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 Jafar Tarar vs District Magistrate, Gujranwala And Another1990 CLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26
  constitutional petitionmandatory consultationadministrative lawlocal authorityparking point permissionstatutory interpretationjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, granting permission to use a specific land parcel as a parking point for wagons. The petitioner contended that the order was mala fide, violated statutory provisions, and was issued without the mandatory consultation with the local authority and the Superintendent of Police. The core legal question was whether the requirement of consultation under the relevant motor vehicle laws is mandatory or directory. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority because the District Magistrate failed to consult the local authority as required by law. The court rejected the argument that consultation with local Members of Parliament or Provincial Assemblies could substitute for the statutory requirement of consulting the local authority. The court established the principle that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure or condition precedent, such as mandatory consultation with a named body before exercising administrative power, that condition must be strictly complied with. Failure to adhere to such mandatory procedural requirements renders the administrative action void and unsustainable in law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to consult a local authority under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 mandatory or directory?
  • Can consultation with Members of Parliament or Provincial Assemblies satisfy a statutory requirement to consult a local authority?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to comply with a mandatory condition precedent prescribed by a statute for the exercise of administrative power?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jafar Tarar vs District Magistrate, Gujranwala And 31990 CLC 271 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Itbar Khan vs Fazal Hussain and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 116 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-06
  consent decreeright of appealwaiverlocal inspectionextra cursum curiaeestoppelcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for a perpetual injunction regarding property possession and construction, where the plaintiff alleged interference by the defendants. During the proceedings, the parties jointly agreed to waive the production of evidence and consented to be bound by the trial court's decision following a local inspection and inquiry. The trial court conducted the inspection, determined the plaintiff had encroached upon common land, and ordered the removal of the construction. A decree was drawn up accordingly. The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal, which was dismissed on the ground that the decree was passed with the parties' consent and was therefore unappealable. The petitioner challenged this dismissal in the High Court. The High Court held that where parties agree to a deviated procedure, inviting the court to act as a final arbiter or referee, the resulting decision constitutes a consent judgment. The court affirmed that such an agreement implies a waiver of the right to appeal, as parties cannot resile from a procedure they invited the court to adopt. The revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party appeal against a decree passed by a court acting as a referee based on the parties' joint consent?
  • Does an agreement to accept a court's decision based on local inspection imply a waiver of the right to appeal?
  • Is a judgment rendered through a procedure outside the ordinary course of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the invitation of the parties, binding and unappealable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Telephone Industries of Pakistan Ltd.1990 PLC 553 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Ghous Bux and another1990 P Cr. L J 2013 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-12
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationinstigationulterior motivesmerits of the casecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Ismail, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1, Ghous Bux, a Headmaster who was implicated in Crime No. 79 of 1989 under sections 302, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge was justified and warranted cancellation, particularly regarding the scope of pre-conditions for pre-arrest bail and the consideration of the merits of the case. The Sindh High Court held that the conditions for pre-arrest bail laid down in previous precedents are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and merits of the case can be touched while granting pre-arrest bail. The Court ruled that since the respondent was a Government servant attributed only with instigation and his arrest would cause unjustified disgrace and potential suspension on evidence making out a case for further inquiry, no exception could be taken to the lower court's order. The application for cancellation of bail was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conditions laid down for the grant of pre-arrest bail are exhaustive or illustrative?
  • Can the merits of a criminal case be touched while considering an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail granted to an accused should be cancelled when no misuse of the concession of bail is shown and the evidence makes out a case of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Abdul Waheed, Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad1990 SCMR 1533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-01
  civil servantmisconductservice tribunalproper channelemployees associationleave to appealdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant and president of a staff association, challenged a Service Tribunal judgment that reduced his penalty for misconduct but refused full exoneration. The petitioner had sent a telegram to the Commissioner criticizing the Deputy Commissioner's actions regarding another employee's dismissal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's actions, taken in his capacity as an association president, constituted misconduct despite the existence of departmental instructions governing such representations. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was indeed guilty of misconduct. The Court relied on specific government instructions (O & M Manual) which mandate that employees' associations must confine representations to matters of general interest, avoid involvement in individual cases, and follow the prescribed 'proper channel' for communications. By bypassing these channels and intervening in an individual disciplinary matter, the petitioner violated established service rules. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Service Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal, affirming that association activities do not exempt civil servants from adhering to prescribed disciplinary and communication protocols.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant, acting as an association president, bypass prescribed official channels to communicate grievances regarding individual cases?
  • Does the withdrawal of criminal proceedings under the Telegraph Act 1885 automatically exonerate a civil servant from departmental disciplinary action for the same conduct?
  • Are civil servants' associations permitted to intervene in individual disciplinary cases of their members under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another vs Muhammad Ijaz Rashid and others1990 SCMR 1482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-12
  service lawseniority determinationdirect recruitmentdepartmental promotionfederal service tribunalad hoc appointmentseniority list
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the determination of seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees in the T&T Department. The petitioners, appointed as Assistants on an ad hoc basis in 1979 and subsequently regularized, were initially placed senior to the respondent, who was promoted to the same grade in 1979. The Service Tribunal, relying on general principles of seniority, held that departmental promotees in a particular year are senior as a class to direct recruits appointed in the same year, regardless of the specific date of appointment. The petitioners contend that because they were appointed against vacancies from 1977 and 1978, the principle regarding seniority within the same year does not apply to them. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying significant questions of law regarding whether a direct recruit appointed earlier can be declared junior to a departmental promotee appointed later, and whether seniority is governed by the specific vacancy year or the actual date of appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Government servant appointed from the direct quota on an earlier date can be declared junior to a Government servant appointed from a subsequent date from the quota of departmental promotees?
