Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Muhammad Sajjad Hussain vs Muhammad Anwar Hussain1991 SCMR 703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing the respondent's suit for a declaration that the appellant was a benamidar in respect of a residential house. The core legal question pertained to whether the courts below misread evidence or failed to determine the primary source of purchase money and burden of proof in a benami transaction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent successfully established ownership by proving the source of consideration, continuous possession, custody of 41 loan repayment receipts and municipal tax documents, and a valid motive for the benami arrangement. The key principle laid down is that while the initial burden of proof rests firmly on the party alleging a benami transaction, once the evidence is evaluated and points overwhelmingly to the real owner's payment of consideration and continuous exercise of ownership rights, concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed in the absence of perversity or material misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in an appeal where leave was granted on questions involving the appraisal of evidence?
- What are the primary criteria for determining whether a property transaction is benami?
- Does the initial burden of proof rest on the party alleging that an ostensible owner is a benamidar?
- Whether the production of an original title deed by the ostensible owner is sufficient to negate overwhelming evidence of consideration payment and possession by the real owner?
- Muhammad Safdar vs Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 823 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Safdar vs Sardar Muhammad and others1991 MLD 1587 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saeed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saeed vs Muhammad Ahmed and others1991 CLC 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Sadiq and others1991 CLC 1460 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Jan Khan And Other1991 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing his writ petition, which had challenged the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) declaring the disputed land as evacuee property pursuant to an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether sections 10 and 11 of the said Act were applicable to give jurisdiction to the Settlement Commissioner rather than the Deputy Custodian, and whether the High Court's judgment suffered from a misreading of the revenue record concerning the rights of co-sharers in hissadari possession and subsequent sales adjustable upon partition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required further consideration, and ordered that status quo be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Settlement) Act, 1958 apply to declare property as evacuee, or if jurisdiction vests exclusively in the Deputy Custodian?
- Does the sale of land by a co-sharer in excess of his share in the proprietary column require adjustment at the time of partition when co-sharers are jointly recorded in possession?
- Muhammad Sadiq vs Mst. Bashiran and others1991 CLC 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs Inspector General of Police, Sindhh, Karachi, and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 125) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs House Building Finance Corporation and others1991 MLD 2153 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs Haji Abdul Majid1991 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) concerning an eviction order. The respondent landlord had initiated ejectment proceedings against the petitioner tenant, alleging default in the payment of rent for the months of September and October 1979. The Additional Rent Controller found that the petitioner had indeed committed default in the payment of rent for the specified period and consequently ordered his eviction. The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court, which upheld the Rent Controller's findings. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding the rental default. The Supreme Court observed that the facts regarding the default were admitted and had been consistently decided against the petitioner by the lower forums. Finding no legal error or justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby affirming the eviction order.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default in an ejectment petition?
- Does an admitted default in rent payment justify an order of eviction against a tenant?
- Muhammad Sadiq vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Pakistan1991 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges an appellate court order that accepted the respondent's application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and set aside an ex parte decree passed against the respondent in a service termination suit. The core legal questions involved whether the lower appellate court erred in appreciating un-cross-examined evidence, whether the decree was passed under Order XVII Rule 2 or Rule 3 making an application under Order IX Rule 13 maintainable, and which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governed the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree when the default occurred on an adjourned date rather than upon initial summons. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court's appreciation of unchallenged evidence did not constitute a misreading warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, that the trial court's order adopting ex parte proceedings rendered the resulting decree an ex parte decree making Order IX Rule 13 maintainable, and that Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 applied strictly to initial non-appearances under summons while defaults on adjourned dates under Order XVII Rule 2 fell under the residuary Article 181. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a decree passed after proceeding against a defendant ex parte on an adjourned date under Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is amenable to an application under Order IX Rule 13?
- Does Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to cases where a defendant fails to appear on an adjourned date after having previously appeared and contested the suit?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed due to non-appearance on an adjourned hearing?
- Can a High Court interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with findings of fact by a lower appellate court based on the evaluation of unchallenged evidence?
