Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Ashraf Khan and others vs A. C. II, Sialkot and others1991 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and anothers vs Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. and another1991 MLD 2037 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And 5 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs Muhammad Maroof1991 CLC 222 · Board of Revenue · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Alias Achhu vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1030 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Alias Achho vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 274 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2267 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 564 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Mahmood Akhtar Ansari And Another1991 SCMR 1548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-25
  Service Tribunalfitness and suitabilityleave to appealservice lawprocedural fairnessselection committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a service-related dispute. The core legal questions identified for examination involve the competency of an appeal before a Service Tribunal regarding the fitness or suitability of a candidate under the relevant statutory framework, and the propriety of the Tribunal's interference with the merits of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues of public importance. Furthermore, the Court noted a procedural deficiency, observing that the comments of the Senior Civil Judge and the Selection Committee had not been sought at any stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court directed that the relevant applications, including the markings made thereon, be forwarded to the then Senior Civil Judge for verification and confirmation of the markings, alongside a request for parawise comments on the memorandum of appeal previously presented to the District Judge. The matter was ordered to be heard in the presence of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal is competent regarding the fitness or suitability of a person under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in interfering with the merits of a case concerning the selection or suitability of a candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq alias Babu vs The State1991 MLD 2437 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque Alias Shafaat Ali Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991, Criminal Cases 411 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque Alias Shafaat Ali And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2205 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaquddin Siddiqui vs Messrs Siemen Pakistan1991 PLC 447 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1991 MLD 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1991PCr.LJ 1026 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Muhammad Bashir EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 237 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Awan vs Messrs Karam Ceramic Ltd.1991 PLC 122 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asalat vs Nadir Masih And Other1991 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-24
  malicious prosecutiondamagesacquittalleave to appealprobable cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts awarding damages to the respondents for malicious prosecution following their acquittal in a theft case under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the courts below correctly applied the principles governing suits for malicious prosecution, specifically regarding the requirement of a clear finding on the absence of probable cause for the initial prosecution. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition raised arguable questions regarding the proper application of legal principles for malicious prosecution, suspended the impugned decree subject to security, and ordered the appeal to be readied for an early hearing. The key principle laid down is that a suit for malicious prosecution requires a distinct finding regarding the presence or absence of reasonable and probable cause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles for awarding damages in a suit for malicious prosecution were correctly followed without a clear finding on probable cause?
  • Can the execution of a decree for damages for malicious prosecution be suspended pending appeal upon furnishing security?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad As14raf And 5 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1884 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Superintending Engineer, Electricity, WAPDA, Islamabad And Another1991 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  service lawpromotionfitness for promotiondepartmental authorityservice tribunal jurisdictionseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the promotion of respondent No. 2, seeking redress before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, invoking the second proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, which bars appeals against departmental orders determining the fitness or otherwise of a person for appointment or promotion to a higher grade. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authority had duly considered the petitioner and found him unfit for promotion. The Court affirmed that seniority is not the sole criterion for promotion and that the determination of fitness for a higher post falls within the exclusive domain of the departmental authority. Consequently, the Court ruled that no question of law was involved in the petition, as the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory bar regarding fitness determinations. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie to the Federal Service Tribunal against a departmental order determining the fitness of a person for promotion?
  • Is seniority the sole criterion for promotion to a higher grade?
  • Does the determination of fitness for promotion by a departmental authority involve a question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Secretary, Communications and Works1991 PLC (C.S.) 237 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Mughal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 780 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30
  special court jurisdictionsuppression of terrorist activitiesunlicensed weaponarms ordinancestatutory interpretationremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, for the possession of an unlicensed mouser pistol under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the possession of a standard pistol falls within the scope of 'light or heavy automatic or semi-automatic weapons' as defined in Schedule 'C' of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1990, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Special Court. The Court held that a pistol is distinct in mechanism, caliber, and performance from sophisticated assault weapons like Kalashnikovs or G-111 rifles and does not fall within the ambit of the Schedule. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offense. The key principle laid down is that the jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act is strictly limited to the specific categories of weapons enumerated in the Schedule, and ordinary firearms such as pistols do not constitute terrorist-related weaponry for the purpose of such special jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of a standard pistol fall within the scope of Schedule 'C' of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1990?
  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1990 have jurisdiction to try cases involving ordinary pistols?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for an appellate court when a trial court is found to have lacked jurisdiction to try an offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Kalim vs Chairman, Town Committee and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 80 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Jawaid vs Post Master, Karachi and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 293 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Raja Muhammad Aslam And Other1991 SCMR 1671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-24
  pre-emptionleave to appealamendment of plaintco-sharershiptalabsIslamic injunctionsPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suits for pre-emption. The petitioner initially claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on being the brother of the vendor. Following the dismissal of his suits and subsequent appeals, the petitioner sought to amend his plaints to plead co-sharership and the performance of talabs, citing evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the validity of certain provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act under Islamic injunctions. The High Court rejected these applications for amendment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's submissions regarding the High Court's refusal to allow amendments to the pleadings in light of the principles established in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah and subsequent case law required further examination. The Court held that the legal questions raised warranted a full hearing, thereby granting leave to appeal subject to the furnishing of security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit is entitled to amend the plaint to include grounds of co-sharership and performance of talabs after the initial suit has been dismissed?
  • Does the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah require courts to allow amendments to pre-emption pleadings to reflect co-sharership?
  • Can a second appeal be dismissed solely on the basis of the law laid down in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others without considering subsequent developments in pre-emption law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Chaudhry Gulzar Ahmad1991 CLC 1850 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-10
  ejectmentrent controlbona fide requirementdefault in rentlandlord-tenant disputeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant-tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's personal requirement for business expansion. The core legal question is whether the landlord sufficiently established the bona fide nature of his personal requirement and the alleged default in rent. The Court held that the landlord's mere assertion of a need for business expansion, without providing concrete details regarding the nature of the business, current accommodation, or the necessity for additional space, is insufficient to prove bona fide requirement. Furthermore, regarding the alleged default, the Court found that the tenant's actions—including the tender of rent via money order and subsequent deposit in court—demonstrated bona fides, and the delay in payment was excusable. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment order. The key principle laid down is that a landlord must provide specific, verifiable evidence to satisfy the court that a claim of personal requirement is bona fide and not merely a pretext for eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's mere assertion of personal requirement for business expansion sufficient to justify an ejectment order?
  • Does a tenant's deposit of rent in court, following a landlord's refusal of a money order, demonstrate bona fides sufficient to excuse a minor delay in payment?
  • Must a landlord provide specific evidence of business expansion and existing accommodation to prove a bona fide personal requirement for rented premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Abdul Qayyum1991 CLC 442 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-05
  leave to defendsummary suitpromissory noteunconditional leavestay of suitOrder II Rule 2Section 10 CPCforgery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of an application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a summary suit based on an alleged promissory note and receipt for Rs. 15,00,000. The defendant father challenged the authenticity of the documents, alleging forgery, discrepancy in signatures, lack of revenue stamp endorsement, failure to produce originals under Order VII Rule 14, and suppression of a previously instituted suit between the parties arising from the same transaction. The defendant also sought a stay of the summary suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court granted unconditional leave to defend, holding that where the plausibility of the plaintiff's claim is doubtful and appears frivolous or vexatious, unconditional leave must be granted. The Court further refused to stay the subsequent suit under Section 10, reasoning that testing the suit against the bar of Order II Rule 2 is a superior norm that must precede any stay.

  Questions settled

  • Is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC when the plaintiff's claim appears prima facie doubtful, frivolous, or vexatious?
  • Can a court decline to stay a subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit's maintainability is fundamentally questionable under Order II Rule 2 of the Code?
  • Whether the omission to sue on a promissory note in an earlier suit based on a collateral agreement executed on the same date creates a potential bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC in a subsequent suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Khan, Ex Overseer Grade II vs Dy. Enc. E in C's Branch, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi And Another1991 SCMR 1904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23
  civil servicedisciplinary proceedingsback benefitsprocedural defectreinstatementshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the reinstatement of a civil servant. The petitioner contested the Tribunal's decision to allow the authorities to resume disciplinary proceedings from the point of a procedural defect—specifically, the failure to issue a show-cause notice following a Court of Inquiry—and the denial of back benefits upon reinstatement. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Tribunal erred in permitting the authorities to rectify the procedural lapse and whether the petitioner was automatically entitled to back benefits. The Court held that because the petitioner's success before the Tribunal was based on technical grounds rather than the merits of the case, the authorities were legally entitled to resume disciplinary proceedings from the stage where the technical defect occurred. Regarding the claim for back benefits, the Court noted that the petitioner's entitlement was governed by the proviso to section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and directed the petitioner to pursue this claim before the appropriate authority. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant be resumed from the stage of a procedural defect if the initial dismissal was set aside on technical grounds?
  • Is a civil servant automatically entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement when the dismissal is set aside on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 623 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State-1991PCr.LJ 162 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi1991 PLC 325 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Health Department, Quetta and 3 others1991 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs District Manager KTC, Karachi and another1991 PLC 896 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs District Magistrate, Sahiwal And Others1991 P Cr. L J 806 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-16
  constitutional petitionre-post-mortem examinationdisintermentcause of deathpolice custodymagistrate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court to challenge an order dated 22-5-1990 passed by the District Magistrate, Sahiwal, whereby an application for the re-post-mortem examination of the petitioner's deceased brother was accepted. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is legally bound under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to afford an opportunity of being heard to the complainant or record evidence before ordering the disinterment and re-examination of a dead body when the deceased was not in police custody. The Court held that section 176, Cr.P.C. applies specifically to deaths occurring in police custody, and in other cases, a Magistrate may direct the examination of an interred body to discover the cause of death without being obliged to hear the complainant or record evidence prior to making such an order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a District Magistrate is obliged to afford an opportunity of being heard to the complainant before ordering the examination of an interred dead body?
  • Does section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases where a person dies outside the custody of the police?
  • Can a Magistrate order the disinterment and examination of a dead body to discover the cause of death without recording evidence beforehand?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and another1991 PLD Quetta 70 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Chairman, WAPDA and 11 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 969 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies)1991 MLD 810 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan vs Member Board of RevenueK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Bajwa vs The State1991 MLD 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And Others vs Muhammad Fazil And Other1991 SCMR 1842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-26
  leave to appealrevenue recordJamabandimutation of saleconcurrent findings of factdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the High Court in a suit for declaration of ownership in possession based on purchase. The core legal question concerned the legal effect of revenue record entries and mutation of sale where the petitioners claimed they remained owners despite the alleged purchase. The Supreme Court examined the revenue records and found that concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts against the petitioners were unexceptionable, noting further that entries remaining consistent for nearly forty years without any corrective steps by the petitioners supported these findings. The Supreme Court held that no justification existed for interference with the concurrent findings, and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that long-standing entries in revenue records left unchallenged for decades reinforce concurrent findings of fact against a party claiming ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Whether long-standing entries in revenue records left uncorrected for a significant period support concurrent findings of fact against a party claiming ownership?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding revenue record entries without sufficient justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And Another vs Muhammad Saeed And Another1991 SCMR 2337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-12
  ejectmentpersonal needlandlord and tenantrented premisesbona fide requirementleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the ejectment of two tenants from a shop on the grounds of the landlord's personal need. The core legal questions were whether a landlord's personal need is negated by the prior possession of a rented shop, whether a landlord can combine their personal need with that of their adult son, and whether the son's absence from the country invalidates the claim of personal need. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a landlord is not disentitled from seeking eviction even if they previously occupied a rented shop, provided the need is genuine. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a landlord may include the needs of their adult children within their own personal need, as the requirement remains fundamentally that of the landlord. The Court concluded that the findings of the High Court regarding the necessity of the premises were based on evidence and that the tenants' allegations of ulterior motives were merely conjectural.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant for personal need if the landlord previously occupied a rented shop?
  • Is a landlord legally permitted to combine their own personal need for premises with the need of their adult children?
  • Does the temporary absence of a family member from the country invalidate a landlord's claim of personal need for business premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 4 others vs The State1991 MLD 1769 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis vs Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum1991 MLD 1386 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis Qureshi vs The Director-General, Telegraph and Telephones and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 35 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27
  murderdeath sentenceinterested witnessesindependent corroborationmedical evidencecontradictory testimonyenmitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as handed down by the trial court. The core legal question revolved around whether the conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of interested, inimical, and related eye-witnesses without independent corroboration, and in light of contradictions with medical evidence regarding a purported dying declaration. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony was unreliable, being contradicted by the medical evidence, and that the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses from the vicinity—despite admitting that numerous persons arrived at the scene—rendered the case against the appellants doubtful. The court established the principle that where eye-witnesses are closely related and inimically disposed toward the accused, and where deep-rooted enmity and multiple litigations exist between the parties, independent corroboration and the examination of unbiased local witnesses are mandatory to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of interested and inimical witnesses when independent witnesses available at the scene are not examined?
  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony regarding an alleged dying declaration and the medical opinion that the victim was unconscious render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can recoveries of weapons that are not blood-stained serve as valid corroboration of interested ocular evidence in a capital case?
  • Whether previous litigations and deep-rooted enmity between parties necessitate independent corroboration before relying on prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1991 MLD 2444 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Muhammad Yasin1991 CLC 1298 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26
  stay of suitres judicataadministration suitmesne profitsCode of Civil Procedurecivil revisiontitle dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a trial court order refusing to stay a subsequent suit for possession, damages, and mesne profits under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner argued that the property in dispute was already the subject matter of a previously instituted administration suit, which was currently pending in appeal. The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the matter in issue—the ownership of the property—was substantially the same as in the prior suit, despite the presence of additional parties (sisters) in the earlier litigation. The Lahore High Court held that the subsequent suit must be stayed. The Court reasoned that because the claims for mesne profits and damages were contingent upon the determination of title, and because any finding on title in the prior suit would operate as res judicata between the parties, the requirements for a stay under Section 10 were fully satisfied. The presence of additional parties in the prior suit did not preclude the application of the stay provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of additional parties in a previously instituted suit prevent the application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the stay of a subsequent suit?
  • Can a suit for mesne profits and damages proceed when the underlying question of title is pending in a previously instituted suit?
  • What is the test for determining whether a subsequent suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Khurshid Bibi1991 MLD 969 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd.s vs Pakistan Insurance1991 CLC 988 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Khan vs General Public and others1991 CLC 394 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14
  lunacy proceedingsinquisitorial jurisdictionunsound mindwelfare of lunaticinquisitionmedical examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Additional District Judge dismissing a petition for inquisition filed under the Lunacy Act, 1912, which sought a declaration that the respondent was of unsound mind. The core legal question was whether proceedings under the Lunacy Act are adversarial or inquisitorial in nature, and whether the court is obligated to actively investigate the mental state of the alleged lunatic. The Court held that proceedings under the Lunacy Act are inquisitorial, not adversarial. The court acts in loco parentis, with a duty to protect the welfare of the alleged lunatic rather than merely adjudicating a dispute between parties. Consequently, the trial court erred by dismissing the petition solely for lack of evidence without exercising its duty to examine the alleged lunatic or order a medical examination. The principle laid down is that in lunacy matters, the court must actively inquire into the mental condition of the subject, utilizing its own observations and medical evidence to ensure the welfare of the individual, rather than relying strictly on the burden of proof between parties.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings under the Lunacy Act, 1912, adversarial or inquisitorial in nature?
  • Is a court empowered to order a medical examination of an alleged lunatic in proceedings under the Lunacy Act, 1912?
  • Does the court have a duty to personally examine an alleged lunatic during inquisition proceedings?
  • Can a court dismiss a petition under the Lunacy Act, 1912, solely on the ground of insufficient evidence produced by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Butt for Appellant. vs Aftab lqbal Lahore, D.R. for Respondent,1991 PTD (Trib.) 758 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And 6 Others vs Nasir And 3 Other1991 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06
  evictioncompromise decreemutationfraudleave to appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents' predecessor-in-interest had successfully filed an eviction application against the petitioners, which was subsequently resolved through a compromise in the High Court, granting the petitioners time to vacate the premises. Prior to the expiry of the agreed period, the petitioners filed a Section 12(2) application, claiming their deceased father had purchased the shop from the landlord prior to the eviction proceedings, a fact they allegedly discovered only recently. The High Court rejected this claim, finding that the revenue mutation was dishonestly manipulated with the assistance of revenue staff after the alleged purchaser's death. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's findings, holding that the plea of purchase was a fabricated attempt to frustrate the compromise ejectment order. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge a compromise eviction order under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a fraudulent and manipulated mutation of ownership?
  • Whether a plea of ownership based on a backdated and manipulated revenue entry can be used to frustrate a compromise ejectment order?
  • Does the failure to obtain the identity card of a vendor during a mutation attestation, coupled with the death of the purchaser prior to the alleged attestation date, render the mutation invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 186 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf Khan vs Mirza Rafaqat Ahmed an others1991 CLC 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alt Bhatti vs State Life Insurance Corporation.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 258 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1618 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1991 MLD 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 587 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Rehmat Ali1991 CLC 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Rana Ahmed Ali1991 MLD 770 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Siddique and others1991 CLC 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Election TribunalK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 31 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways1991 PLC 482 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Patwari vs Consolidation Officer And Others1991 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 66 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Bhatti vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan1991 MLD 223 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and anothers vs Ali Azhar Nasir1991 MLD 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 10 others vs Noor Muhammad through his Legal Heirs1991 PLD Revenue 7 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Ahmad Khan vs Messrs Taufiq Engineering Works1991 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementretired government servanttenancy bifurcationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant landlord filed an ejectment application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the eviction of the respondents from three inter-connected shops on the ground of personal and his children's requirement following his retirement from Government service. The Rent Controller held the landlord entitled to only one shop and gave the respondents the option to choose which shop to vacate. Both parties filed appeals. The core legal question was whether a landlord invoking section 14 can claim more than one premises at the same time and whether the tenancy of inter-connected shops can be bifurcated. The Sindh High Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the landlord's requirement under section 14 must be restricted to one premises to prevent abuse, and the Rent Controller was justified in granting ejectment for one shop while leaving the option of which shop to vacate to the tenant to protect their business. The key principle laid down is that summary ejectment under section 14 is limited to a single premises, and where multiple interconnected shops are let under a single tenancy, the court may restrict eviction to one shop with the option of selection given to the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord within the purview of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is entitled to file an ejectment application in respect of more than one premises at the same time?
  • Whether the bona fides of a landlord are required to be proved in the same manner under section 14 as in a case under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the Rent Controller can bifurcate inter-connected shops held under a single tenancy and grant ejectment in respect of only one shop?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2072 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Section Officer (Civil Defence), Home1991 PLC (C.S.) 138 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1991 PLC 40 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mst. Abida Sultana And Other1991 SCMR 1562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11
  Nikahnamagift of propertyownership disputeconcurrent findingsejectment applicationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute between a former husband and wife regarding the ownership of a house. The petitioner, who had previously obtained an ejectment order against the respondents, challenged a subsequent civil suit filed by his former wife (respondent No. 1) claiming ownership of the disputed property. The trial court initially dismissed the wife's suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, a finding later upheld by the High Court. The petitioner contended that he had not gifted the property to the respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the Nikahnama (marriage contract), which explicitly recorded in column 17 that the petitioner had gifted the bungalow in question to his wife. Finding no misreading or ignorance of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the gift were supported by the record. Consequently, the Court determined that no point of law was involved, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the entry in column 17 of a Nikahnama regarding the transfer of property constitute valid evidence of a gift?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when there is no evidence of misreading or ignorance of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs Habibullah Khan and 24 others1991 MLD 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Butt vs Shajaud Din And Other1991 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-11
  rent restrictionevictiontenancyannual rentlandlord and tenantstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an eviction order passed against the petitioner by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is limited in its application exclusively to month-to-month tenancies, thereby excluding tenancies where rent is payable on an annual basis. The petitioner contended that certain provisions of the Ordinance implied such a limitation. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the Ordinance does not expressly exclude tenancies with annual rent payments from its purview. The Court emphasized that if the legislature had intended to restrict the scope of the Ordinance to monthly tenancies, it would have used explicit language to that effect. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the Rent Restriction Ordinance applies to tenancies regardless of whether the rent is calculated or payable on a monthly or yearly basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance apply to tenancies where rent is payable on an annual basis?
  • Is the scope of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance limited exclusively to month-to-month tenancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1991 MLD 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs Garison Engineer (Army), Okara1991 P LC 78 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Another vs Saood Ahmad And Other1991 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-30
  rented premiseseviction applicationdefault in renttenancy agreementpremature applicationtenancy month
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding an eviction application filed on the grounds of non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority had initially ordered the tenant's eviction, but the Sindh High Court reversed this decision, finding the application premature. The core legal question was whether the tenant had committed a default in rent payment sufficient to warrant eviction under the terms of the tenancy agreement and relevant statutory provisions. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the eviction application, though based on different reasoning. The Court held that the rent was not payable in advance and became due only upon the expiry of the tenancy month. By calculating the tenancy period correctly, the Court determined that the rent for the period in question was not yet due when the eviction application was filed. Consequently, the application was premature as no actionable default had occurred. The Court found it unnecessary to address the broader question of whether parties could contract out of statutory obligations regarding eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is rent under a tenancy agreement payable in advance or upon the expiry of the tenancy month in the absence of an express stipulation?
  • When does a default in rent payment occur for the purpose of an eviction application?
  • Can an eviction application be maintained if the rent was not yet due at the time of filing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Alias Akoo vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtial vs Province of Punjab through District Collector, Multan1991 MLD 456 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Shaikh Nasiruddin1991 MLD 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17
  rent defaultstatutory tenantfixed deposit adjustmenttenancy agreement expiryeviction orderadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, which directed the eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment for January, February, and March 1980. The core legal questions were whether a fixed deposit held by the landlord could be adjusted against rent arrears to negate the default, and whether the terms of a tenancy agreement continue to operate after the agreement's expiry. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant committed a clear default. The Court affirmed the settled principle that terms of a tenancy agreement remain operative after the expiry of the specified period unless varied by mutual consent. Furthermore, the Court held that a fixed deposit held by a landlord is not adjustable against rent arrears, as it is intended to cover potential damages or dues upon the tenant vacating the premises. Finally, the Court ruled that evidence contradicting the pleadings in the written statement is inadmissible, and delayed payments made via money order after the default occurred do not absolve the tenant of liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiry of a tenancy agreement terminate the operative terms and conditions incorporated therein?
  • Can a fixed deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against rent arrears to avoid a finding of default?
  • Is a tenant's evidence that contradicts their written statement admissible in rent proceedings?
  • Does the payment of rent via money order after the institution of an eviction case absolve a tenant of prior default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs D.I.G. Police EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs D.1.-G. Police and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 490 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Qureshi vs Government of Pakistan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-07
  disciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceshow-cause noticeservice lawex-parte enquirydismissal from serviceprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned the validity of dismissal proceedings initiated against an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer. The core legal question was whether the department, having opted for a summary procedure via a show-cause notice, acted unlawfully by conducting a contemporaneous, ex-parte enquiry to gather evidence against the appellant, which was then presented only during the personal hearing. The Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted was fundamentally flawed and violative of natural justice. While the department chose the shorter procedure, it effectively conducted a secret enquiry behind the appellant's back, denying him the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or test the material collected. This created a mockery of the disciplinary process by denying the appellant the benefits of the longer enquiry procedure while utilizing its investigative methods. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and the Service Tribunal's decision, directing the department to determine afresh whether to proceed via the shorter or longer procedure and to conclude the enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring the appellant's rights are protected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the collection of evidence behind the back of an accused employee during a summary disciplinary proceeding violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a department utilize the material gathered from an ex-parte enquiry when it has elected to follow the shorter show-cause notice procedure?
  • Is a dismissal order sustainable if the department denies an employee the opportunity to cross-examine evidence used against them during disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Khan vs Mst. Gulab Jan and 2 others1991 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Bhatti vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways and another1991 PLC 710 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and 2 others vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-17
  common intentionvicarious liabilitydying declarationspur of the momentsection 34 PPChouse trespassmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302, 452, and 544-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for house trespass and the murder of a married woman by setting her on fire after she refused their demands for sexual intercourse. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the co-accused who did not directly inflict the fatal act could be held vicariously liable under section 34 P.P.C. for murder committed in the course of an assault originally intended for another crime, absent pre-concert to commit murder. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that although the original entry was for sexual assault, a common intention to kill or coerce the victim developed at the spur of the moment upon her persistent refusal. The key principle laid down is that common intention under section 34 P.P.C. need not be pre-planned and can develop at the spur of the moment during the commission of an offense, and co-accused remaining present and failing to dissociate themselves from the primary offender can share vicarious liability for the resulting crime.

  Questions settled

  • Can common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code develop at the spur of the moment during the commission of an offense?
  • Whether an accused person can be convicted solely on the basis of a reliable dying declaration in the absence of ocular testimony?
  • Does the mere presence of co-accused at the scene of a crime attract vicarious liability under section 34 P.P.C. without circumstances showing a shared intention?
  • Is a co-accused who remains present and fails to disassociate from the principal offender during the commission of a crime deemed to share a common intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Sher Muhammad (deceased) through L. Hrs. and another1991 MLD 566 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Commissioner, Multan Division And Other1991 SCMR 1900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-20
  Mukhbari applicationexcess allotmentdisplaced personsland settlementinformer statutory rightPI unitsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Upon an informer's application (Mukhbari application) filed by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, the petitioner's land allotment was reduced by 178 P.I. Units as being in excess of entitlement, and the withdrawn land was subsequently allotted to the informer. The petitioner did not dispute obtaining excess allotment but claimed a right to purchase the excess land taken from him. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to retain or purchase the land in preference to the informer. The Court held that under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, the informer possessed a statutory right to receive the land withdrawn from the petitioner's allotment following the information supplied. Finding no merit in the petitioner's claim, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an informer who files a successful Mukhbari application have a statutory right to receive land withdrawn from an excess allotment under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Can an allottee who obtained excess land claim a right to purchase the excess land over an informer entitled under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →