtain departmental permission for investing money in property and insurance policies constitute misconduct?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's judgment raises a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Samiullah Ghauri vs Secretary, Population Welfare1991 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30
  probationertermination of serviceservice tribunalreversionprobation periodleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Statistical Assistant, was appointed as a Junior Instructor in Grade 17 on a one-year probation period. Approximately five months into his probation, his services were terminated, and he was reverted to his parent department. The petitioner challenged this termination before the Service Tribunal, arguing that an inquiry into alleged misconduct should have been conducted prior to his removal. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the termination was lawful as the petitioner was a probationer and the order did not cast any stigma upon him. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the termination of a probationer required a formal inquiry. The Court held that the competent authority has the discretion to dispense with the services of a probationer during the probation period without conducting an inquiry, provided no stigma is attached to the termination. Finding no illegality in the Service Tribunal's order, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the authority acted within its legal competence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the services of a probationer be terminated without conducting a formal inquiry into misconduct?
  • Is a termination order of a probationer valid if it does not cast a stigma on the employee?
  • Does the competent authority have the discretion to dispense with the services of a probationer during the probation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Samiuddin vs Soofi Muhammad Ali1991 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Khan vs Director General, Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment And Another1991 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01
  deputationresignationwithdrawal of resignationservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Economic Investigator in the Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment, was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia under a contract. Upon the expiry of his deputation period, his request for extension was denied in accordance with government instructions, and he was directed to return. Subsequently, the petitioner tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the competent authority. More than a year later, the petitioner attempted to withdraw his resignation, but his departmental appeal and subsequent appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal were dismissed on the ground that he had voluntarily tendered his resignation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the voluntary resignation having been accepted, the petitioner could not recall it after a prolonged delay. The Court found no question of law of public importance involved, and accordingly refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government employee withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted and a considerable delay has passed?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal where the employee tendered a voluntary resignation?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against the dismissal of a service appeal where no question of law of public importance is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs Commissioner, Sukkur and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 886 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh and 2 others vs Muhammad Ali and another1991 MLD 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Messrs Metro Garments Industries(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 50) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Member (Water) WAPDA and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 1030 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Border Area CommitteeK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 222 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Border Area Committee and others1991 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Qureshi vs Collector of Central Excise and Land1991 PLC (C.S.) 162 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Mughal vs Mst. Asfa Khatoon1991 SCMR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-23
  rent evictionbona fide personal uselandlord and tenant relationshipconcurrent findings of factleave to appealrent default
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent eviction matter where the landlord sought possession of premises based on default in rent payment and personal bona fide need. The Rent Controller ruled in favor of the landlord on all issues. On appeal, the High Court set aside the finding of default but affirmed the landlord's ownership and the bona fide requirement for personal use. Before the Supreme Court, the tenant challenged the landlord's status, arguing that the landlord's husband had acted as the lessor, and contested the bona fide need, citing the landlord's existing accommodation and the marriage of her daughters. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lease agreement clearly established the respondent as the landlord and owner. The Court further affirmed that a landlord is entitled to seek eviction for personal use regardless of current rented accommodation, and that concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide need, supported by evidence, are not subject to interference in the absence of legal error or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek eviction for personal use if they are currently residing in a rented house?
  • Does the fact that a landlord's husband acted as an attorney in managing property negate the landlord's ownership status?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding bona fide need subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Mughal vs Mst. Asafa Khatoon1991 MLD 1125 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Secretary, Food and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 333 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-12-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Butt vs Muhammad Siddique And Others1991 P Cr. LJ 915 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Anwar vs Messrs Patley International (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others1991 CLC 1854 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem And Others vs Ghulan Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-02
  suit for declarationperpetual injunctionburden of prooftitle to landcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding land ownership. The petitioners claimed title to the suit land, asserting it was purchased from specific vendors. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners; however, this was subsequently reversed by the Majlis-i-Shoora on appeal, a decision later upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had sufficiently established their title to the suit land through credible evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of ownership. The Court observed that the evidence presented was insufficient, as the witnesses failed to identify the suit property, and the alleged vendors did not testify to support the petitioners' claim of purchase. The key principle laid down is that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests squarely upon the plaintiff, and failure to establish the chain of title or substantiate the purchase through credible, consistent evidence warrants the dismissal of the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a plaintiff to substantiate a claim of purchase with credible evidence warrant the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding the insufficiency of evidence by lower courts open to interference in the absence of misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and 4 others vs Hasnain Ahmad and others1991 CLC 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and 2 others vs Muhammad Siddique1991 PLD Lahore 278 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sakhi vs Abdul Rahim And Other1991 SCMR 1883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-05
  partition suitMuslim Lawadoptioncivil revisionleave to appealquestion of factcustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a civil suit for possession through partition, where the trial court initially rejected a claim of adoption regarding the petitioner's father, holding that adoption is not recognized under Muslim Law. The District Judge subsequently reversed this finding on appeal, accepting the adoption claim. The Lahore High Court, in civil revision, set aside the appellate court's judgment, reinstated the trial court's position, and passed a preliminary decree for possession by partition. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of an alleged gift deed and whether the adoption claim was valid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the predecessor-in-interest was governed by custom validating such adoption, reiterating that adoption is not recognized under Muslim Law. Furthermore, the Court determined that the interpretation of the gift deed was a question of fact rather than law or public importance. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is adoption recognized under Muslim Law?
  • Does the interpretation of a gift deed constitute a question of law or public importance suitable for Supreme Court interference?
  • Must a party claiming adoption under custom prove that the predecessor-in-interest was governed by such custom?
  Read full judgment →