- Muhammad Sadiq vs Abdul Ghani and others1991 CLC 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq Khan vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 31 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq Alias Saddi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saddique And Other vs Deputy Collector,Excise &PTCL 1991 CL. 108 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Sachal vs Chief Secretary, Sindh Karachi and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1132 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sachal vs Chief Secretary Sindhh Karachi and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 147) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sabir vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2162 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sabir vs Mst. Fatima Bibi And 13 Other1991 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 17-4-1989, which had accepted a revision petition, set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two lower courts, and dismissed the petitioner's pre-emption suit regarding land measuring 175 Kanals 18 Marlas. The core legal question concerned the limits of revisional jurisdiction and whether the High Court was legally justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the petition has no force because the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record, noting that witnesses had established abandonment and waiver by the petitioner through his presence and refusal to purchase the land, statements which the petitioner failed to refute when he testified. The court laid down the principle that the High Court may interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revision where there is a misreading of evidence or inherent defects in the case apparent from the record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can set aside concurrent findings of fact in a revision petition?
- Does failure to refute adverse witness testimony in evidence amount to an acceptance of those facts?
- When can the High Court interfere with findings of fact based on a misreading of evidence?
- Muhammad Roshan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1490 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz vs Master Sajjad Hussain1991 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court was directed against the order of ejectment of the tenant for default in the payment of rent. The core legal question was whether the rent was Rs.150 or Rs.190 per month, and whether the tenant was in default based on a statement made on special oath regarding the enhancement of rent. The Supreme Court held that the statement on special oath, when read as a whole, demonstrated that the enhancement of rent from Rs.150 to Rs.190 was conditional upon the provision of certain facilities by the landlord. Since those facilities were not provided, the landlord was not entitled to claim rent at the increased rate, and consequently, no default was established. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment application was dismissed, laying down the principle that a conditional statement regarding rent enhancement made on special oath cannot be construed as an unconditional obligation unless the underlying condition is fulfilled.
Questions settled- Whether a statement on special oath regarding the enhancement of rent can be enforced independently of the conditions attached to it?
- Can a tenant be held in default for non-payment of an enhanced rent when the condition for such enhancement remains unfulfilled?
- How should a statement made on special oath be interpreted in rent determination proceedings?
- Muhammad Riaz vs Inspectorgeneral of Police1991 P Cr. L J 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz Khan vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Pasrur1991 PLC (C.S.) 760 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-07-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Sufi Allah BachayaK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Sufi Allah Bachaya1991 CLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Soofi Allah Bachaya1991 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz and others vs The State1991 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz and others vs Fateh Muhammad and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a pre-emption dispute involving agricultural land purchased by two sets of vendees: the appellants (tenants) and other respondents (strangers). The trial court and appellate courts rejected the appellants' claim of superior right of pre-emption as tenants, holding that by joining non-tenants in the sale, the appellants lost their status as tenants and were relegated to the position of non-tenants. The core legal question was whether the sale transaction, involving both tenants and non-tenants, constituted a single indivisible transaction or if it could be treated as severable, thereby allowing the tenants to retain their share. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the registered sale deed, finding that the shares of the vendees were clearly specified and that each set of vendees had separately contributed their respective portions of the sale consideration. Consequently, the Court held that the transaction was severable. Applying the principle that a transaction where shares and consideration are distinct and specified can be treated as separate, the Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellants to retain their one-half share of the land.
Questions settled- Can a sale transaction involving both tenants and non-tenants be treated as severable for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Does the joinder of non-tenants in a sale deed automatically deprive a tenant-vendee of their superior right of pre-emption?
- What evidence is required to establish that a sale transaction involving multiple vendees is severable?
- Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1868 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Razzaq vs The State1991 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of an eleven-year-old boy through rash and negligent driving. The petitioner, a wagon driver, was tried by a Magistrate, and his conviction and sentence of two years of simple imprisonment were upheld by both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's rash and negligent driving were sustainable, particularly given the disputed location of the accident and the mechanical condition of the vehicle. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but ultimately dismissed it. The Court held that the evidence, including the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report confirming defective brakes, sufficiently established the petitioner's negligence. As the lower courts had reached concurrent findings of fact based on credible witness testimony, the Supreme Court declined to reappraise the evidence, affirming that no interference was warranted in the established conviction.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence where lower courts have reached concurrent findings of fact?
- Does driving a vehicle with defective brakes constitute sufficient evidence of rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Raza Irani Alias Muhammad Irani vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Law, Justice And Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 583 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Raza Alias Muhammad Irani vs Govt. of Pakistan and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 553 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rashid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rashid Khan vs Sardar Sajawal Khan and another1991 MLD 367 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rashid and others vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses several revision applications filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging orders of the Sessions Judge refusing interim custody (Superdiginama) of vehicles involved in road accidents where drivers were charged under section 320 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance 1990. The core legal question was whether a motor vehicle involved in a traffic accident constitutes a 'weapon of offence' or property 'used for the commission of any offence' under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying its continued detention during trial. The Court held that a motor vehicle in such cases cannot be deemed a weapon of offence or employed in the commission of the offence, and keeping it in custody penalizes the innocent owner. The High Court laid down the principle that means of transport involved in accidents are not weapons of offence, and courts must release them to their rightful owners for proper custody pending trial, consistent with statutory provisions like section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965.
Questions settled- Whether a motor vehicle involved in a road accident can be classified as a weapon of offence or property used for the commission of an offence under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an owner of a vehicle entitled to interim custody on Superdiginama when the owner is not implicated in the driver's rash or negligent driving?
- What is the statutory purpose and time limit for the seizure and inspection of a motor vehicle involved in an accident under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
- Whether subordinate courts are bound to follow the established precedents of the High Court on questions of law?
- Muhammad Rasheed vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar1991 SCMR 1760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed by the petitioner against an earlier impugned judgment. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether a new ground regarding the identity of the property, based on differing Khasra numbers, can be raised for the first time at the review stage when it was never urged before the lower courts. The court holds that such a ground is not available to the petitioner because it was neither raised at any earlier stage nor is sustainable, given that the property's description and particulars are sufficiently detailed otherwise to establish its identity beyond merely its Khasra numbers. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismisses the review petition for lack of merit, laying down the principle that new factual grounds not previously raised cannot be introduced in a review petition.
Questions settled- Can a new ground regarding the identity of property be raised for the first time in a review petition?
- Is a property's identity confined solely to its Khasra numbers when sufficient alternative details of its description are available?
- Muhammad Rasheed vs Abdul Salam and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of residential premises situated above evacuee shops. The appellant challenged the dismissal of his revision application, which had upheld the respondents' title derived from a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued to their predecessor. The core legal question was whether Settlement Authorities possessed the jurisdiction to cancel a validly issued P.T.D. and re-auction the property in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issuance of a P.T.D. signifies that the property has exited the compensation pool. Consequently, Settlement Authorities lack the jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers over such property once the P.T.D. has been issued. The Court affirmed that finality attaches to such transactions, and revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to disturb a settled title merely because of subsequent administrative reconsiderations. The judgment reinforces the principle that a P.T.D. creates a vested right that cannot be unilaterally revoked by Settlement Authorities, thereby protecting the sanctity of titles issued under the relevant settlement laws.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed remove evacuee property from the compensation pool?
- Can Settlement Authorities exercise revisional jurisdiction over property after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued?
- Is a Permanent Transfer Deed subject to cancellation by Settlement Authorities in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1991 MLD 1540 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Rafhan Maize Product and others1991 PLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Azim Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 544 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Azim and 9 others1991 MLD 951 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Yaqoot Begum And Other1991 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and decreeing the suit for specific performance in favour of the first vendees. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell executed prior to the issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed of evacuee property, coupled with delivery of possession and payment of full consideration, could be legally enforced and take preference over a subsequent registered sale-deed executed in favour of a second vendee. The Supreme Court held that the earlier registered agreement to sell and mortgage deed were fully binding on the original owner, who was legally obligated to execute the sale-deed once the Permanent Transfer Deed was issued, and that the second vendee was not a bona fide purchaser. The Court established that an agreement to sell executed prior to the acquisition of full proprietary rights or formal transfer deeds is enforceable and takes precedence over subsequent transfers made with notice of the prior transaction.
Questions settled- Can an agreement to sell executed before the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed for evacuee property be legally enforced?
- Whether an agreement to sell executed prior to acquiring full proprietary rights is hit by statutory transfer restrictions?
- Does a prior registered agreement to sell and mortgage take preference over a subsequent sale-deed executed in favour of a second vendee?
- Is a second vendee who has notice of a prior mortgage and agreement to be considered a bona fide purchaser for value?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 2 others1991 PLD Azad J & K 19 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Afshan Kanwal and 2 others1991 CLC 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of execution proceedings concerning a maintenance decree passed by the Family Court. The core legal question was whether a Family Court lacks jurisdiction to execute a money decree itself and whether such a decree can only be enforced by the Collector as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964. The Lahore High Court held that section 13(3) is an enabling provision providing an additional procedure for recovery as arrears of land revenue only if the Court so directs, and it does not oust the general jurisdiction of the Family Court to execute its own decrees under subsection (4). The Court affirmed that all decrees passed by the Family Court are to be executed by it or by another designated Civil Court, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court has the jurisdiction to execute a money decree itself?
- Does section 13(3) of the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 oust the jurisdiction of the Family Court to execute a money decree through normal execution processes?
- Is the recovery of a decretal amount as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 mandatory or dependent on a specific direction of the Court?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Ghulam Zohra1991 CLC 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs District Education Officer, Larkana and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1152 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs District Education Officer Larkana and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 150) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Ahmad Bux And Another1991 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as time-barred. The core legal question was whether an appellant, whose period of limitation for filing an appeal expires while the court is closed for vacation, is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to file the appeal on the reopening day, even if the application for a certified copy of the order was made after the initial limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908, operates independently of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court ruled that the benefit of Section 4, which allows for the filing of an appeal on the reopening day of a court, is not conditional upon having applied for a certified copy within the original limitation period. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's dismissal and remanded the case for decision on merits, establishing that Section 4 does not require a party to satisfy the conditions of Section 12 to avail its protection.
Questions settled- Does the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908, depend on whether an application for a certified copy was made within the original period of limitation?
- Is Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908, an independent provision from Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, regarding the computation of time?
- Can an appeal be competently filed on the reopening day of a court if the prescribed period of limitation expired during the court's vacation?
- Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation1991 SCMR 1813(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had previously sought the modification of an earlier order dated 1-2-1986, which had disposed of their Revision Petition No. 630-R of 1974. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an order passed by the High Court with the express consent of the petitioners could be subsequently modified or challenged. The Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition for leave to appeal. The ratio of the decision is that a judicial order passed with the consent of the parties cannot be challenged or modified at the behest of those same parties, as the consent serves as a binding agreement to the disposition of the matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the original order maintained by the High Court remained valid and binding upon the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge or seek modification of a High Court order that was passed with their express consent?
- Does a consent order preclude a party from later filing a miscellaneous application for its modification?
- Muhammad Ramzan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rahim vs Zahoor Ahmad And 5 Other1991 SCMR 2005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that upheld an Election Tribunal's decision to set aside the petitioner's election to a local body. The core legal dispute concerned the petitioner's qualification to contest the election under Section 21(G) of the Baluchistan Local Government Ordinance, 1980, specifically whether the termination of his services from WAPDA constituted a disqualification, or if his resignation, as claimed, exempted him from the statutory bar. The High Court had ruled against the petitioner, finding him disqualified. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the two-year period mentioned in the statutory bar had already expired, rendering the disqualification temporary rather than permanent. Furthermore, the Court observed that new local body elections were imminent, making it impractical to hear the appeal in time. Consequently, the petitioner chose not to press the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition while explicitly keeping the underlying legal question regarding the interpretation of the disqualification provision open for future determination.
Questions settled- Does the bar contained in Section 21(G) of the Baluchistan Local Government Ordinance 1980 apply to a candidate whose services were terminated from WAPDA?
- Is the disqualification under Section 21(G) of the Baluchistan Local Government Ordinance 1980 of a permanent nature?