  • Whether a Government servant appointed from the direct quota arising out of vacancies for the year 1977-78 on an earlier date can be declared junior to a Government servant appointed from a subsequent date against the quota of promotees for the year 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Memon vs Government of Sindh through ChiefK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 71 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Memon vs Government of Sindh through Chief1990 PLC (C.S.) 718 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Memon vs Government of Sindh Etc.K.L.R.1990 Labour & Services Cases 167 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs The State1990 SCMR 1304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-25
  leave to appealcriminal appealsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, titled Muhammad Islam versus The State, reported in 1990 SCMR 1304. The core legal question concerned whether leave to appeal should be granted against the impugned judgment or order of the lower forum. The court's decision was to refuse leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the existing order. The principle laid down is that where no substantial question of law or grounds for interference are made out, leave to appeal stands refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the impugned decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs S.H.O., Police Station Dijkot, Tehsil and District1990 P Cr. L J 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq and anothers vs Prince Glass Works Ltd. and another1990 MLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1990 MLD 1519 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque Soomro vs Water and Power Development1990 SCMR 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-07
  pro forma promotionpromotion examinationservice appealdiscriminationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal concerning the pro forma promotion of the petitioner in Grade-17. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner's promotion with effect from a specific date was unlawfully made subject to passing a promotion examination when no such requirement was prescribed under the applicable rules at the time, and whether the petitioner faced unreasonable discrimination compared to similarly situated individuals who received exemptions. The court granted leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine these questions. As part of its interim holding, the court ordered that the condition requiring the petitioner to pass the promotion examination shall remain in abeyance pending the final disposal of the appeal, while directing the respondent to submit comments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pro forma promotion of a civil servant can be made subject to passing a promotion examination when no such examination was prescribed under the rules at the relevant time?
  • Whether a civil servant is subjected to unreasonable discrimination when similarly situated colleagues are granted exemptions from passing the same promotion examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Muhammad Shabbir1990 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Messrs Shezan International Ltd. and other1990 PLC 63 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-09-07
  reinstatementtermination of serviceretrenchmentstanding order 12grievance petitionnotice in lieu of payback benefitslabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from cross-appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Sindh Labour Court regarding the termination of a Doorman's services by Messrs Shezan International Ltd. The workman alleged oral termination without notice, while the employer claimed his post was abolished and that a written termination order was issued but refused by him. The Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with back benefits up until the written notice was subsequently served during appeal proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the written termination order satisfied the statutory requirements of Standing Orders 12(1) and 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, and whether non-payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice invalidated the termination. The Tribunal held that compliance with Standing Order 12(1) is a mandatory prerequisite under Standing Order 12(3), and that the reason given must be explicit and clear, rather than a mere formal assertion. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the workman's appeal, dismissed the employer's cross-appeal, and directed full reinstatement with back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is compliance with Standing Order 12(1) a mandatory prerequisite for terminating a permanent workman's services under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does an order of termination satisfy Standing Order 12(3) if it fails to explicitly state clear and understandable reasons for the action taken?
  • Can an unserved written order of termination produced during appellate proceedings validate a prior oral termination of a permanent workman?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 502 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1990 MLD 182 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1990 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20
  leave to appealculpable homicideself-defencesudden fightappreciation of evidencecriminal liabilityconcurrent sentences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the convictions of the petitioner and others from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a violent incident involving two deaths and multiple injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court's assessment of the evidence, which rejected the accused's plea of self-defence and characterized the encounter as a sudden fight, was legally sound, or whether the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The Supreme Court, upon re-examining the prosecution evidence alongside the defence version, affirmed the High Court's findings. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the occurrence and that the High Court correctly rejected the defence's plea of self-defence. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment, determining that the conviction and sentence did not warrant further alteration. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as no grounds for interference were established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is maintainable when the court finds the encounter was a sudden fight?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the nature of the encounter?
  • Is a plea of self-defence sustainable when the prosecution evidence establishes a premeditated attack and the accused's version is not supported by the facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and others vs Assistant Commissioner, Swat and others1990 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-02-24
  constitutional petitionequal protection of lawJirga systemreasonable classificationProvincially Administered Tribal Areasfundamental rightsjudicial administrationdiscriminatory legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the validity of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975. The petitioners contended that these Regulations, which established special forums (Jirgas) and procedures for criminal and civil adjudication in Swat and Dir, were discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The Court examined whether the classification created by these Regulations, which subjected citizens in these areas to a different judicial system than the rest of the province, was reasonable. The Court held that the Regulations were arbitrary, lacked a rational basis, and failed to establish any intelligible differentia or nexus with a legitimate objective. Consequently, the Court declared both Regulations violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. The proceedings under these Regulations were quashed, and the Court directed that the matters be transferred to ordinary courts of competent jurisdiction for trial and adjudication in accordance with the established laws of the land.

  Questions settled

  • Do the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 violate the fundamental right to equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a legislative classification be sustained if it lacks an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the objective of the law?
  • Are the procedural laws and forums established by the 1975 Regulations for Swat and Dir discriminatory when compared to the judicial system applicable in the rest of the North-West Frontier Province?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 667 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 391 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1990 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07
  criminal appealmurderconvictiondeath sentencecommutation of sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, was tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Amir Abbas by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, and sentenced to death. On appeal and reference, the High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Subsequently, pursuant to a Presidential Order dated 6-12-1988, the petitioner's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life. The petitioner nonetheless sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court through a jail petition. The Supreme Court perused the judgments and held that the prosecution had fully established its case through motive, ocular account, recoveries, and medical testimony. The Court concluded that no further alteration in the conviction or sentence was warranted, as the petitioner had already benefited from the commutation of his death sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully established the case against the petitioner through motive, ocular account, recoveries, and medical testimony?
  • Is any further alteration in conviction or sentence warranted after the commutation of a death sentence by presidential order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1038 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The Divisional Commissioner, D.I.Khan and others1990 SCMR 1282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16
  student admissionmedical collegefuture careersupreme court petitionhumanitarian consideration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition filed by Muhammad Iqbal against the Divisional Commissioner, D.I. Khan and others. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the main petition but requested that the petitioner, who has already completed his First Year and is currently studying in the Second Year at Bolan Medical College, not be ousted due to the admission of Mast Ali Khan, in order to protect his future career. The core legal question concerned whether the court could issue a direction to the college authorities to accommodate the petitioner. The court held that no such direction could be issued as a matter of right, but expressed a desire that the college authorities favorably consider the petitioner's predicament and try to accommodate him as far as possible. The key principle laid down is that while the court cannot compel educational institutions by issuing mandatory directions to accommodate students outside regular rules, it may urge authorities to consider humanitarian aspects regarding a student's academic future.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court issue a direction to college authorities to accommodate a student outside regular admission rules?
  • Whether a student who has completed the first year of studies can claim reinstatement as a matter of right when displaced by another admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs District Education Officer Etc.K.L.R 1990 Labour & Service Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs District Education Officer (W), Jhang and 51990 PLC (C.S.) 664 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Goraya vs Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 634 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Cheema vs Mehr Ashiq Manat, S.H.O., Police Station1990 P Cr. L J 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs Muhammad Alamgir and others1990 SCMR 1377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-22
  limitation periodfraud and misrepresentationcivil procedurearbitration awardremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to resolve an apparent conflict between various High Court decisions concerning the applicable period of limitation for filing such applications—specifically whether Article 173 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies. The Supreme Court examined the precedents and concluded that no real conflict existed, holding that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 correctly applies to an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 providing a three-year limitation period. The Court declined to pre-empt the merits of the case regarding the competency of section 12(2) in matters governed by the Arbitration Act, as the matter was properly remanded to the trial court for a decision on merits. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable period of limitation for filing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether Article 173 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the Supreme Court pre-empt the merits of a case and examine matters that have been remanded to the trial court for disposal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 661 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs Additional District Judge and another1990 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-01
  evictionlandlord and tenantdemarcationrent controllerexclusive jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, claiming to be tenants, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their constitutional petition challenging an eviction order. The dispute originated from a demarcation of property by Settlement Authorities, which allocated the disputed shop portion to the respondent's predecessor-in-interest. Based on this demarcation, the respondent successfully initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners. While the Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, the appellate authority reversed this decision, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition, citing the involvement of a controverted factual question. The Supreme Court, relying on the principle established in Raunaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236), held that a tribunal with restricted jurisdiction, such as a Rent Controller, cannot sit in judgment over the adjudication of another tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the Rent Controller could not challenge the validity of the demarcation order. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate authority's decision, noting that the Rent Controller was bound by the demarcation order, and refused leave to appeal, clarifying that the petitioners remained free to pursue other legal remedies against the underlying demarcation order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller sit in judgment over the adjudication of a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction?
  • Is a demarcation order passed by Settlement Authorities subject to challenge before a Rent Controller in eviction proceedings?
  • Does the existence of a controverted factual question regarding property demarcation preclude a Rent Controller from establishing a landlord-tenant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others vs Muhammad Akram1990 PLD Azad J&K 19 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 4 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others vs The State1990 SCMR 1268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-06
  leave to appealcommon intentionSection 34 PPCmurdercommutation of death sentencemedical evidencevicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while commuting their death sentences to imprisonment for life and altering the imposed fines. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, armed with soti, knife, and revolver, jointly attacked the deceased and an injured eyewitness. Medical evidence revealed that the deceased suffered one sharp-edged stab wound alongside blunt-weapon injuries, while the surviving victim suffered simple injuries caused by blunt weapons. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court of Pakistan is whether the element of common intention was established so as to attract vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the applicability of Section 34 P.P.C. under the circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the element of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arises when multiple accused inflict injuries using different types of weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 7 others1990 SCMR 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18
  consolidation of holdingswrit petitiondiscretionary jurisdictionboard of revenueleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition by the High Court in a case concerning the consolidation of holdings. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in considering a report submitted by the Board of Revenue during the constitutional proceedings, which stated that the petitioners held land in excess of their entitlement, rather than restricting its review solely to the impugned orders. The Supreme Court held that no inconsistency existed between the impugned order and the official report, and concurred with the High Court that the petitioners failed to make out a case for the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that a court may consider official reports submitted by administrative authorities in constitutional petitions when evaluating discretionary relief in consolidation matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can take note of facts stated in a report submitted by the Board of Revenue in response to a constitutional petition?
  • Does holding land in excess of entitlement preclude a petitioner from invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction in consolidation matters?
  • Is there any inconsistency between an order of consolidation and a subsequent report confirming excess land possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board WAPDA,1990 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22
  service tribunaldepartmental inquiryhonourable acquittalsuspension periodpenaltycorruptionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant in the Revenue office of WAPDA, was arrested in a corruption case and subsequently tried and acquitted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Following his acquittal, he was reinstated in service, but the department determined his acquittal was not honourable. After issuing a show-cause notice, the department imposed a penalty of stoppage of annual increments for two years without future effect, ordered that he receive no salary beyond the suspension allowance, and treated the suspension period as leave without pay. His departmental appeal and subsequent appeal before the Service Tribunal were dismissed. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding the departmental penalty following a non-honourable acquittal where the petitioner admitted to handling tainted money. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner admitted to holding the tainted money for safe custody, making him an accessory after the fact, the departmental authorities were justified in finding his conduct objectionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that departmental action can lawfully follow an acquittal where the employee's own admissions reflect blameworthy conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental authorities can impose a penalty following an acquittal in a criminal trial?
  • Does an acquittal by a criminal court bar departmental action if the acquittal is not honourable?
  • Can the period of suspension be treated as leave without pay upon reinstatement following a corruption charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram Shah vs Member (Customs), Central Board of Revenue and another1990 SCMR 1701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-04
  service lawnatural justiceenquiry reportprejudicemajor penaltyunauthorized absencecivil servantaudi alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether the failure to provide a civil servant with a copy of an Enquiry Report vitiates the imposition of a major penalty. The appellant, an Inspector of Central Excise and Land Customs, was penalized for unauthorized absence from duty and signing blank gate passes. The Supreme Court examined whether the non-supply of the Enquiry Report violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that the supply of an enquiry report is not a mandatory statutory requirement but a principle of natural justice. Consequently, an order is not automatically vitiated by its absence unless the aggrieved party demonstrates actual prejudice. In this case, the appellant's absence was factually established and admitted, and he failed to show how the non-supply of the report prejudiced his defense. The Court further clarified that leave is subject to the exigencies of service and the discretion of the competent authority, and that an Enquiry Officer is not required to recommend specific punishments. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to supply a copy of an Enquiry Report to a civil servant automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is the supply of an Enquiry Report a mandatory statutory requirement in disciplinary proceedings against civil servants?
  • Does the grant of leave to a civil servant constitute an absolute right or is it subject to the exigencies of service?
  • Must an Enquiry Officer recommend a specific punishment in their report during disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajji and another vs The State1990 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27
  criminal petitionmurdercommon intentionreduction of sentenceyouthful offenderocular testimonyreappraisal of evidencelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering the death sentence of the first petitioner to life imprisonment due to his youthful age of sixteen years and indirect connection to the motive. The core legal question involved the sustainability of the conviction based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, motive, and recovery of a weapon. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact based on reliable ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and recovery could not be interfered with, especially when the petition was also barred by limitation. The Court laid down that concurrent factual findings supported by consistent evidence will not be reappraised by the apex court, and dismissed the petition on merits as well as limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal petition against concurrent findings of fact?
  • Can youth at the time of the offence and indirect connection to the motive serve as mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and recovery is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ihsan Ullah vs Sufi Soap and Chemical Industries Ltd.1990 PLC 490 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Tanveer alias Teru and others1990 SCMR 1113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-20
  criminal appealsuppression of injuriesunpremeditated incidentappreciation of evidencechance encounterculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that convicted the respondents under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, rather than under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as requested by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence regarding the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused, which led the court to conclude that the incident was an unpremeditated chance encounter rather than a premeditated murder. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the inference drawn by the High Court—that the injuries received by the respondents occurred during the same incident and were suppressed by the prosecution—was a reasonable and possible conclusion based on the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction or enhance the sentence, holding that the High Court's assessment of the facts and the resulting application of Section 304, Part I, P.P.C. was justified in the circumstances. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court infer that an incident was an unpremeditated chance encounter when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused?
  • Is the Supreme Court justified in refusing to interfere with a High Court's factual finding regarding the nature of an occurrence when that finding is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1990 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-14
  Special Courtrevisional jurisdictionsuppression of terrorist activitiesmaintainability of revisionsubordinate courtinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application was filed under Section 439 and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order of a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, which rejected the applicant's request to recall a witness. The core legal question was whether a revision application is maintainable against an order passed by a Special Court established under the 1975 Act. The Court held that the revision application was not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, is not an inferior or subordinate court to the High Court for the purposes of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that the 1975 Act, particularly Section 7 and Section 10, explicitly limits the High Court's jurisdiction, excluding the power to revise sentences or proceedings of the Special Court, except as specifically provided by the Act. Consequently, the High Court lacks the authority to exercise revisional or inherent powers over such proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of revision?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of a Special Court established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Do the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, override the general revisional powers of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs S.H.O., Police Station, Sheikhupura1990 P Cr. L J 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-06
  illegal detentionhabeas corpuspolice excessnon-cognizable offencesconstitutional guaranteesmonetary compensationmala fide action
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed against the illegal detention of a citizen by police officials. The core legal question was whether the police acted within their authority by confining an individual in a lock-up based on an inquiry into non-cognizable offences initiated by a Tehsildar's order. The Court held that the detention was illegal and mala fide, as the police lacked the authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law by State functionaries is no excuse. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu, directed the responsible police officers to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner for the expenses incurred in securing the release, and ordered the registration of a criminal case against the delinquent officers. The judgment reinforces the principles that the deprivation of liberty must strictly adhere to the law and that the dignity of a citizen is inviolable under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can police officers legally confine a person in a lock-up for the investigation of non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 provide for monetary compensation to a citizen whose liberty has been illegally curtailed by state functionaries?
  • Is ignorance of the law a valid defense for a police officer acting in their official capacity?
  • Can a court order the registration of a criminal case against police officers found to have acted in breach of law and violated constitutional guarantees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs Khairati and another1990 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-21
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionnon-joinder of necessary partyestoppelmartial law regulationcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a pre-emption suit. The respondents, sons of the vendor, filed a suit claiming a superior right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land purchased by the appellants. A dispute arose regarding the non-joinder of one vendee whose name was omitted from the certified copy of the sale-deed, leading to an application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead him as a party, which was allowed by the trial court. The trial court eventually decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. An appeal by the appellants was successful before the Additional District Judge, but the Lahore High Court restored the trial court's decree. In the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged findings on issues relating to estoppel, the transaction being hit by Martial Law Regulation No. 115, and the respondents' superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to prove estoppel or tenancy under MLR 115, and the respondents' relationship as sons of the vendor was admitted. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit is liable to be dismissed for failing to implead a vendee whose name was omitted from the certified copy of the sale-deed?
  • Does inconsistent and contradictory evidence regarding the presence of pre-emptors at the time of sale establish estoppel?
  • Whether the sons of a vendor possess a superior right of pre-emption based on their relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and another vs Allah Ditta and another1990 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30
  pre-emptionZare Panjumextension of timecondonation of delayleave to appealplaint rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their first appeal and upheld the lower appellate court's order condoning the delay in the deposit of Zare Panjum by the pre-emptors under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The trial court had initially rejected the plaint for non-deposit of Zare Panjum within time, but the District Court set aside this order on the ground that the pre-emptors' application for extension of time was not disposed of prior to the target date, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to make the deposit. The Supreme Court considered the old nature of the matter, noting the possibility that the suit had already been decided on merits. The Court held that the approach of the lower appellate court and the High Court regarding the extension of time was based on sound reasoning. The Supreme Court concluded that a decree passed in favour of the respondents should not be set aside merely on the ground that the delay ought not to have been condoned, and accordingly dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the first appellate court is justified in condoning the delay in the deposit of Zare Panjum under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act when the trial court failed to dispose of the extension application before the target date?
  • Should an existing decree passed in favour of the pre-emptors be set aside merely on the ground that the First Appellate Court should not have condoned the delay in the deposit of the Zare Panjum?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1102 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Bakhtawar1990 CLC 894 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mirza Muhammad Saghir and another1990 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20
  specific performanceconsolidated suitscivil revisionleave to appealprocedural lawappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court in a case involving specific performance. The petitioner had originally succeeded in a trial court where two suits were consolidated. However, the respondents successfully appealed this decision to the District Court. The petitioner's subsequent Civil Revision was dismissed, leading to the current petition. The core legal question presented is whether a single appeal filed by the respondents against a consolidated judgment involving two suits is legally sufficient, or if separate appeals were required. The Supreme Court, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted on this specific issue in a connected matter (Siraj Din v. Rajada), determined that the question requires further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the procedural validity of the single appeal filed against the consolidated suits and ordered the matter to be heard alongside the connected case, while maintaining the existing stay order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a single appeal sufficient against a judgment rendered in consolidated suits?
  • Does the consolidation of suits require separate appeals to be filed by the aggrieved party against each suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Gul Ahmed Cotton Mills (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi1990 PLC 583 · Labour Court · 1988-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Pervaiz vs Secretary, Communication and Works1990 PLC (C.S.) 550 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs Niaz Ahmad and others1990 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-16
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenantwrit jurisdictionremand of casefinding of factadditional evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the appellants against respondent No. 1 concerning a room in a property in Lahore, wherein the appellants claimed the status of landlords following transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and default in rent. The trial court and the district judge both found in favor of the appellants and ordered ejectment. However, the High Court accepted a writ petition filed by the respondent, set aside the orders of the lower tribunals, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for fresh decision after recording additional evidence and appointing a local commissioner. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could interfere in findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, and whether remand was appropriate in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the order of remand was unexceptionable as a correct decision regarding the transferred properties necessitated determining the genuineness of documents and areas through additional evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court could have interfered in a rent matter on the question of finding of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Whether it was a fit case for remand in the exercise of writ jurisdiction for recording additional evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 209 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs Muhammad Yaqoob1990 MLD 783 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 5 others vs Mst. Munni and another1990 MLD 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Wazirzada and others1990 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Messrs Sole Pak. Ltd. and another1990 PLC 401 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Additional District Judge, Okara and 2 others1990 MLD 1815 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 986 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Additional District Judge 1ST, Okara and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 350 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-14
  guardianshipcustody of minorsjurisdictioncoram non judiceSenior Civil Judgeconstitutional petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Additional District Judge and the trial court regarding the custody of minors under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The core legal question was whether a judge who was not a Senior Civil Judge possessed the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate matters under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, given the statutory requirement that such powers are conferred upon Senior Civil Judges, with specific exceptions. The High Court, upon reviewing the statutory provisions and relevant notifications, held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction as he was not a Senior Civil Judge. The Court emphasized that where there is a total lack of jurisdiction, the proceedings are coram non judice, and such an objection regarding jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even if not previously agitated. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders, allowed the petition, and remanded the case to the competent Senior Civil Judge for expeditious disposal within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection regarding a total lack of jurisdiction be raised for the first time in constitutional proceedings?
  • Are proceedings conducted by a judge lacking the requisite statutory authority considered coram non judice?
  • Which judicial officers are competent to adjudicate matters under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 in the Province?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1657 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs Muhammad Asghar and 6 others1990 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-07
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidencerecovery evidencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the assessment of ocular testimony, recovery evidence, and motive in a criminal trial resulting in acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings regarding discrepancies in recoveries, interested ocular testimony conflicting with medical evidence, unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses, and weak motive were well-founded and warranted the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that interference with an acquittal order is unwarranted where the trial and appellate evaluations of evidence are sound. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order based on sound appreciation of evidence, including discrepancies in recoveries and conflicts between ocular and medical testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an appellate court judgment acquitting the accused based on the benefit of the doubt?
  • Does a discrepancy in the dates of recoveries as stated by attesting witnesses and police officers undermine the genuineness of the recoveries?
  • Can interested ocular testimony conflicting with medical evidence sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasham vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab and 21990 SCMR 1440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-01
  service lawlimitation periodcondonation of delaydepartmental representationservice tribunalpolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Police Constable, challenged his dismissal from service following a departmental inquiry. After his departmental appeals to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and a subsequent representation to the Inspector General of Police were unsuccessful, he approached the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground of limitation, refusing to condone the delay caused by the time spent pursuing a representation before the Inspector General of Police. The petitioner sought leave to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a departmental representation, which was not a statutory right, could be excluded for the purpose of limitation. The Supreme Court held that since the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police was final and no right of representation to the Inspector General of Police existed, the Tribunal correctly refused to condone the delay. The petition was dismissed, affirming that time spent pursuing non-statutory remedies does not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time spent pursuing a departmental representation, which is not a statutory right, count towards the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Is an order passed by a Deputy Inspector General of Police in a departmental appeal considered final for the purpose of limitation?
  • Can a Service Tribunal condone delay based on time spent pursuing non-statutory remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1994 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 975 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Qasim Khan1990 CLC 1959 · Board of Revenue · 1989-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Province of Punjab and another1990 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-20
  leave to appealGrow More Food Schemeallotment of State landminority of allotteecompetency of minorcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the dismissal of his suit for a declaration regarding the subsistence and continuance of a lease of State land under the Grow More Food Scheme. The core legal question concerns whether a minor is legally competent to obtain an allotment of land under the said scheme, either by fulfilling conditions through a guardian ad-litem or agent, and whether departmental instructions prohibiting minors from such allotments are ultra vires the general legal provisions governing the competency of minors. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions and related legal points, directing that status quo continue in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a minor is competent to obtain an allotment of State land under the Grow More Food Scheme?
  • Can a minor fulfil the conditions of a land allotment scheme through a guardian ad-litem or agent?
  • Whether departmental instructions or rules prohibiting the allotment of land to a minor are ultra vires the general legal provisions relating to the competency of minors?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and others vs Muhammad and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-19
  regular second appealcivil revisionconversion of proceedingscourt-fee deficiencylimitationprocedural hypertechnicalitysupply of copies
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' regular second appeals, which were initially filed as regular second appeals, erroneously converted into civil revisions due to a High Court office objection, and later sought to be reconverted. The core legal questions involved the propriety of converting civil revisions back into regular second appeals, the effect of deficient court fees on limitation, and procedural requirements regarding the supply of copies of lower courts' judgments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that procedural hypertechnicalities and mistakes originating from the court's own office should not prejudice a litigant. It ruled that litigants are entitled as of right to at least one chance to make good any deficiency in court fees, that conversion of a civil revision into a second appeal relates back to the original institution date, and that procedural defects regarding copies can be exempted under amended procedural rules. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matters for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil revision be converted into a regular second appeal and vice versa?
  • What is the relevant date of institution when a civil revision is converted into a second appeal?
  • Is a litigant entitled to an opportunity to make good a deficiency in court-fee?
  • Whether procedural defects regarding the late supply of copies of lower courts' judgments can bar the processing of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 685 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs Sargodha Municipal Corporation and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 677 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hadi vs The Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Agriculture and Cooperative Department, Quetta and two others1990 SCMR 799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26
  expunction of remarksadverse remarksjudicial observationstermination of serviceservice lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which dismissed the appellant's Constitution Petition challenging the termination of his services. The appellant sought the expunction of adverse remarks made by the High Court, which attributed the discontinuation of an agricultural research programme to his misconduct, misbehaviour, and inefficiency. The core legal question was whether these judicial observations were extraneous, unsupported by the record, and unwarranted. Upon reviewing the documentary evidence, including internal reports from the Project Incharge and communications between the Provincial Government and the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, the Supreme Court found that the record substantiated the High Court's findings regarding the appellant's performance and conduct. The Court held that the remarks were based on material produced before the High Court and were within the scope of judicial discretion given the context of the termination. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that no grounds existed for the expunction of the remarks and dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that judicial observations supported by the record are not subject to expunction.

  Questions settled

  • Can adverse remarks made by a High Court in a judgment be expunged if they are supported by the record?
  • Is a court justified in making observations about a petitioner's conduct when such conduct is relevant to the termination of their employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulzar Alias Gulu vs Muhammad Amir1990 CLC 1943 · Board of Revenue · 1989-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Feroze Khan and 12 others vs Muhammad Hayat Khan and anothers1990 PLD Azad J&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazal vs Tariq Javed and others1990 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentstruck off defencedetained in jailservice of noticenext friend
  Summary & questions settled

  Respondents filed an ejectment application against the petitioner, who was confined in jail, through his minor son represented by his mother as next friend. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future rent at an enhanced rate under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Upon non-compliance, the petitioner's defence was struck off and his ejectment was ordered. After unsuccessful appeals and a dismissed writ petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined contentions that the petitioner, being detained in jail, was not served with notice and that representation through a next friend while alive and reachable in jail was legally incompetent. The Court found that the contentions required consideration, granted leave to appeal, and issued interim directions regarding security and continued deposit of rent at the earlier rate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application against a tenant confined in jail is legally valid when the tenant is not personally served with notice in jail?
  • Is it competent to implead a tenant who is alive and in jail through a next friend?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order when the tenant was condemned unheard?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz vs Collector of Central Excise & Sales Tax, Lahore1990 CLC 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fasih Ur Rehman Through Legal Heirs vs Federal Land1990 CLC 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farouk Dossa vs Mrs. Qudsia Dossa and 2 others1990 MLD 2016 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-28
  specific performancecontract of saleassignment of contractnomineeco-promiseebreach of contractright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance regarding an agreement to purchase a flat. The defendants, having offered the property to the plaintiff and his brothers, subsequently refused to execute the sale deed, objecting to the plaintiff’s nomination of his son as the purchaser and claiming the plaintiff breached the agreement by seeking to purchase the property individually rather than jointly. The court held that the defendants' refusal was unjustified. It determined that in the absence of a contractual prohibition against assignment, a purchaser is entitled to nominate a third party, and the seller cannot unilaterally reject such a nominee. Furthermore, the court affirmed that co-promisees may validly assign their interests to one of their number, who may then enforce the contract specifically. The court emphasized that the defendants' attempt to cancel the contract was mala fide, as the plaintiff had complied with the terms of the offer. Consequently, the court decreed specific performance, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Can a purchaser nominate a third party to purchase property under a contract of sale if the agreement does not expressly prohibit assignment?
  • Is a contract of sale enforceable by one co-promisee if other co-promisees have assigned their interests to that individual?
  • Does a seller have the legal right to reject a nominee of the purchaser in the absence of a contractual clause restricting assignment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Imam vs Abdul Wahid and 2 others1990 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-07
  Agreement of AssociationCompensation BookPermanent Transfer Deedpublic auctionleave to appealsettlement authoritiesstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a shop acquired through public auction. The core legal question involves the enforceability of an Agreement of Association between the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Under this agreement, the petitioner provided funds from his Compensation Book to cover the auction price, with a stipulation that if the loan remained unpaid after 1.5 years, the transfer documents would be issued in the petitioner's name. Although the petitioner's claim was initially declared bogus, it was later restored by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) based on the agreement, but the authorities rejected this, and the High Court affirmed the rejection. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's factual findings regarding the payment method and the terms of the agreement required further examination. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Agreement of Association providing for the transfer of property upon default of loan repayment is enforceable against the Settlement Authorities?
  • Does the restoration of a previously cancelled claim entitle a party to the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed based on a prior Agreement of Association?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq and 3 others vs State Bank of Pakistan through the Assistant Director Control Department, State Bank of Pakistan, Central Directorate, KarachiComplainant1990 MLD 293 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid Khan and 4 others vs Collector No.v, Tarbela Dam1990 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Doraiz vs The State1990 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-24
  Hudood lawsappellate jurisdictionretrospective operationcriminal appealZinastatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 while reducing his sentence. The core legal question was whether the Lahore High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given that the appellate forum for Hudood cases had been shifted to the Federal Shariat Court by subsequent amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the amendment to Section 20 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, which transferred appellate jurisdiction, was not retrospective. Because the criminal occurrence took place on September 5, 1979, the right of appeal had accrued prior to the June 21, 1980 amendment. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the lower courts correctly exercised jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment establishes the principle that jurisdictional amendments regarding appellate forums in Hudood cases do not apply retrospectively to cases where the right of appeal accrued before the amendment's effective date.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Section 20 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 regarding appellate jurisdiction apply retrospectively?
  • Did the Lahore High Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal for a Hudood offence committed before the 1980 amendment to the Ordinance?
  • When does the right of appeal in a criminal case accrue?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The Settlement Commissioner and others1990 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-22
  evacuee propertyunattractive propertysettlement schemetransfer of propertyauctionlocal occupantdisplaced person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an unattractive evacuee shop. The core legal question was whether a local occupant could be transferred an unattractive shop that had failed to fetch a reasonable price in two open auctions, particularly in light of policy decisions regarding such properties. The appellant, a claimant displaced person, had been transferred the shop via negotiation, while the respondent, a local in possession, claimed entitlement based on his prior occupation and subsequent policy directives. The Supreme Court held that the transfer to the respondent was valid. The Court found that the Settlement Authorities' policy decision dated 18-9-1964 specifically mandated that houses and shops failing to fetch reasonable prices in two auctions should be transferred to their occupants if they agreed to pay at least 25% of the reserve price, allowing for the acceptance of belated application forms. The key principle laid down is that where specific policy instructions exist for the disposal of unattractive evacuee property, they override irregular transfers made through private negotiation, prioritizing the rights of the occupant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unattractive evacuee shop be transferred to a local occupant who was in possession of the property?
  • Does a policy decision regarding the disposal of unattractive property allow for the acceptance of belated application forms?
  • Is a transfer of evacuee property through private negotiation valid when specific policy instructions mandate transfer to the occupant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Noor Alam and 6 others1990 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-19
  allotment of landfirst allotteecivil revisiondeclaration and injunctionleave to appealproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree in a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs, claiming to be the first allottees of land, sought to invalidate an alienation made by a co-defendant based on a subsequent illegal allotment. The petitioner, a defendant in the original suit, challenged the jurisdiction of the courts and argued that the plaintiffs' failure to complete documentation within a reasonable time caused the subsequent complications regarding the property. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge, noting the High Court's correct reliance on established precedent. Regarding the merits, the Court held that the petitioner could not benefit from the alleged inaction or delay of the respondents in finalizing their documentation. Affirming the trial court's reliance on precedent concerning re-allotment, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's plea regarding entitlement and refused leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the lower courts' findings in favor of the first allottees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent allottee benefit from the alleged delay of a first allottee in completing documentation?
  • Is a challenge to jurisdiction sustainable when the High Court has correctly relied on established precedent regarding the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs MRs, Z. A. Malik and others1990 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11
  leave to appealcriminal complaintproduction of evidenceanti-corruptiondismissal of complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of his criminal complaint. The petitioner had filed a complaint under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 against the respondents, alleging misconduct. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the High Court affirmed this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he should have been permitted to produce further evidence to substantiate his allegations. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any foundational documentation, such as an appointment letter, proof of employment, or a service book, to support his claims. The Court held that allowing further evidence would have served no purpose given the complete lack of initial evidence to support the petitioner's assertions. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court refuse to allow the production of further evidence if the petitioner fails to establish a basic evidentiary foundation for their claims?
  • Is an appellate court justified in dismissing a petition for leave to appeal where the petitioner failed to substantiate allegations in the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Sadiq1990 MLD 2104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and 9 others vs Province of Punjab though Collector, District Rahimyar Khan and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19
  civil revisioncanal water supplyextra water for gardensaudi alteram partemnatural justicemisreading of evidencemandatory notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration that the order discontinuing the supply of extra canal water for their garden was illegal and void. The core legal questions involved the proper application of rules framed under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 regarding the cancellation of extra water supplies, the necessity of mandatory inspection reports and notice, and the application of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence, misapplied inapplicable rules, and failed to comply with the mandatory notice and inspection requirements under rule 12 and rule 17 of the rules framed under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873. The Court ruled that natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem must be read into statutory frameworks unless expressly excluded, requiring a proper notice and hearing before cancelling water rights. Consequently, the revision was accepted and the lower courts' decisions were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the cancellation of an extra supply of canal water for a garden requires a mandatory six-month notice under the rules framed under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to administrative actions curtailing property or water rights when the governing statute does not expressly bar it?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower courts based on a misreading of evidence and misapplication of rules liable to be set aside in civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs The State1990 MLD 1996 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bostan vs Mst. Chulandra Begum and another1990 MLD 1972 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota Anjum vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03
  quashment petitionfalse chargeQazfHudood lawscompetency of police officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal quashment petition arises out of proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, after an initial police report under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the petitioner's application alleging that certain individuals were running a brothel and committing Zina, which was found baseless. The core legal questions involved whether the S.H.O. was competent to take action and whether the Qazf proceedings were maintainable without a direct application from the aggrieved person. The Lahore High Court held that the S.H.O. was competent to act upon the application forwarded by the S.S.P., and that the charge of Qazf was validly added upon the application of the aggrieved party, Mst. Amna Bibi. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an S.H.O. is competent to take action under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon an application forwarded by the S.S.P.?
  • Can proceedings under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be initiated without an application from the aggrieved person?
  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when the trial court has properly amended the charge based on the application of the aggrieved party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota and 4 others vs The Additional District & Sessions1990 MLD 718 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Water and Power Development Authority1990 PLC (C.S.) 398 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1990 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-18
  transfer of criminal caseleave to appealtrial Magistrateoath on Holy Quranquashal of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Bashir, alongside another accused, was tried by a Magistrate under sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the trial, the petitioner filed an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which remained undecided, and subsequently sought a transfer of his case before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. His subsequent criminal miscellaneous petition before the Lahore High Court was also dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether grounds existed for the transfer of the criminal case from the trial court. The Supreme Court held that no valid or sufficient ground for the transfer of the case was advanced by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's stance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sufficient grounds exist for the transfer of a criminal trial from one court to another?
  • Can a criminal miscellaneous petition be maintained against the refusal to transfer a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Kamalia and another1990 P Cr. L J 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Lal Din and others1990 MLD 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and another vs Syed Altaf Hussain Shah through his1990 SCMR 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23
  pre-emptioncourt-fee deficiencysecurity bondZar-e-Panjumrejection of plaintleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees against the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondents. The core legal questions concern whether an alleged deficiency in court-fee warrants the rejection of a plaint under the principles established in Siddique Khan's case, and whether the acceptance of a security bond without a prior order for the deposit of Zar-e-Panjum or a specific direction to submit such a bond justifies non-suiting the plaintiffs under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, along with the issue of security adequacy. The Supreme Court held that since the exact amount of court-fee deficiency was not determined, there was no default or contumacious act, and the High Court correctly relied on Siddique Khan. Furthermore, in the absence of a specific direction by the court for deposit or furnishing of security, no contravention of law occurred to attract penalties under section 22(4). The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the deficiency in court-fee can be made a ground for rejection of plaint when the exact amount of deficiency has not been determined?
  • Whether the acceptance of a security bond without any order of deposit of Zar-e-Panjum or direction for submission can be made a ground for non-suiting the plaintiffs under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  • Does the absence of a specific direction by the court for deposit or furnishing of security prevent the application of penalties under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  Read full judgment →