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 Tufail vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority1990 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-05
  Local Council ElectionElection PetitionElection Authority JurisdictionElection TribunalFunctus OfficioGazette NotificationReturn of ElectionQuorum and Boycott
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority setting aside an election for Chairman, Union Council Ballanwala, and ordering a fresh poll. Due to an initial scuffle, polling scheduled for 11:00 a.m. actually occurred peacefully at 12:30 p.m. Out of 24 councillors, 20 attended; the petitioner secured 10 votes while 10 boycotted, and the Presiding Officer declared the petitioner elected and submitted a return. The contesting respondent approached the Election Authority under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 prior to gazette notification. The High Court addressed whether the Election Authority possessed jurisdiction to annul the election after the poll was completed and the result was returned. Allowing the petition, the Court held that under Section 17(2), once an election is held and the return of election is submitted, the Election Authority becomes functus officio; any challenge must be brought exclusively before the Election Tribunal via an election petition, and non-gazette notification does not confer jurisdiction under Section 17(1).

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Authority retain jurisdiction under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 to annul an election after the poll has concluded and the return has been submitted?
  • Does the absence or non-publication of an election result in the official Gazette allow an aggrieved candidate to invoke the jurisdiction of the Election Authority instead of awaiting an election petition before the Election Tribunal?
  • Can an election result be rendered a legal nullity solely because certain members were absent or staged a boycott during the polling?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal under Section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 excludes the supervisory powers of the Election Authority once an election has factually taken place?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Local1990 MLD 327 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Liaqat Ali and 7 others1990 P Cr. L J 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Lahore1990 SCMR 1708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-09
  service lawback benefitsreinstatementextraordinary leavedepartmental enquiryService Tribunaldiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal, after setting aside an order of dismissal against a civil servant, possessed the discretion to deny him back benefits, specifically by treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay. The appellant contended that since the dismissal was set aside, he was entitled to full back benefits. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the authority setting aside an order of dismissal has the power to determine the entitlement to arrears of pay. The Court further observed that the Tribunal had applied an overly lenient standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') in the departmental enquiry, and in that context, the Tribunal acted within its lawful discretion to deny back benefits. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's authority to exercise discretion regarding back benefits upon reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the discretion to deny back benefits when setting aside an order of dismissal?
  • What is the scope of the authority to determine arrears of pay under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Can a Service Tribunal treat the period between dismissal and reinstatement as extraordinary leave without pay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and others vs Muhammad Ikhtiar Khan and others1990 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30
  pre-emptionPattisub-division of estatepreferential righthomogeneity of descentrevenue estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a revisional order of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a pre-emption decree previously granted in favour of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a preferential right of pre-emption based on ownership of land within a specific 'Patti' (sub-division) of a village, where the vendee owned land in a different 'Patti' of the same estate. The petitioner argued that ownership within a Patti constitutes a sub-division for the purposes of pre-emption. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents including Wazir Din v. Hidayat and Yaqoob Ali v. Ch. Muhammad Sultan, upheld the High Court's decision. The Court held that for a Patti to qualify as a distinct sub-division under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, it must demonstrate homogeneity of descent and area, rather than merely serving fiscal purposes. Finding the trend of judicial authority consistent and against the petitioner's interpretation, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the mere existence of separate Pattis for revenue purposes does not automatically satisfy the requirements for pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of separate Pattis in a village for fiscal purposes automatically constitute distinct sub-divisions for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  • What criteria must be met for a Patti to be considered a distinct sub-division under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  • Is ownership of land in a separate Patti sufficient to establish a preferential right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail alias Thailoo vs S.H.O., Police Station Bhaipheru and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Toufique Chotani vs Muhammad Hussain Bawani and 31990 P Cr. L J 627 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Director, Livestock and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 596 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Board of Intermediate and1990 CLC 898 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs Abdul Latif and 5 others1990 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-03
  subsequent cause of actionpendente litebar of subsequent suitamendment of plaintdismissal for non-prosecutionres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court examines whether the appellant's third civil suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by the dismissal of the first suit under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The factual matrix involves multiple suits filed regarding property alterations, construction of a staircase, and disputed municipal building plans. The Supreme Court observed that the third suit was based on subsequent events and fresh causes of action that arose after the institution of the first suit, specifically regarding new constructions and walls raised in excess of the sanctioned plan during the pendency of the earlier litigation. The Court held that a plaintiff is not under a legal compulsion to amend an existing plaint to incorporate subsequent causes of action arising pendente lite and is legally competent to institute a fresh suit on such subsequent grounds. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts which had barred the suit, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff is bound to amend an existing plaint to include a cause of action that arises during the pendency of a suit?
  • Does the institution of a subsequent suit on a cause of action arising after the filing of the first suit attract the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaintiff be penalized for filing a fresh suit on a subsequent cause of action instead of amending the plaint in a pending suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir and another vs The State1990 MLD 2378 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs Khalid Shafi Director Gulberg Textile Mills1990 PLC 608 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Mst. Aziz Begum1990 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10
  civil suitexchange deedleave to appealmoulding of reliefprocedural technicalitycancellation of deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's civil suit seeking the cancellation of an exchange deed. The core legal question addressed is whether a court may refuse to grant relief in a civil suit solely on the technical ground that a formal declaration was not explicitly sought in the plaint, despite the underlying facts supporting the claim. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the absence of a specific prayer for declaration does not preclude the court from granting appropriate relief. The Court affirmed that it possesses the inherent power to mould the relief according to the circumstances of the case, allowing it to declare an exchange deed ineffective, void, and illegal, and to consider alternative prayers such as the possession of land. The key principle laid down is that procedural technicalities, such as the omission of a specific prayer for declaration, should not defeat the ends of justice when the court has the authority to grant effective relief based on the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant relief in a civil suit even if a specific declaration was not formally prayed for in the plaint?
  • Does the absence of a specific prayer for declaration justify the dismissal of a suit when the facts support the claim?
  • Is the court empowered to mould relief in civil proceedings to ensure justice is served?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulaman Awan vs Secretary, Industries and Commerce1990 PLC (C.S.) 356 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohni and 7 others vs The State1990 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Slaeem vs Superintendent of Police, Sialkot and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 102 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sidique Khan vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 168 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State and another1990 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20
  leave to appealacquittalappreciation of evidencemisreading of evidenceocular evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of a death sentence by setting aside his conviction. The petitioner challenged the High Court's findings, specifically arguing that the court erred in concluding that prosecution witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence merely because they failed to intervene during the incident. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's contentions regarding the appreciation of evidence and the alleged conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence. The Court held that the appreciation of evidence falls exclusively within the domain of the High Court. Finding no instance of misreading or non-reading of evidence by the High Court, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence in the absence of a demonstrated error such as misreading or non-reading of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to intervene during a criminal occurrence automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the appreciation of evidence exclusively the domain of the High Court in criminal appeals?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Noor Hussain and another1990 MLD 379 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Mushtaq Warraich and others1990 P Cr. L J 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Karachi Transport Corporation1990 PLC 460 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-28
  labour lawmisconductburden of proofwrongful dismissalreinstatementenquiry reportgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a grievance petition by the Labour Court, which had upheld the termination of the appellant, a bus conductor, for allegedly failing to issue tickets to passengers after collecting fares. The appellant contended that he was victimized for trade union activities and that the charges were fabricated. The core legal question was whether the employer successfully proved the misconduct charges when the specific passengers involved were never examined as witnesses, nor were any members of the checking party produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the employer failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere production of an enquiry report is insufficient; the actual witnesses to the alleged misconduct must be examined in court to substantiate the charges. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order, holding that the charges were not proven, and ordered the appellant's reinstatement, though without back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere production of an enquiry report sufficient to prove misconduct in a labour court without examining the witnesses mentioned therein?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the employer when an employee denies the allegations of misconduct in a grievance petition?
  • Can a charge of failing to issue tickets be sustained if the passengers involved are not examined as witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Deputy Commissioner & Collector, Bahawalnagar and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1990 PLD Supreme Court 1079 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1990-07-24
  Zina-bil-JabrHudood Ordinancemedical evidencesentencing principlescredibility of witnesschild marriagecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Federal Shariat Court's judgment, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for Zina-bil-Jabr, while enhancing the sentence of stripes. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecutrix, the validity of the medical evidence regarding her virginity and age, and whether the social status or alleged character of the victim's family mitigated the gravity of the offense. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were unexceptionable, affirming the conviction based on credible medical evidence and the victim's testimony. The Court rejected the defense's attempt to impugn the victim's character based on her family's social strata or alleged prior compromises. A key principle laid down is that courts must decide each case on its own facts, ensuring justice regardless of the victim's socioeconomic background. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a defendant's physical appearance, such as being a 'handsome young man,' is not a valid ground for leniency in sentencing for heinous crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant's physical appearance, such as being a 'handsome young man,' serve as a valid ground for leniency in sentencing for Zina-bil-Jabr?
  • Does the socioeconomic status or alleged 'easy virtue' of a victim's family mitigate the gravity of a sexual offense?
  • Is the medical evidence of a freshly torn hymen sufficient to refute a defense claim that a prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq and anotherPtitioners vs Abdul Rashid and others1990 SCMR 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16
  concurrent findings of factencroachmentcivil revisionproperty disputeleave to appealmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a civil suit filed by the respondents, heirs of a property transferee, against the petitioners, who had acquired adjacent property. The respondents alleged that the petitioners had encroached upon 2-1/2 Marlas of land belonging to the respondents' predecessor. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge upon appeal, and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' civil revision in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the encroachment, established by three lower courts, warranted interference by the apex court, particularly given the petitioners' argument that equal transfer prices for both properties implied equal land area. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and free from any misreading. The Court affirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, which are not shown to suffer from misreading of evidence, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a substantial question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a concurrent finding of fact by three lower courts warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a misreading of evidence?
  • Is an argument regarding the equality of transfer prices sufficient to overturn concurrent findings of fact regarding land encroachment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddioue vs Mobeen Ahmad and others1990 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-02
  residual propertyundisposed of propertyjurisdictional factejectmenttenancytransfer of propertyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that resolved disputes regarding the ejectment of a tenant and the status of property as 'undisposed of' under settlement laws. The petitioner, a tenant of the respondents, sought to claim a portion of the shop as 'undisposed of' property, alleging he had amalgamated it with his tenancy after acquiring it from a third party. The Administrator (Residual Property) had initially accepted this claim. The High Court, however, set aside this order, finding that the entire property had been validly transferred to the respondents years prior, leaving no portion available for further transfer. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the Administrator lacked jurisdiction because the property was not 'available' for transfer. The Court held that when property has been fully disposed of through valid transfer orders and rent apportionment, the Administrator cannot retrospectively declare portions as 'undisposed of' based on later structural changes. Furthermore, a tenant cannot unilaterally amalgamate rented property with other portions without the landlord's permission to create a new claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Administrator (Residual Property) have jurisdiction to declare property as 'undisposed of' if the property has already been fully transferred to others?
  • Can a finding on a jurisdictional fact by the Administrator (Residual Property) be scrutinized under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can a tenant unilaterally amalgamate a portion of rented property with another portion to create a claim for transfer as 'undisposed of' property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddio And Others vs Mehdi Khan1990 CLC 1989 · Board of Revenue · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The Superintendent, Telegraph Workshop, Kotri1990 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 305 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1990 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  leave to appealappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionreappraisal of evidencefalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Sharif, who, along with two co-accused, Shaukat Ali and Riasat Ali, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Abdul Jabbar, which occurred on July 1, 1981, at the Rahwali Railway Station. The trial court's conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated due to his relationship with the co-accused and that his participation in the alleged occurrence was doubtful. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that the arguments raised by the petitioner pertained to the appreciation of evidence, a task already performed by the High Court. The Court affirmed that it would not reappraise the evidence in the absence of any demonstrated error of law or fact requiring examination. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the High Court has already evaluated it?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere in a conviction based on factual disputes regarding the participation of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Kalhoro. vs Province of Sindh, Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Case 145 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Bajwa and Another vs Writ Petition No. 1035 Of 1988K.L.R 1990, Labour & Service Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 733 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1990 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Messrs Aeg Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited1990 PLC 360 · Labour Court · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Administrator Thal Bhakkar1990 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22
  civil court jurisdictionex-parte decreede novo trialquestion of law for the first timeallotment cancellationThal Development Authoritysupreme court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a long-standing property dispute concerning the dispossession of the original allottee of land in 1957 by the Thal Development Authority. The allottee's successors filed a civil suit in 1965, subsequently refiled in 1967, and obtained an ex-parte decree in 1972. Upon an application by one respondent, the ex-parte decree was set aside as a whole, leading to a de novo trial which resulted in the dismissal of the suit. Subsequent appeals before the District Court and the Lahore High Court were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants attempted to raise a fresh legal question regarding the retrospective bar of civil court jurisdiction under Ordinance XIX of 1975. The Supreme Court held that while a pure question of law concerning the competency of a court can theoretically be raised for the first time before the apex court, such permission is discretionary. Given the extreme delay of over three decades in pursuing the litigation and the fact that remitting the matter would protract proceedings further, permission was declined. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pure question of law regarding the competency of a court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • What is the legal effect of setting aside an ex-parte decree against one defendant on the decree passed as a whole?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred with retrospective effect by the Thal Development (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-30
  culpable homicidesudden fightgrave and sudden provocationException IVmurder convictionmitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the High Court's observation that the incident involved a sudden flare-up following an exchange of abuses. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to this exception. The Court reasoned that Exception IV requires a 'fight' or 'quarrel' beyond a mere exchange of abuses, and that the incident must be sudden and without undue advantage taken by the assailants. In this case, the attack was one-sided, involved lethal weapons, and targeted individuals who were not participants in the initial dispute. The Court affirmed the convictions but upheld the High Court's decision to grant the lesser sentence. The key principle laid down is that a mere exchange of abuses does not constitute a 'fight' or 'quarrel' under Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which requires active, mutual combat without undue advantage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere exchange of abuses constitute a 'fight' or 'quarrel' sufficient to invoke Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential elements required to bring a case within the ambit of Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an attack be considered a 'sudden fight' under Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, if the assailants use lethal weapons against unarmed victims who did not participate in the initial dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs Asghar and others1990 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19
  leave to appealquantum of sentencecompensationcriminal appealinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partially allowed an appeal and dismissed a revision petition. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, specifically contending that the court failed to properly appreciate the quantum of sentence and compensation awarded in the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found merit in the petitioners' submission regarding the assessment of the sentence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, strictly limiting the scope of the proceedings to examine the question of the sentence. Furthermore, the Court issued specific interim directions regarding the custody of the respondents, ordering that one respondent currently incarcerated remain in jail until the final disposal of the appeal, while directing the issuance of bailable warrants for the remaining respondents. The Court also noted the familial relationship between the parties and granted them liberty to file an application should they reach a mutual settlement concerning the compensation amount.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal limited solely to the question of sentence?
  • Is a respondent in custody entitled to release pending the final disposal of an appeal where leave has been granted?
  • Are parties permitted to settle the issue of compensation during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 3 others vs Mst. Ghulam Zohra and 3 others1990 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-03
  consolidation of holdingswrit jurisdictionleave to appealboard of revenueland distribution
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had declined to interfere in a consolidation of holdings matter regarding the withdrawal of two khasras from their allotments. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction in land distribution matters arising from consolidation proceedings, and whether the Board of Revenue's decision upholding the lower authorities' orders was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the distribution of land is not a matter for the High Court to consider under writ jurisdiction and that the Board of Revenue had rightly applied its mind to the merits of the case. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with the distribution of land in consolidation matters through writ jurisdiction, and concurrent findings on merits by revenue authorities will not be disturbed unless suffering from jurisdictional defects.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the distribution of land in consolidation matters under writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of revenue authorities in consolidation proceedings where no jurisdictional defect is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 3 Others vs Abdul Razzaq Baig And 7 Other1990 CLC 151 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamas vs Deputy Collector of Customs and othersPTCL 1990 CL. 370 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakil vs The State1990 PLD Supreme Court 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27
  criminal convictionseparate trialjudicial noticeprohibition enforcementevidence actfair trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the possession of heroin. The trial court and the High Court had relied significantly on the record and findings from a separate, independent trial of a co-arrested minor, Munir Ahmad, to establish the appellant's guilt. The core legal question was whether a criminal court may lawfully convict an accused person by relying upon the evidence, findings, or judicial record of a separate trial involving a different accused. The Supreme Court held that this approach is legally unsustainable. It established the principle that every criminal case must be decided strictly on its own record, independent of the proceedings of other cases. The Court ruled that a judgment in a separate trial cannot be used to prove facts against an accused who was not a party to that proceeding, as doing so violates fundamental principles of criminal justice. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, as the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt through independent evidence presented within the appellant's own trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused person based on the findings or record of a separate trial involving a different accused?
  • Is it permissible for a trial court to take judicial notice of the evidence and judgment from a separate, unrelated criminal case to determine the guilt of an accused?
  • Does the conviction of an accused in a separate trial constitute admissible evidence in the trial of another person not charged as a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzada alias Shada and others vs The State and others1990 SCMR 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10
  murdercriminal appealdying declarationapprover testimonybenefit of doubteye-witness credibilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment upholding the appellants' convictions for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s evidence—comprising an alleged oral dying declaration, an approver’s testimony, and an eye-witness account—was sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with material contradictions, rendering the evidence unreliable. Specifically, the Court found the oral dying declaration doubtful due to inconsistencies with other testimonies. Furthermore, the eye-witness’s delayed appearance, coupled with the fact that other witnesses failed to mention his presence, indicated a fabrication of evidence. The Court also rejected the approver’s testimony due to internal contradictions and lack of corroboration. Ultimately, the Court established that when prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to explain the absence of physical evidence at the scene, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence, including the dying declaration and eye-witness testimony, contains material contradictions?
  • Is the testimony of an eye-witness who appears for the first time after a significant delay, without a plausible explanation, reliable?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain the absence of physical evidence at the crime scene entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs The State through A.-G., Sindh and 3 others1990 PLC 331 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works1990 PLC 620 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and another vs The State1990 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14
  leave to appealforgeryhandwriting expertcriminal convictionanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  The two petitioners, real brothers along with others, were tried and convicted under sections 468, 471, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. On appeal, the High Court upheld their convictions but reduced the substantive sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The prosecution alleged that a power of attorney was forged to collect compensation cheques awarded for land acquisition, and the petitioners were involved in the forgery, identification, and encashment of the cheques. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal for Muhammad Amir Shah as evidence showed he withdrew the money from the bank. However, regarding Muhammad Shah, whose conviction was based entirely on the opinion of a handwriting expert, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether it is safe to rely solely on such an opinion for a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is safe to rely entirely upon the opinion of a handwriting expert to sustain a criminal conviction on a serious charge?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted when a conviction is based solely on disputed expert testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and 3 others vs The Government of Pakistan through Collector Rahimyar Khan1990 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07
  state land allotmentAbadkari conditionsBoard of Revenuewithdrawal of appealcause of actionadministrative policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the allotment of state land on Abadkari conditions. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioners could withdraw their appeal in light of a specific administrative clarification issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which offered a pathway for regularization of land allotments for those willing to withdraw pending civil litigation. The Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw their petition for leave to appeal, noting that the administrative communication provided a clear mechanism for the petitioners to pursue their claims. The Court held that the petitioners' apprehension regarding the potential lack of future remedy was unfounded, as any subsequent refusal by the authorities to honor the terms of the Board of Revenue's communication would constitute a fresh cause of action. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the petitioners could seek appropriate legal remedies, including writ jurisdiction, should their grievances persist after attempting to resolve the matter through the administrative process outlined in the Board of Revenue's letter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a petition for leave to appeal preclude a party from seeking future legal remedies if an administrative offer is subsequently refused?
  • Can a fresh cause of action arise from an administrative refusal to implement a previously issued policy directive regarding land allotment?
  • Is the writ jurisdiction of the High Court available to a party aggrieved by an administrative authority's failure to adhere to its own stated policy on land regularization?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft vs Alam Din and another1990 MLD 1967 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique alias Kaka vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Akbar vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Health Department, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore1990 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Capital Development Authority through its1990 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-05
  leave to appeallocus standiconstitution petitioncapital development authoritysanctioned scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Shafiq against the Capital Development Authority. The core legal questions examined by the Court include whether the petitioner possessed the requisite locus standi to maintain a Constitution Petition in light of the precedent established in Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, and whether the sanction granted to the respondents violated the approved scheme, established practice, and policy of the Capital Development Authority given that the sanctioned scheme was not altered. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions, ordered security of Rs. 5,000, directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents, and declined to grant any interim relief while laying down directions for summoning any necessary record from the Capital Development Authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to successfully maintain the Constitution Petition in view of the decision in Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust?
  • Was the sanction granted to the respondents in violation of the Scheme and the established practice and policy of the Capital Development Authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Additional District Judge And Other1990 CLC 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and another vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-21
  post-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquirycriminal procedureaffidavit evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the rejection of bail applications by the lower courts for two petitioners, Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Iqbal, accused of murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly in light of a plea of alibi supported by affidavits and alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's eyewitness accounts. The High Court held that while the case against Muhammad Shafiq did not warrant bail, the case against Muhammad Iqbal required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court rejected the State's contention that a plea of alibi cannot be considered at the bail stage, establishing that there is no inflexible rule against it; rather, such pleas must be evaluated based on the specific facts of each case. Finding that the affidavits of disinterested co-villagers provided substantial support for Muhammad Iqbal's alibi, the Court concluded that his guilt necessitated further inquiry and granted him bail, while dismissing the petition for the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be considered at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
  • Is there a prescribed time limit for filing a bail application in the High Court after rejection by the Sessions Court?
  • Does the existence of a plea of alibi supported by affidavits constitute reasonable grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mehdi Shah and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Ghulam Rasool1990 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Etc. vs Alam Din and AnotherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 151 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Government of the Punjab and 18 others1990 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04
  service tribunalseniorityapprobate and reprobatecivil servantspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's claim to seniority from an anterior date. The petitioner had previously been removed from service under Section 11-A of the Punjab Service Act, 1974, but successfully avoided its application by successfully contending before the Tribunal that he was to be treated as a fresh appointee with effect from a date outside the statutory period, resulting in his reinstatement. Subsequently, the petitioner claimed seniority based on regular appointment from an earlier date. The core legal question is whether a civil servant, having successfully avoided the application of Section 11-A of the Punjab Service Act, 1974 by claiming appointment from a later date, can subsequently claim seniority from an earlier date. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by taking inconsistent stances regarding his date of appointment for different service benefits. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that a litigant cannot blow hot and cold by adopting mutually contradictory positions in service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who avoids removal under Section 11-A of the Punjab Service Act, 1974 by claiming a later appointment date can subsequently claim seniority from an earlier date?
  • Is a civil servant permitted to take contradictory stances regarding the effective date of his appointment for different service benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Hussain vs The State1990 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-10
  criminal breach of trustmisappropriationhearsay evidenceentrustment of moneyanti-corruptionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a bus conductor, under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged criminal breach of trust regarding misappropriation of bus fares. The core legal question was whether there was sufficient evidence of actual entrustment and receipt of money by the appellant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution's case rested entirely on hearsay evidence as none of the passengers or the helper were produced at trial, and the raiding officers' testimony admitted fatal flaws. The Court laid down the principle that a criminal conviction for misappropriation cannot be sustained when the foundational evidence of entrustment and receipt of funds is based on uncorroborated hearsay and lacks direct proof from affected parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 409 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the evidence of fare entrustment and misappropriation is based entirely on hearsay?
  • Is the non-production of direct witnesses, such as passengers or helpers, fatal to the prosecution's case in a charge of criminal breach of trust against a transport conductor?
  • Whether the testimony of raiding ticket examiners alone is sufficient to prove actual receipt of money without corroboration from the persons who allegedly paid the fare?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir alias Shabbira vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Khudadad and another1990 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20
  murderacquittalappraisal of evidenceprivate defenceocular testimonycriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased were set aside, and he was acquitted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction on grounds of unproven motive, discrepant recovery evidence, biased ocular testimony, and physical circumstances indicating that the incident occurred inside the respondent's house where he also sustained injuries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's evaluation of the evidence and physical circumstances was based on sound reasons and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is partisan, motive is unproved, recoveries are discrepant, and physical circumstances strongly support the defense version of the occurrence taking place inside the accused's house with injuries sustained by the accused, acquittal by the appellate court will not be interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal based on a proper evaluation of ocular testimony and physical circumstances?
  • Does the presence of injuries on the person of the accused inside his own house support the plea of self-defense?
  • Can partisan eye-witness testimony be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 691 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salimuddin Qureshi vs Sind Bar Council and another1990 MLD 267 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 64 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 971 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-30
  quashing of proceedingsinherent powers of High Courtabuse of processZina Ordinancekidnappingvoluntary marriagesui juris
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 11/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, arising from an F.I.R. alleging the kidnapping of a minor girl for illicit intercourse. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should continue when the alleged victim, a sui juris adult, voluntarily entered into a valid marriage with the accused prior to the registration of the F.I.R. The High Court held that the evidence, including the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and medical reports confirming her majority, established that she was a legally wedded wife who married of her own free will. The Court determined that continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and result in unnecessary harassment, as conviction was impossible on the available evidence. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings, establishing that where allegations are demonstrably false or legally unsustainable, the High Court must intervene to prevent abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the evidence indicates no possibility of conviction?
  • Does the voluntary marriage of an adult woman to the accused negate a charge of kidnapping under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is the continuation of criminal proceedings against an accused considered an abuse of process when the alleged victim consistently supports the accused's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and 2 others vs Abdullah and 3 others1990 MLD 760 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1990 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  bailsuccessive bail applicationforgerypower of attorneyleave to appealcriminal discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's bail application on the ground that no new ground had been agitated that was not available in the earlier application. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the allegation that he had forged a power of attorney. The Supreme Court heard the learned counsel and held that it was not a fit case for interference in the discretion exercised by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that appellate interference with the discretionary refusal of bail by the High Court, particularly regarding successive bail applications lacking new grounds, is unwarranted unless proper justification is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in dismissing a successive bail application lacking new grounds?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed on the ground that no new ground has been agitated since the rejection of an earlier application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Superintendent of Police and another1990 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29
  Service Tribunalsuo motu powersback benefitsreinstatementdismissal from servicepolice officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police dismissed for misconduct, was reinstated in service with back benefits by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police following his acquittal by a court of law, though with a modification treating the period out of service as leave of the kind due. Subsequently, upon implementation, the period was treated as extraordinary leave without pay, prompting the petitioner to appeal to the Service Tribunal for full back benefits. The Service Tribunal not only refused back benefits but also suo motu set aside the reinstatement order and restored the original dismissal order passed by the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to suo motu set aside the reinstatement order while adjudicating an appeal solely concerning back benefits, and granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter required detailed examination while continuing the interim order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction suo motu to set aside an order of reinstatement while dealing with an appeal filed by a civil servant for the grant of back benefits?
  • Can the Service Tribunal restore an original dismissal order that was not challenged before it in an appeal concerning back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Karachi Transport Corporation1990 PLC 394 · Labour Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Memon vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary1990 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01
  service matterdisciplinary actionremoval from servicecompetent authorityservice tribunalpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning his removal from service for corruption. The petitioner, a former Civil Judge, challenged the disciplinary proceedings and his subsequent removal, primarily contending that the charge-sheet issued by the Acting Chief Justice was void ab initio as only the Chief Justice was the competent authorized officer under the relevant notification. The Supreme Court examined the arguments and noted that an identical prior petition raising the same question of law had been dismissed by the Court upon final hearing. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charge-sheet issued by an Acting Chief Justice instead of the Chief Justice renders disciplinary proceedings void ab initio?
  • Can a civil judge dismissed for corruption challenge the disciplinary action successfully on the ground of competency of the authorized officer?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when an identical question of law was previously raised and dismissed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and another vs The State1990 MLD 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Billu vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Department and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 791 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs General Manager (Water), North WAPDA, Peshawar and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 226 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saif Ul Mulk Nasir vs North West Frontier Province1990 CLC 560 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Said Ahmad Khan vs Pakistan and others1990 PLC (CS.) 139 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Sardar Begum and 4 others1990 SCMR 1176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22
  leave to appealspecific performanceagreement to sellattestationexecution of documentsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a plaintiff's suit for specific performance and possession, which was initially decreed but subsequently reversed on appeal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal on the ground that the underlying agreement to sell was excluded from consideration due to the absence of valid attestation. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that while attestation prior to execution is improper, an agreement to sell does not legally require attestation by witnesses and is valid upon execution alone, relying on the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether an agreement to sell requires attestation to be legally enforceable and whether it can be relied upon solely on the basis of its execution.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to sell required by law to be attested by witnesses to be legally enforceable?
  • Can an agreement to sell be read and relied upon as duly executed in the absence of valid attestation?
  • Does attestation of a document prior to its execution render the attestation invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Nahid Shagufta and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-25
  rejection of plaintcause of actionrelinquishment deedcompulsory registrationimmovable propertyinheritance rightsunregistered document
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from an order of the trial Court rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff instituted a civil suit for a declaration of ownership based on an unregistered relinquishment deed dated 7-1-1986, through which defendant No. 1 allegedly surrendered her inheritance rights in immovable property. The trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the document was compulsorily registrable and its absence rendered it legally ineffective. The Lahore High Court examined whether an unregistered relinquishment deed of immovable property valued over one hundred rupees requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act 1908 and whether an unregistered document can be used for collateral purposes in light of amendments to Section 49 of the said Act. The High Court held that the relinquishment deed purported to extinguish and create rights in immovable property and thus required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act 1908. The Court concluded that without registration, the document could not affect the immovable property or confer rights upon the plaintiff, thereby failing to disclose a valid cause of action for a title suit. The appeal was dismissed in limine, affirming the trial Court's rejection of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does a written relinquishment deed surrendering rights in immovable property require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can an unregistered relinquishment deed valued above one hundred rupees be used to establish title or create rights in immovable property?
  • Whether a plaint based entirely on an unregistered, compulsorily registrable relinquishment deed fails to disclose a cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Mazhari vs Muhammad Sharif And 10 Other1990 CLC 889 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22
  second appeallocal commissionerdemarcationfailure to exercise jurisdictionremand of caseinterlocutory application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the appellant's first appeal against the dismissal of his suit for declaration. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court committed a failure of jurisdiction by deciding the main appeal without disposing of a pending application filed by the appellant for the appointment of a local commissioner for demarcation. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court was legally obliged to decide the pending application for the appointment of a local commissioner, and failing to do so or to discuss it in the main judgment amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that an appellate court must expressly decide and dispose of pending interlocutory applications, such as one for appointing a local commissioner, before or alongside deciding the main appeal. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the lower appellate court's judgment, and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on both the application and the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is legally obliged to dispose of a pending application for the appointment of a local commissioner before deciding the main appeal?
  • Does the failure of a lower appellate court to attend to or decide a pending interlocutory application for the appointment of a local commissioner amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
  • What is the legal effect when an appellate court decides an appeal without adjudicating upon a properly filed application for local demarcation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 7 others vs Muhammad Ayub and another1990 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07
  pre-emption suitjurisdictioncivil revisionacquiescenceres judicataleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners, who were defendants in the original suit, initially challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Their objection was overruled by the trial court, and a subsequent civil revision challenging that order was dismissed. The petitioners accepted the revisional order and did not challenge it further, proceeding to litigate the suit on its merits. After the trial court passed a decree against them, they unsuccessfully pursued a First Appeal before the District Court and a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to reagitate the issue of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners had accepted the earlier revisional order regarding jurisdiction and proceeded with the trial, they were precluded from reopening the issue. The Court dismissed the petitions, establishing the principle that a party cannot acquiesce to an adverse interlocutory order on jurisdiction, participate in the trial on merits, and subsequently seek to challenge that same jurisdictional point after an unfavorable final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party that has accepted an adverse revisional order regarding jurisdiction and proceeded to trial on the merits later challenge that same jurisdictional point?
  • Does the failure to challenge an interlocutory order on jurisdiction at the appropriate stage preclude a party from raising it in subsequent appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 5 others vs Altaf Hussain and 3 others1990 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  petition for leave to appealdeclaratory suitagreement to sellconcurrent findings of factconsideration receiptHisadar ownershipdelivery of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' regular second appeal in limine. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest had filed a declaratory suit asserting sole ownership and possession over suit land measuring 99 kanals 8 marlas, claiming to have purchased the 1/12th share of his sister, whose heirs were the respondents demanding their share of the produce. The primary legal issue was whether the petitioners proved the alleged sale agreement, payment of consideration, and delivery of possession so as to displace the respondents' ownership. The Supreme Court observed that all three lower forums had concurrently recorded findings of fact that the sale agreement, payment of consideration, and transfer of possession were not established, as no receipt was produced. The Court held that a mere revenue entry of Hisadar ownership does not disentitle co-owners from retaining their property rights. As the challenge pertained purely to concurrent findings of fact, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere revenue entry of Hisadar ownership disentitle co-sharers or their legal heirs from retaining ownership of property?
  • Can an agreement to sell be enforced without proving the payment of consideration or delivery of possession?
  • Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by three lower courts in the absence of legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Seedu and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Pupoo and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 393 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 552 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1990 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-01
  murderculpable homicideocular testimonymedical corroborationcompromiselesser sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence concurrently recorded by the trial court and the High Court under Section 302/34 and Section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of a female deceased and for causing hurt to her husband. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, corroboration by medical evidence and recovery, and the relevance of a compromise where a lesser sentence of life imprisonment was already awarded. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt based on trustworthy eyewitness accounts, medical corroboration, and weapon recovery were well-founded and immune to interference, and noted that a compromise is immaterial when the accused has already received the lesser sentence. The court laid down that concurrent factual findings supported by reliable ocular and medical evidence will not be disturbed, and a compromise does not alter the sentence where the lesser penalty has already been imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts based on ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs hold relevance where the accused has already been awarded the lesser sentence of life imprisonment for murder?
  • Whether the testimony of injured and related prosecution witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Traffic, Punjab and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 111 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Etc. vs Abdul Aziz Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah and others1990 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  settlement of propertyclaimant allotteedisplaced personsproperty divisionactual possessionintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had modified a previous decision regarding the transfer of the 'Sohan Lal Building' in Lahore. The core legal question concerned the appropriate distribution of disputed property between two claimant allottees, both of whom were displaced persons. The property had been subject to protracted litigation involving multiple settlement authorities, with conflicting orders regarding whether the property was divisible or indivisible. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had directed that the property be divided between the parties according to their respective actual possession. The Court reasoned that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had consistently described the property as divisible, noting it contained separate staircases and independent sets. The Court affirmed that both parties, as claimant displaced persons, were entitled to the allotment of the specific portions they occupied. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby confirming the division of the property based on practical occupation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether property containing separate staircases and independent sets should be treated as divisible for the purpose of allotment between claimant allottees?
  • Are claimant displaced persons entitled to the allotment of the specific portions of property they are in actual occupation of?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Another vs Abdul Aziz And Another1990 CLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-28
  co-sharer rightspre-emptionagricultural landurban immovable propertyjoint holdingpartition of landdeclaratory decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two distinct legal disputes: a suit by a co-sharer challenging the sale of specific joint land, and pre-emption suits concerning the same property. Regarding the co-sharer's suit, the Court held that while a co-sharer may transfer specific fields within a joint holding, such a sale is not void but remains subject to the rights of other co-sharers until partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the sale was ineffective against their rights. Regarding the pre-emption suits, the core question was whether the subject land constituted 'agricultural land' or 'urban immovable property.' The Court determined that the land had lost its agricultural character due to its location, surrounding industrial infrastructure, and lack of agricultural use, rendering it 'urban immovable property.' Consequently, the land was not subject to the right of pre-emption. The judgment reaffirms that the character of land for pre-emption purposes is determined by its actual use and surroundings at the time of sale, rather than mere revenue classification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer sell specific fields within a joint holding without the consent of other co-sharers?
  • Does the sale of specific fields by a co-sharer entitle other co-sharers to a declaration that the sale is ineffective against their rights?
  • What criteria determine whether land constitutes 'agricultural land' or 'urban immovable property' for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Does the inclusion of land within municipal limits and the presence of surrounding industrial structures automatically classify it as urban immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique and others vs Deputy Collector, Excise &1990 PTD 1088 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-09-05
  Sales TaxCentral ExciseOrdinance repealBoard of Revenuecottage industry exemptiontax evasionwrit petitionadaptation of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by arms manufacturers challenging notices and demand orders issued by the Deputy Collector, Excise & Taxation for the levy and collection of sales tax under the Sales Tax Act 1951 read with the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. The petitioners argued that the Sales Tax Act 1951 was not properly enforced, that Ordinances imposing tax lapsed without validation, that the AJ&K Board of Revenue was illegally constituted without adapting the Central Board of Revenue Act 1924, and that their business constituted exempt cottage industry.

  The High Court dismissed the petitions with costs, holding that the Sales Tax Act 1951 was duly adapted and enforced through successive Ordinances and the Sales Tax (Adaptation) Act 1985. The court held that under Section 41 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act 1974, an Ordinance has the same force as an Act of the Assembly. Furthermore, liabilities incurred under repealed Ordinances were preserved pursuant to Section 56-C of the Interim Constitution Act. The court also held that tax laws must be liberally construed to prevent evasion based on technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ordinance promulgated under Section 41 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 carry the same force and legal status as an Act of the Legislative Assembly?
  • Does the repeal of an Ordinance absolve a taxpayer of liabilities or tax obligations accrued during the period the Ordinance was enforced?
  • Can sales tax be levied and collected as a duty of excise under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 pursuant to the provisions of the Sales Tax Act 1951?
  • Can a claim of exemption from sales tax as a cottage industry be decided in writ jurisdiction without producing evidentiary proof of accounts and records?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sachal Khoso vs Government of Sind and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 69 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir and another vs Ghaffar Ahmed and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 876 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rifatullah Alvi vs Imran Ansari1990 PLD Supreme Court 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-03
  ejectmentpersonal uselandlord and tenantoccupation versus possessionSind Rented Premises Ordinancesummary evictionretiring landlord
  Summary & questions settled

  This landlord's appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court setting aside an eviction order granted under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the ground floor as he was retiring within six months and required the premises for his personal use, having explained that the first floor was occupied by his married sister, handicapped brother, and unmarried sister. The core legal question was whether the occupation of the upper floor by the landlord's relatives, gratuitously, constituted 'occupation' by the landlord himself under subsection (2) of Section 14, thereby disqualifying him from seeking summary eviction. The Supreme Court held that 'occupation' denotes actual physical possession or immediate holding, distinct from mediate possession or ownership. The Court ruled that since the first floor was genuinely in the physical occupation of the landlord's relatives and not kept ready for the landlord's own habitation, the landlord was not in occupation of another building under Section 14(2). The appeal was accepted, and the Rent Controller's eviction order was restored, laying down the principle that gratuitous occupation by relatives does not equate to occupation by the landlord unless specifically maintained for his personal habitation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the gratuitous occupation of a building by a landlord's relatives constitute 'occupation' by the landlord under subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is there a distinction between the terms 'possession' and 'occupation' as used in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does temporary stay by a landlord on a property occupied by his relatives during occasional visits amount to actual physical occupation of the premises?
  • Can a landlord seeking summary eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, be disqualified solely because his relatives reside gratuitously on another property owned by him?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1990 MLD 622 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-31Read full judgment →