- Muhammad Rafique vs WAPDA through Chairman and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 1040 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs Muhammad Ishaque and 3 others1991 CLC 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs Mst. Anwaran Bibi and 6 others1991 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique and 16 others vs Sultan Bakhsh and another1991 PLD Karachi 320 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing the respondents' suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of an urban plot transferred to their predecessor-in-interest by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal question was whether unauthorized occupants who raised structures on an open building site transferred under the evacuee laws are entitled to statutory protection as tenants under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Sindh High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the petitioners were not allottees, had not obtained lawful possession under the statute, and were mere trespassers. The Court affirmed that section 30 protection and statutory tenancy do not extend to occupants of open building sites who lack lawful possession as defined under the Act, aligning with binding precedents of the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether an occupant of an open building site transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 is entitled to statutory protection as a tenant under section 30 of the Act?
- Does unauthorized occupation and subsequent construction on a transferred evacuee plot create a valid statutory tenancy?
- What constitutes legal possession for the purposes of claiming protection under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership and trespass be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 749 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 494 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 955 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs SH. Muhammad IqbalK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs Muhammad Ali and others1991 CLC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq Mir vs Malik Muhammad Nawaz and others1991 CLC 859 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq and others vs Hashmat Ali and others1991 CLC 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq and another vs Haji Muhammad Shafi Khan and 21991 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 47 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1991 PLC 777 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim vs Muhammad Sharif and another1991 MLD 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim vs Bashir Ahmad and 12 others1991 PLD Azad J & K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim vs Ahsan Mustafa1991 MLD 2480 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim Khan vs Mst. Fizatul Zuhra1991 SCMR 1910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership of a house in dispute and asserting that the sale-deed executed in favour of the respondent, his second wife, was a benami transaction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the Additional District Judge accepted the respondent's appeal and dismissed the suit, a decision upheld by the High Court in regular second appeal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether the transaction was benami. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent was a working teacher with independent income capable of purchasing the property at the material time, and that the payment made by her father on her behalf before the Registrar demonstrated her vigilance rather than a benami nature. The court laid down the principle that where a working spouse purchases property from her own income and her father facilitates the payment, the transaction cannot be deemed benami without compelling contrary evidence, warranting no interference with concurrent factual findings.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction in the name of a working spouse can be declared benami when she possesses independent income?
- Does payment made by a father on behalf of his daughter during a property purchase establish a benami transaction?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of a property transaction?
- Muhammad Panah vs WaryamK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 548 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Panah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1356 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Owais vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 740 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Owais vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 361 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Noorul Amin vs The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act1991 PLC 758 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, where the petitioner employee obtained an ex parte award after the respondent employer and its counsel repeatedly absented themselves. The respondent subsequently filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which the Authority allowed. The Sindh High Court examined whether the setting aside of the ex parte award was lawful. The Court held that a party cannot blindly shift all blame for prolonged absence onto their advocate without demonstrating personal vigilance, and that an application to set aside an ex parte decision under the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules must be filed within the prescribed limitation period of one month. The Court established that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, and an ex parte order cannot be set aside merely because the opposite party failed to appear on a subsequent date without good cause being shown for the initial default.
Questions settled- Can a client escape liability for the negligence and absence of their advocate where the client themselves showed a complete lack of vigilance?
- Is Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Within what time frame must an application be filed to set aside an ex parte decision under the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules?
- Can an Authority under the Payment of Wages Act set aside an ex parte decision merely because the opposing party was absent on the date of hearing of the application?
- Muhammad Noor And Another vs Member I, Board of Revenue, Balochistan And Other1991 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 11(3) of Ordinance II of 1968, based on circumstantial evidence consisting of enmity, abscondence, and an attempted compromise by the appellants' fathers. The core legal question was whether a conviction on a capital charge can be sustained solely on such circumstantial and hearsay evidence without any direct or substantive evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that none of the pieces of evidence relied upon—motive, abscondence, or an admission and compromise made by the fathers of the accused—constitute substantive or admissible evidence upon which a conviction can be legally based. The Court laid down that in the absence of direct or substantive evidence, weak circumstantial factors cannot form the basis of a conviction, and that admissions or compromises made by third parties (such as parents) are entirely meaningless in criminal trials. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 applies fully to proceedings before tribunals under Ordinance II of 1968.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be convicted on a capital charge solely on the basis of motive, abscondence, and a compromise entered into by their parents in the absence of direct or substantive evidence?
- Whether an admission of guilt or a compromise made by the father of an accused person is admissible as a confession against the accused in a criminal trial?
- Are the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 applicable to proceedings before tribunals under Ordinance II of 1968?
- Does abscondence or the existence of enmity constitute substantive or corroborative evidence in the absence of direct testimony?
- Muhammad Nisar Khan vs The Government of the Punjab and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 260) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nisar Khan vs The Government of the Punjab and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 313) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Niaz Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 31 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir and 2 others vs The State1991 MLD 2512 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir and 2 others vs Munshi Khan and others1991 CLC 471 · Board of Revenue · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazeer vs Messrs Mercantile Industries Ltd., Karachi1991 PLC 712 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazar vs Dr. Anwar Ali Shaikh1991 CLC 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz, Special Secretary, Cabinet Division, Through His1991 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed an appeal as abated following the death of the appellant, a civil servant. The legal representatives sought to continue the appeal concerning pay fixation and monetary claims. The core legal question was whether the right to sue survives a civil servant's death and whether their legal representatives are entitled to continue proceedings before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the right of appeal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is conferred exclusively upon an aggrieved 'civil servant' as defined under Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 regarding terms and conditions of service. Because the Service Tribunals Act contains no provision extending remedies to successors-in-interest, the appeal abated upon the civil servant's death, though the legal heirs remain at liberty to seek appropriate redress before a competent civil court.
Questions settled- Whether the right to sue before the Service Tribunal is inheritable by the legal representatives upon the death of a civil servant?
- Does an appeal pending before the Service Tribunal abate upon the death of the civil servant who instituted it?
- Can the successors-in-interest of a deceased civil servant maintain or continue proceedings under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for recovery of pay or emoluments?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 368 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 108 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2364 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a property inheritance dispute involving two mutations of land. The petitioner challenged the inheritance shares sanctioned in favor of the respondent, Nawaz, following the deaths of two brothers, Nasrullah and Jamadar. While the petitioner initially contested both mutations, he subsequently limited his challenge to Mutation No. 36, which concerned the inheritance of Jamadar. The core legal question presented was whether a previous compromise between the parties, wherein the petitioner had withdrawn an appeal regarding the inheritance share, precluded him from later challenging the mutation in a subsequent suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically regarding the petitioner's share in Jamadar's inheritance as recorded in Mutation No. 36. The Court held that the compromise, which had attained finality, raised significant legal questions regarding the binding nature of such settlements and the principle of spes successionis. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding possession of the disputed share pending the final decision of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a compromise agreement between parties regarding inheritance shares, once finalized, preclude a subsequent suit challenging the same mutation?
- Can a party who has withdrawn an appeal based on a compromise later challenge the underlying mutation in a new suit?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Government Op Sindh Through Secretary, Home1991PCr.LJ 338 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Abdul Hakim And 11 Other1991 SCMR 2097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that allowed respondents to retain land held in excess of their entitlement, despite an informer having unsatisfied Produce Index (P.I.) Units. The appellant had successfully informed settlement authorities that the respondents obtained excess land through misrepresentation. While the Settlement Commissioner confirmed the excess allotment and allocated the land to the appellant, the High Court intervened in writ jurisdiction, directing the sale of the excess land to the respondents. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court should have exercised its discretion in favor of the respondents. The Court held that when a claimant with unsatisfied P.I. Units competes against a party seeking to retain land held in excess of their entitlement, the former holds preference in both law and propriety. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's unsatisfied units must be satisfied from the excess land before the respondents can retain it, thereby correcting the High Court's improper exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a claimant with unsatisfied Produce Index Units have preference over a party seeking to retain land held in excess of their entitlement?
- Should the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to favor a party retaining land in excess of their entitlement against an informer with unsatisfied claims?
- Is a finding of fact regarding excess land allotment by settlement authorities subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Nawaz Shah vs Judge,Family Court and others1991 CLC 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Khan and 2 others vs Islamuddin1991 MLD 1523 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →