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 Boota And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota And 2 Others vs Provincial Government Through Collector, Faisalabad And Other1991 SCMR 1329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit concerning a dispute over 4 kanals and 6 marlas of evacuee land forming part of Killa No. 2, Square No. 26 in Chak No. 44g/Gt, Tehsil Samundri. The entire killa had originally been allotted to the petitioners' deceased father, who voluntarily offered it for the establishment of a school in 1954. Consequently, the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner confirmed the allotment of the whole killa in favor of the school in 1957 in the presence and with the consent of the father. Over 21 years later, the father instituted a civil suit claiming ownership and possession over a portion of the killa. The suit was initially decreed by the trial court, but the decision was reversed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, and the petitioners' revision petition was subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the allotment was consented to and remained unchallanged for decades without evidence of possession, thus dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a party who consented to an allotment of evacuee land to a public institution can challenge the transaction after a lapse of over two decades?
- Can a claim of ownership over allotted evacuee property be sustained without producing evidence of possession during the intervening period?
- Should leave to appeal be granted against concurrent findings upholding an unchallenged allotment order made by an Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner?
- Muhammad Binyamin vs Water and Power Development Authority And Other1991 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service as a Lower Division Clerk. The core legal question concerns whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's service appeal on grounds of limitation and merits, where the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct involving the ante-dating of applications and accepting incorrect addresses. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit as the departmental appeal and the appeal before the Tribunal were admittedly barred by time, and concurrent findings of fact regarding the proven misconduct were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on departmental misconduct, coupled with an appeal barred by limitation and devoid of legal infirmity, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation is maintainable?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Service Tribunal regarding employee misconduct?
- Is an employee dismissed after a regular inquiry entitled to relief when the departmental appeal and service appeal are both barred by time?
- Muhammad Binyamin and Seven Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 581 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Binyamin And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, along with a connected state appeal and complainant revision, arises from a judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Faisalabad, which convicted eight appellants under section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for retaining stolen property while acquitting them of dacoity under section 395/397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants committed robbery in the complainant's house and were arrested months later with stolen ornaments and firearms. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence and held that the acquittal for dacoity was justified due to the absence of an identification parade, as the accused were not previously known to the witnesses and not named in the first information report. Furthermore, the court held that the alleged simultaneous recovery of stolen property from all eight appellants at a bus stand after three and a half months defied natural probabilities and raised multiple hypotheses of police fabrication and planted evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the state appeal and complainant revision.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of an identification parade is sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the identity of accused persons not previously known to the witnesses?
- Does the retention of stolen property for several months by multiple accused persons at a public place run counter to natural probabilities?
- Can a conviction under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the evidence regarding the recovery of stolen property is doubtful and prone to alternative hypotheses of fabrication?
- Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
- Muhammad Bilal vs The Principal, National College of Textile1991 MLD 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's admission to the National College of Textile Engineering, Faisalabad. The petitioner had been admitted via a government quota, paid his dues, and received a roll number. Subsequently, the college cancelled his admission, citing a change in government policy regarding the Minister's quota and the fact that classes had not yet commenced. The core legal question was whether the college retained the authority to rescind an admission once the student had fulfilled all requirements and been issued a roll number, invoking the doctrine of locus poenitentiae. The Court held that the college had lost the right to repent because decisive steps had been taken—specifically, the acceptance of the admission, payment of dues, and issuance of a roll number. The Court ruled that executive orders cannot be applied retrospectively to divest vested rights. Furthermore, it found the cancellation unjust, as it would deprive the petitioner of educational opportunities at a late stage in the academic year. Consequently, the cancellation order was declared illegal and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an educational institution retain the right to rescind an admission once the student has paid dues and received a roll number?
- Can executive orders be given retrospective effect to cancel vested rights?
- Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae apply to an admission process where decisive steps have already been taken?
- Muhammad Benaras vs Superintendent of Police, Attock and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 647 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Basksh vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 667 · Other · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs The State1991 MLD 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Sakhawat Hussain1991 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises out of an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the grounds of default, subletting, and personal bona fide need to open a medical store. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the High Court reversed the decision and allowed eviction on the ground of personal need. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the landlord's requirement lacked bona fides because he was affluent, owned other properties, and had sought eviction of an adjacent shop. The Supreme Court held that a landlord is the best judge of his own requirements, and the mere fact that the landlord is rich or owns other properties does not negate his bona fide personal need, especially when his testimony regarding his intention to open a medical store was not effectively challenged in cross-examination. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment with a six-month grace period granted to the tenant to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's personal need for commercial premises can be challenged solely on the ground that the landlord is affluent or owns other properties?
- Is it open to the tenant or the court to dictate the choice of premises to a landlord seeking eviction for personal use?
- What is the effect of a lack of cross-examination on the landlord's assertion of personal need during rent proceedings?
- Muhammad Bashir vs Ramzan and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Munshi Muhammad Siddique And Other1991 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that had allowed a writ petition in favor of the respondent. The core legal dispute concerned the entitlement to the transfer of a shop under relevant property transfer schemes. The petitioner, who was in possession of the shop, argued that his possession alone entitled him to the transfer, regardless of who had constructed the property. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the shop had been constructed by the respondent and rented to the petitioner's son, who never applied for its transfer. The Court held that because the petitioner was not in possession of the shop on the crucial date of 1-1-1976, he lacked the requisite legal standing for its transfer. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the petitioner had no valid claim to the property. The judgment reinforces the principle that entitlement to property transfer is contingent upon meeting specific statutory conditions, including possession on the prescribed cut-off date, rather than mere occupation.
Questions settled- Is possession of a property on the crucial date a mandatory requirement for its transfer?
- Does a person in possession of a shop have an automatic right to its transfer regardless of who constructed it?
- Can a petitioner claim entitlement to property transfer if they were not in possession on the prescribed cut-off date?
- Muhammad Bashir vs M.B.R. Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 80) · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Ghulam Sarwar and 3 others1991 MLD 2072 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir Malik vs Imtiaz Khali() Malik and 2 others1991 MLD 1644 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir Khan vs Inspector-General of Police and 18 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1190 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir And Others vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate1991 SC MR 2087 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals address the entitlement of workmen to back benefits upon reinstatement following illegal termination and the burden of proof regarding gainful employment during the period of severance. The Court held that back benefits do not automatically follow an order of reinstatement. Whether such benefits are 'just and proper' under Section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance depends on whether the dismissal was wholly unwarranted or if the workman's own conduct contributed to the situation. Two key principles were affirmed: (a) back benefits are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement; and (b) the burden of proof lies on the employer to show the workman was gainfully employed, provided the workman has at least orally asserted they were not. The Court emphasized that back benefits are compensatory, not punitive. Applying these principles, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding that in one case the workman's contributory negligence justified the denial of benefits, and in the others, the failure to assert non-employment or the presence of blameworthy conduct precluded the claim.
Questions settled- Does an order of reinstatement automatically entitle a workman to back benefits?
- Who bears the burden of proof to establish whether a workman was gainfully employed during the period of his severance from service?
- What is the scope of the Labour Court's power under Section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 regarding the grant of back benefits?
- Does a workman's failure to orally assert that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere disentitle him from claiming back benefits?
- Muhammad Bashir And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir alias Feri vs The State1991 MLD 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir Ahmad vs Saeed Ahmad and 8 others1991 CLC 1353 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Baran and others vs Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that remanded settlement cases to the Member, Board of Revenue. The appellants contended that after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, by Act XIV of 1975, no settlement authority possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate matters not pending on July 1, 1974. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court’s writ jurisdiction could be invoked to set aside orders involving allegations of fraud and forgery. The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 is discretionary and intended to foster justice. It affirmed that the High Court is not bound to interfere in all circumstances, particularly where doing so would restore unjust orders or aid parties with 'soiled hands' who committed fraud. The Court ruled that the High Court acted fairly by remanding the case for a proper inquiry into the alleged fraud, as this approach protected the interests of justice and innocent third parties. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court’s discretionary power to grant partial relief.
Questions settled- Is the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution discretionary in nature?
- Can the High Court refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if the petitioner has committed fraud or has 'soiled hands'?
- Does the High Court have the power to grant partial relief in a writ petition instead of dismissing it in its entirety?
- Can the High Court remand a case to a settlement authority for inquiry into fraud even if the relevant settlement laws have been repealed?
- Muhammad Banaras vs Chairman, Union Council and 2 others1991 MLD 112 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsi-J vs Abid Hussain Shah and 6 others1991 MLD 571 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed against the judgments of the lower courts which rejected the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had previously filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, which he withdrew unconditionally following an oral compromise without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. Subsequently, the petitioner instituted a new declaratory suit claiming ownership as Mutawalli over the same property. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff who unconditionally withdraws a suit based on a private compromise, without obtaining permission under Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to file a fresh suit, is precluded from bringing a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. The High Court held that where a suit is withdrawn unconditionally due to a private settlement rather than to rectify a formal defect under Order XXIII Rule 1(2), the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) applies and the plaintiff is estopped from bringing a fresh suit.
Questions settled- Does an unconditional withdrawal of a suit based on a private compromise preclude the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action?
- Can a plaintiff bring a fresh suit after withdrawing a previous suit without obtaining express permission under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to a suit withdrawn upon a compromise settlement?
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 367 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1991 MLD 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs Assistant Engineer (Bridges) Pakistan Railways1991 PLC 439 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs Abid Hussain ShahK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 491 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh And Another vs Mst. Zainab Bibi And 6 Other1991 SCMR 2397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns the validity of a gift of land made by a female tenant who acquired proprietary rights after inheriting tenancy rights from her father. The core legal question was whether the female tenant became a full owner upon acquiring proprietary rights, thereby possessing unrestricted power to alienate the land, or if her rights remained limited by statute. The Supreme Court held that the female tenant did not become a full owner. Under Section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Act, 1944, her power of alienation was restricted, as the land was originally allotted to a male tenant. Furthermore, the Court applied the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962, determining that succession must follow Muslim Personal Law. Consequently, the gift was invalid to the extent that it exceeded her legal share. The principle established is that a female tenant acquiring proprietary rights in land originally held by a male tenant remains subject to statutory alienation restrictions, preventing her from gifting the entire property to the exclusion of other legal heirs.
Questions settled- Does a female tenant who acquires proprietary rights in land originally allotted to a male tenant become a full owner with unrestricted power of alienation?
- How does Section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Act, 1944 affect the alienation rights of a female tenant?
- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962 govern the succession of land originally held by a male tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act?
- Muhammad Bakhsh and 2 others vs Additional Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 584 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-09-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aziz and others vs Syed Haider Ali Shah and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1080 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in four appeals, wherein the learned counsel for the appellants conceded that no decree had been passed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs prior to 31st July, 1986, rendering their pleas untenable in light of settled precedent. The core legal question concerned the viability of pre-emption claims in the absence of a pre-existing decree before the crucial cutoff date, following the jurisprudence established in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287) and subsequent rulings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants could not succeed without a pre-existing decree before the specified date. The key principle laid down is that pre-emption claims failing to meet the temporal and substantive requirements established by authoritative judicial pronouncements regarding the law of pre-emption cannot be maintained, and litigants must be properly advised by the Bar regarding Islamic law principles of pre-emption to avoid frivolous litigation.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit succeed if no decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff before 31st July, 1986?
- What is the effect of the settled case-law following Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali on pending pre-emption matters?
- What role does the Bar play in advising litigants regarding the Islamic law of pre-emption and avoiding frivolous litigation?
- Muhammad Azim vs Rahim Dino and another1991 MLD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azim vs Mst. Munawar Begum And Other1991 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil suit instituted by the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from demolishing or damaging any portion of a disputed century-old evacuee property through excavation and construction. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and vacated the interim injunction with certain directions, which decision was partly modified in appeal by the Additional District Judge who remanded a preliminary issue regarding cause of action while maintaining the vacation of the interim injunction. A subsequent civil revision before the High Court was also dismissed. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts properly evaluated the facts and the status of the sanctioned building plan in declining interim relief and disposing of the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised, noting that the sanctioned plan had reportedly been cancelled and that ongoing construction threatened material damage to the petitioner's portion of the property, and consequently restrained the respondents from raising any construction pending the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a civil court can reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for permanent injunction concerning structural damage to a property?
- Can an appellate court remand a suit for decision on a preliminary issue while upholding the vacation of an interim injunction?
- Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain construction activities when the underlying building plan has been cancelled?
- Muhammad Azim vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone East, Karachi1991 PTD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azim Jamali and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 983 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azhar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 992 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azam vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1991 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Service Tribunal, which had converted the petitioner's dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. The petitioner, employed as a Sanitation Worker, was dismissed by the respondent for habitual absence from duty, specifically for 51 days during 1985. Before the Service Tribunal, the petitioner admitted to the unauthorized absence but attributed it to his mother's illness, a claim he failed to substantiate. The Service Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had wilfully absented himself and was guilty of misconduct, noting that the petitioner had waived a formal departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and held that the Service Tribunal's conclusion regarding the petitioner's habitual absence and the rejection of his excuse was sound and not open to exception. The Court determined that no question of law was involved in the petition. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the Service Tribunal's decision regarding the finding of misconduct was justified based on the evidence presented.
Questions settled- Does the unauthorized absence of an employee for 51 days constitute sufficient grounds for a finding of misconduct?
- Can an employee who admits to unauthorized absence during an inquiry later challenge the finding of misconduct on the basis of unproven personal circumstances?
- Is a Service Tribunal's finding of fact regarding habitual absence open to interference by the Supreme Court when no point of law is involved?
- Muhammad Azam vs Mehboob Iqbal And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 651 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azam And Others vs Abdul Rehman And Other1991 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the judgment of the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court, having determined that a suit filed before the Qazi Dalbandin under the Baluchistan (Civil Disputes) Shariat Application Regulation, 1976 was incompetent, acted correctly in nevertheless proceeding to decide the matter on merits and recording findings of fact regarding land ownership. The Supreme Court held that having found the suit incompetent, the High Court ought not to have rendered findings on the merits and questions of fact. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the petition, recalled the prior interim order, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that a court or forum, upon determining that a proceeding or suit is incompetent before it, should refrain from adjudicating the matter on its merits.
Questions settled- Should a court decide a suit on its merits after holding that the suit was not competent?
- Can findings of fact regarding land ownership be sustained when the initial forum's proceedings are found to be incompetent?
- Muhammad Azam and 3 others vs The State1991 PLD Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azad and anothers vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, Muzaffarabad and 4 others1991 MLD 468 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayyub vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1102 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2333 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Pakistan through Secretary Communications, Islamabad and others1991 PLC 169 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 71991 PLD Quetta 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Election Commission of Pakistan directing partial re-polling at specific polling stations in constituency PB-38 Turbat-II following allegations of rigging and irregularities during the 1990 General Elections. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission, when exercising powers under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, possesses the authority to order partial re-polling, or if it is statutorily bound to declare the election of the entire constituency void. The Court held that the Election Commission’s order for partial re-polling was legally defective. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court determined that Section 103-AA empowers the Commission to declare the poll in a constituency void in its entirety and call for a fresh election under Section 108, but does not authorize partial re-polling. The Court established the principle that statutory powers to declare an election void under Section 103-AA do not include the lesser power of ordering partial re-polling; the Commission must set aside the election for the entire constituency if it finds sufficient grounds for intervention.
Questions settled- Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to order partial re-polling under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Is the High Court barred from entertaining a constitutional petition regarding election disputes where an alternate remedy is provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Does the power of the Election Commission to declare an election void under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, include the power to order a fresh election in the entire constituency?
- Can the Election Commission of Pakistan rely on Section 103 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, to order re-polling after the conclusion of the polling process?
- Muhammad Ayub Khan vs Saadat Khan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 2291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for possession of land, where the appellant challenged concurrent findings of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court, all of which dismissed the suit. The core legal question was whether the appellant successfully established ownership of the disputed land, given significant discrepancies in the Revenue Record regarding the area of Khasra No. 1343. The appellant argued that the area had increased due to the shifting bed of a watercourse (Kassi), but failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The Supreme Court held that the sudden, unexplained increase in the area recorded in the 1946-47 Jamabandi, coupled with a corresponding unexplained reduction in the respondents' adjoining land, rendered the entry unreliable. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts, noting that the appellant failed to justify interference with those findings. The principle laid down is that where revenue entries show an unexplained, anomalous increase in land area that contradicts historical records and adjoining land measurements, such entries may be discarded in favor of established historical data.
Questions settled- Can an unexplained increase in land area recorded in a Jamabandi be relied upon to establish ownership in a suit for possession?
- Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan empowered to interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a suit for possession?
- Does a shift in the bed of a watercourse automatically grant ownership of the accreted land to the owner of the adjacent Khasra number?
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2239 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 266 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1991 MLD 1676 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 139 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs SohanraK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 118 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Naseem1991 CLC 962 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 588 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Fazal Din And Others1991 PCr.LJ 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Ch. Mahmood Ahmad1991 MLD 56 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs CH Mehmood Ahmad.K.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Addl District Judge EtcK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 238 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Abdul Rehman And Two Other1991 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had accepted the respondents' Regular Second Appeal, thereby overturning the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner, who had successfully obtained a decree for specific performance in the lower courts, challenged the High Court's interference with these concurrent judgments. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondents' failure to abide by the agreement was justified in fact and law, whether the petitioner was entitled to specific performance, and whether the High Court's exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts was legally sound. The Court determined that these issues required a deeper examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal, while maintaining the existing stay order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court in a second appeal?
- Is a party entitled to specific performance of a contract when the other party fails to abide by the agreement?
- Was the failure of the respondents to abide by the agreement justified in fact and law?
- Muhammad Aslam vs Abdul Majeed1991 CLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This statutory appeal was filed under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 by the appellant-tenant against the Rent Controller's eviction order passed on grounds of default in rent, bona fide personal requirement, and the landlord's attainment of sixty years of age. The appellant challenged the default, alleging rent payment via a disputed receipt, and argued that the Rent Controller erred by comparing disputed signatures without an expert. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the court is fully competent to compare disputed signatures with admitted ones even without expert testimony. The Court held that irregular rent payments or landlord's forbearance do not alter the tenant's legal obligation to tender rent monthly. Additionally, unpleaded claims of expenditure cannot be considered, and under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title during the tenancy. Personal bona fide requirement was adequately established.
Questions settled- Can a court or Rent Controller compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures without the aid of an expert under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does a landlord's acceptance of rent at irregular intervals establish a legal practice absolving the tenant from paying rent monthly?
- Can a tenant lead evidence on a claim for adjustment of construction expenses if such a plea was not raised in the written statement?
- Is a tenant estopped under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 from challenging the title of the landlord who inducted him into possession?
- Muhammad Aslam through his Legal Heirs vs Syed Abid Saeed Kirmani1991 MLD 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Mughal vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 397 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Khilji vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1991 PLC (C.S.) 128 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a service dispute regarding the promotion of civil servants within the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Management Group. The appellant, a senior Revenue Assistant, challenged the promotion of the respondent to the post of Assistant Commissioner, arguing that his own candidacy was never considered by the Selection Board. The core legal question was whether the appellant was ineligible for promotion due to his failure to pass a specific departmental examination required for confirmation as an Extra Assistant Commissioner, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding his exclusion. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred by conflating eligibility with merit and fitness. The Court found that the relevant rules did not mandate passing the departmental examination as a prerequisite for promotion to the Management Group. By failing to consider the appellant, who was senior to the respondent, the authorities committed a procedural wrong. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed that the appellant be deemed promoted from the date of the respondent's original promotion, establishing the principle that eligible candidates possess a vested right to be considered for promotion.
Questions settled- Does the failure to pass a departmental examination for confirmation as an Extra Assistant Commissioner automatically render a civil servant ineligible for promotion to the Management Group?
- Is a civil servant entitled to be considered for promotion by a Selection Board if they meet the basic eligibility criteria, regardless of their status regarding departmental examinations?
- Can a Service Tribunal decide a factual dispute regarding a candidate's consideration for promotion in the absence of controverting evidence or affidavits?
- Does the distinction between 'eligibility' and 'merit and fitness' create a legal right for a senior civil servant to have their case considered for promotion?
- Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Muhammad Sadiq Khan and others1991 MLD 2559 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-12-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Mst. Akbar Jan and another1991 CLC 360 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur and 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 324) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Etc vs Khuda Bakhsh EtcK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 389 · Lahore High Court · 1959-03-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam And Others vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 1561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22-8-1988. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine several core legal questions. Specifically, the Court intends to determine whether a purported family agreement existed, whether such an agreement contravened any law, and whether it could be given legal effect. Furthermore, the Court will address the issue of adverse possession, specifically examining when the possession of the property in question became hostile and the legal consequences thereof. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo and directed the petitioners to furnish security for costs and mesne profits. The appeal is to be heard on the existing record, with parties granted liberty to submit additional documentation deemed necessary for the final adjudication of the dispute.
Questions settled- Whether a family agreement exists and if it contravenes any law?
- Can a family agreement be given legal effect?
- When does possession of property become hostile in the context of adverse possession?
- Muhammad Aslam and others vs Jethanand and others1991 CLC 400 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam and others vs Ch. Muhammad Idrees through his Legal1991 CLC 780 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam And Others vs Ata Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 1805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the orders of the Lahore High Court remanding cases to the Notified Officer for a fresh decision regarding whether certain Mukhbari applications were smuggled into the record or filed after the target date, and to subsequently pass an order on merits if competently filed. The core legal question concerns the propriety of a remand order directing the ascertainment of basic facts before adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not legitimately grievance against a remand order aimed at verifying foundational facts. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as being devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot validly challenge an order of remand that merely facilitates the correct ascertainment of crucial facts necessary for a lawful decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can a party legitimately grievance against an order of remand passed by the High Court for the ascertainment of basic facts?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against a High Court remand order directing a Notified Officer to verify the authenticity and filing date of Mukhbari applications?
- Muhammad Aslam and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 461 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 945 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Munshi Muhammad Behram And Another1991 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged the High Court's decision to set aside a decree passed by a Qazi after an arbitration award was invalidated. The core issue was whether the defendants, having participated in subsequent proceedings after an unsuccessful appeal against the order setting aside the award, were precluded from challenging that order in revision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is not limited by the conduct of parties and can correct jurisdictional errors. However, the Court determined that the Majlis-e-Shoora had erroneously declined jurisdiction over the initial appeal against the order setting aside the award. The Supreme Court ruled that for the sake of maintaining the judicial hierarchy and ensuring complete justice under Article 187(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the matter should be remanded to the Majlis-e-Shoora to hear the appeals. The High Court should not have bypassed the appellate authority, as the appellate forum must exercise its statutory jurisdiction to provide the benefit of a hearing before an intermediary competent authority.
Questions settled- Does the participation of a party in subsequent trial proceedings preclude them from challenging an earlier interlocutory order in revision?
- Can the High Court's revisional jurisdiction be limited or abridged by the conduct of the parties?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to remand a matter to an appellate authority that erroneously declined to exercise its jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Abdul Hamid And Other1991 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns appeals challenging the constitutional validity of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975. The appellants contended that the Act was ultra vires, arguing it was repugnant to federal statutes like the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, and the Limitation Act, 1908, while also encroaching upon judicial independence and violating property rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Act's validity. The Court held that the legislation was a remedial measure designed to rectify erroneous administrative interpretations regarding limited estates held by refugee females, aligning with the Supreme Court's prior declarations of law. The Court affirmed that the legislature retains the power to enact retrospective legislation to correct misinterpretations of law by executive authorities. Furthermore, the Court clarified that such remedial legislation does not constitute an unauthorized encroachment on judicial power or an impairment of vested rights, as it merely enforces the correct legal position regarding limited ownership under custom. Consequently, the reopening of past transactions under the Act was deemed legally permissible and consistent with the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975 is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the legislature enact retrospective legislation to correct erroneous interpretations of law by executive authorities?
- Does the reopening of past transactions under the Punjab Act constitute an unauthorized encroachment upon judicial power?
- Are purchasers from limited estate holders protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Muhammad Aslam and 3 others vs Zaffar Ullah1991 MLD 1966 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam and 3 others vs Directorgeneral/Commissioner1991 CLC 885 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 783 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Alias Chan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 335 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asif vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the High Court's refusal to interfere with the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence, specifically regarding the reliance on eye-witness testimony from the deceased's family members and the recovery of incriminating items. The appellant contended that the weak motive evidence and the nature of the injuries suggested provocation, warranting a reduction of the conviction to a lesser offence. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the murder of his wife, who died under the same roof, and that the concept of 'last seen' evidence was applicable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in the absence of evidence proving sudden and grave provocation, the conviction could not be altered. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction, while granting the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding sentence calculation.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304 Part I without evidence of sudden and grave provocation?
- Does the concept of 'last seen' evidence apply to an inmate of a house where the deceased was killed?
- Is the failure of an accused to explain the death of a spouse under the same roof a relevant factor in criminal appreciation of evidence?
- Muhammad Asif vs Arif Hussain1991 MLD 51 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asif and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asif and anothers vs Chairman, Railway Board and another1991 CLC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I. vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 561 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs Younus Butt, S.H.O., Satgarh, District Okara and 5 others1991 P Cr. L J 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1875 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others1991 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1991 CLC 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Irshad1991 MLD 2056 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-06-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the orders of removal from service and the subsequent dismissal of departmental appeal regarding an ex-Chowkidar accused of permitting his official quarter to be used for immoral purposes. The core legal questions involve whether the non-supply of an enquiry report along with the show-cause notice vitiates disciplinary proceedings, and whether dismissing an appeal without proper service of notice and without deciding on merits is sustainable. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the failure to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the accused civil servant violates principles of natural justice and prejudices the defence, rendering the proceedings invalid. Furthermore, the appellate authority failed to make genuine efforts to serve notice to the appellant prior to filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case for de novo proceedings from the stage of supplying the enquiry report with a fresh show-cause notice. The key principle laid down is that the rules of natural justice, including the supply of an enquiry report, are to be read as part and parcel of disciplinary statutes unless expressly excluded.
Questions settled- Whether the non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report along with a show-cause notice vitiates disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Are the rules of natural justice to be read as part and parcel of every statute unless expressly excluded?
- Whether an appellate authority can dismiss an appeal in the absence of the appellant without making genuine and sufficient efforts to effect service of notice?
- Muhammad Ashraf vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf Shah vs Trustees of Port of Karachi1991 PLC 344 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs District Manager, Karachi Transport1991 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azam And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 987 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →