Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 375 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Chief Engineer (G.S.O.), WAPDA and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 741 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Chief Conservator of Forests, N.-W.F.P. and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 751 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Abdul Rashid1989 MLD 1436 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and anothers vs Mercantile Cooperative1989 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a commercial plot in Islamabad, wherein the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that no concluded contract existed between the parties. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint for failing to disclose a cause of action when the parties were in dispute regarding the agreed terms and time schedule for payment of the balance sale price. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection order, and remanded the suit for fresh trial. The Court held that to decide whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court must confine itself strictly to the four corners of the plaint, accepting its contents as true, without looking into defence pleadings or annexed documents. Where triable issues exist, such disputes cannot be resolved without framing issues and recording evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a court can look beyond the four corners of the plaint or consider the defendant's written statement when rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a plaint can be rejected for failing to disclose a cause of action when the existence of a concluded contract presents a triable issue requiring evidence?
- Under what circumstances can a suit for specific performance be summarily dismissed via rejection of the plaint prior to the framing of issues and recording of evidence?
- Mushtaq Ahmad And Others vs Arif Hussain And Other1989 MLD 3495 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad and another vs The State1989 SCMR 992(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which denied bail to the petitioners in a double murder case. The High Court had refused bail based on the statutory ground of delay, invoking an exception that disentitles individuals from bail if they are classified as hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite the High Court's finding regarding their criminal character, particularly in light of the statutory provisions concerning delay in trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioners' counsel relied on the precedent established in the case of Mounder and others v. The State (1988 SCMR 1113). Finding that this precedent prima facie supported the petitioners' arguments for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court ordered that the appeal be heard in conjunction with or subsequent to the decision of the appeal in the cited precedent case, thereby allowing the legal arguments regarding the statutory delay exception to be fully adjudicated.
Questions settled- Does the classification of an accused as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal disentitle them to bail on the statutory ground of delay?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the High Court refuses bail based on the exception regarding dangerous criminals?
- Mushraf Ali vs Province of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two connected petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revisions. The petitioners had originally filed suits for declaration and permanent injunction against the Province of Punjab, claiming ownership and possession of disputed property and challenging notices to vacate. The trial court found the petitioners were encroachers and trespassers on government land, yet paradoxically directed the respondents to transfer the excess areas to the petitioners. The appellate court upheld the findings of fact regarding the encroachment but set aside the trial court's direction to transfer the land. The High Court affirmed this decision in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having been established as trespassers on government land, were entitled to the transfer of such land or to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that as the petitioners were established trespassers, they lacked the locus standi to seek injunctive relief or claim ownership. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that courts will not grant relief to those who are encroachers on state property.
Questions settled- Does a trespasser on government land have the locus standi to seek a permanent injunction against the state?
- Can a court direct the transfer of government land to a party it has already determined to be an encroacher or trespasser?
- Musheer Ahmad vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1989 MLD 4410 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-22Read full judgment →
- Musasons Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras (), .1989 PTD 262 · Madras High Court · 1976-11-02Read full judgment →
- Musafir Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 497 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Musafir Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1662 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Murad And Others vs Mst. Sardar Bibi And Other1989 CLC 2485 · Board of Revenue · -Read full judgment →
- Murad Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2735 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
- Munshi Nur Ahmad Khan vs The State1989 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Revenue Patwari, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal for failing to implead the necessary party under Rule 7 of the Tribunal Rules. The petitioner had challenged his removal from service by omitting to implead the Commissioner, whose appellate order merged the original order of the Collector. The core legal question was whether the failure to implead the appellate authority rendered the appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent and whether the Tribunal was obliged to correct the defect suo motu. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority was a necessary party whose order superseded the original order through doctrine of merger, and Rule 7 was rightly invoked. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not obliged to implead the necessary party in the absence of a request by the petitioner. The principle laid down is that failure to implead the competent appellate authority in an appeal before the Service Tribunal renders it incompetent, and the Tribunal is under no obligation to rectify such procedural omission without a formal request.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead the appellate authority in an appeal before the Service Tribunal render the appeal incompetent?
- Does the order of the original authority merge into the order of the appellate authority upon appeal?
- Is the Service Tribunal obliged to suo motu implead a necessary party in the absence of a request by the appellant?
- Munshi Muhammad Elahi vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Munshi Ghulam Haider Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 445 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
- Munshi Falak Sher vs The Commissioner, Sargodha and another1989 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 29-11-1982, which had dismissed his appeal against an order of dismissal from government service. The core legal questions involved whether the Assistant Commissioner could competently act as both the authority and the authorized officer under the applicable rules, and whether the purchase of land by a government servant in the name of family members without prior permission constituted valid grounds for dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the Service Tribunal was in accordance with law and raised no question of law of public importance requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a Service Tribunal's factual findings regarding departmental misconduct and the dual capacity of an administrative officer under service rules will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning and consistent with the law.
Questions settled- Can an Assistant Commissioner act as both the authority and the authorized officer under the applicable service rules?
- Whether the purchase of land by a government employee in the name of family members without proper permission constitutes misconduct.
- Does the concurrent finding of a Service Tribunal regarding departmental proceedings raise a question of law of public importance warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
- Munna And Another vs Sharfuddin1989 MLD 1776 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Munir Malik vs Sabir Hassan1989 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind which set aside the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the first appellate court granting the landlord's ejectment application against a tenant. The landlord sought eviction from a disputed shop—originally part of his residential building but let out for business—to convert it into a garage for his car, pleading bona fide personal requirement and reconstruction. The High Court had held that a non-residential building could not be vacated for a residential purpose. The Supreme Court examined whether a landlord is entitled to an order of ejectment in respect of a non-residential premises for personal need involving conversion into a garage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the landlord's plea regarding demolition and reconstruction, and that the law permits such eviction and reconstruction for personal use as supported by precedent. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment and restoring the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can seek ejectment of a tenant from a non-residential premises for the purpose of converting it into a garage for personal use?
- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 bar the conversion of a non-residential building for residential or reconstruction purposes upon eviction?
- Can a landlord maintain an application for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need and reconstruction when the premises form part of a residential building?
- Munir Hussain Alias Bodi vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Munir Hussain alias Bodi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs Government of the Punjab1989 SCMR 1785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which was dismissed on the grounds of incompetency due to the failure to file a proper departmental review application, and because the appeal was time-barred. The petitioner had filed a 'mercy' petition instead of a formal departmental representation, which the Tribunal rejected as improper and time-barred. The petitioner argued that the substance of the petition should prevail over its nomenclature and that the Tribunal should have treated it as a valid departmental proceeding. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to treat the 'mercy' petition as a proper departmental proceeding by allowing for amendment of its phraseology, particularly in light of principles analogous to Section 153, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court further sought to determine whether, if the petition were treated as valid, the petitioner had satisfied the statutory requirements of Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and whether the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal was consequently within the period of limitation.
Questions settled- Can a 'mercy' petition filed before a departmental authority be treated as a proper departmental representation by allowing for amendment of its phraseology?
- Does the failure to file a formal departmental review application render an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal incompetent?
- Can the Punjab Service Tribunal declare a departmental petition time-barred if the departmental authority itself did not reject it on the ground of limitation?
- Does the principle underlying Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the correction of nomenclature in departmental petitions?
- Munir Ahmad And Others vs Akhtar Hussain1989 MLD 3519 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad vs Rana Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate1989 MLD 3108 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad vs Hyderabad Race ClubPTCL 1989 FC. 67 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad vs Hyderabad Race Club1989 PTD 340 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Hafizabad vs Niamat Masih1989 PLC 641 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Hafizabad vs Munawar Tahir1989 PLC 646 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Munawaruzzaman and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 395 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Munawar Khan vs Shakil Ahmad and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 513 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain vs The Federation of Pakistan1989 MLD 4676(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain vs Allah Dad and 2 others1989 SCMR 1600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from three connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's revisions for sentence enhancement and against the acquittal of three co-accused, while allowing the appeal of two convicted accused and acquitting them of charges under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents by disbelieving the ocular testimony, the dying declaration, and the alleged recoveries in light of background enmity. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had correctly determined that the interested ocular testimony was in conflict with medical evidence and inconsistent with the delayed dying declaration, and that recoveries were rightly disbelieved. Holding that the High Court's findings were proper and safe, the Supreme Court refused to interfere and dismissed all three petitions.
Questions settled- Can interested ocular testimony be relied upon to convict certain accused when it has been disbelieved regarding co-accused and conflicts with medical evidence?
- Whether an uncorroborated dying declaration delayed in lodging and inconsistent with ocular testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
- Is interference with an order of acquittal warranted when the appraisal of evidence by the High Court is sound and plausible?
- Munawar Hussain Naqvi vs Mst. Balqees Saddiqa And Other1989 MLD 3051 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain Etc. vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2331 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2065 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Munawar Begum vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others1989 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Regular Second Appeal concerning litigation over a will made under custom, inheritance rights under custom versus Muslim Law, and the validity of a gift. The core legal question involved the interpretation and retrospective application of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, in light of previous Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held that the retrospective effect of the said provision depends on the circumstances of each case and noted that the High Court failed to properly consider the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the implications of the new law and related questions. The key principle established is that Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 has retrospective effect depending upon the circumstances of each case, which must be duly applied to pending inheritance and customary law disputes.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 have retrospective effect?
- How does the retrospective application of Section 2-A affect inheritance and custom-based wills?
- Munawar Alt Qadri vs Chairman, Etp Board and 3 others1989 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment holding that a constitutional petition filed by a vendee had abated under Martial Law Regulation No. 57. The petitioner had purchased property from an auction purchaser, Mst. Amina Begum, who had acquired it from the Settlement Department in 1964 and obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board declared the property to be Waqf property under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, and cancelled the transfer deed as bogus, rendering subsequent sales void. The petitioner challenged this order through a constitutional petition prior to the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 57. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that an order passed prior to the enforcement of Martial Law Regulation No. 57 by an authority other than one designated under the said regulation does not cause the constitutional petition to abate under paragraph 4 thereof, and that finality cannot attach to an order where factual determinations were improperly made.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition challenging an order passed prior to the enforcement of Martial Law Regulation No. 57 abates under paragraph 4 of the said regulation?
- Can finality attach to an order of the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board if the decision on facts has not been properly taken?
- Must the designated authority under Martial Law Regulation No. 57 take a decision after the enforcement of the regulation before sanctity can be pleaded for it?
- Munawar Ali vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 61 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
- Munawar Ahmad vs United Bank Ltd. and another1989 PLC 236 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mumtazul Haq vs Mst. Aisha Begum1989 MLD 2053 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussin vs The State1989 MLD 3996 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 2933 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Haider vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-23Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Bibi vs Station House Officer and others1989 P Cr. L J 1778 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Begum vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others1989 SCMR 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from ejectment proceedings initiated against tenants of a building in Rawalpindi by respondent No. 2 on the ground of reconstruction. Ejectment orders were passed against the petitioner, who occupies a Chobara on the first floor, while ejectment petitions against other tenants on the ground floor remained pending. The petitioner contended that since reconstruction can only occur after all tenants are ejected, her immediate ejectment would serve no practical purpose. The Supreme Court noted that petitions against the ground floor tenants were nearly finalized and adjourned the matter for two months, directing that the status quo continue in the interim.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek ejectment of only one tenant for reconstruction when other tenants in the same building are yet to be evicted?
- Whether interim status quo can be granted in ejectment proceedings pending the finalization of related eviction petitions against other tenants?
- Mumtaz Alias Pappu vs The State1989 MLD 4913 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali vs The State1989 MLD 3248 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-23Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali vs The Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 105 others1989 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioners appeared in the 1967 competitive examination for the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Section Officers. Due to a reduction in available posts, they were initially appointed as Section Officers. Years later, following representations, the Government offered them conditional absorption into the Provincial Civil Service in 1973 on the explicit condition that they accept seniority below officers recruited in 1973. The petitioners accepted the offer and later challenged their seniority before the Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to seniority along with the 1967 batch under the relevant service rules notwithstanding their conditional absorption in 1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not selected for appointment in 1967 due to a lack of vacancies and their absorption occurred only in 1973 upon accepting the conditional offer; consequently, their claim for seniority with the 1967 batch was unfounded. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether candidates who qualified in a competitive examination but were not appointed due to a lack of vacancies can claim seniority from the year of that examination upon subsequent absorption?
- Does an employee who accepts a conditional appointment with a specific seniority stipulation remain bound by that condition?
- How is seniority determined under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964 for persons appointed through initial recruitment?
- Mumtaz Ali and another vs The Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1989 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-11-1988, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition upholding the concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding the allotment of a shop site. The core legal question concerns whether unauthorized possessors or transferees of an abandoned commercial site hold a superior legal right to allotment over a duly vetted applicant, and whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue tribunals warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the choice of a suitable tenant rests with the competent authority, that agriculturists ineligible for shop allotments acquire no rights through unauthorized possession, and that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized possession of commercial land confers no preferential right of allotment, and factual determinations concurrently resolved by lower forums remain protected against constitutional interference.
Questions settled- Does unauthorized possession of a disputed commercial site confer any legal right to seek its allotment?
- Can concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower revenue courts be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Are agriculturists eligible to seek the allotment of a shop site meant for commercial business?
- Mumtaz Ahmad Khan Through Legal Heirs. vs Abdul Salam And 3 Other1989 CLC 1040 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ahmad Choudhary vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 3436 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ahmad Chaudhry vs The Full Board, Board of Revenue, Punjab1989 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Tehsildar in the Punjab Revenue Department, sought leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment that upheld disciplinary action taken against him for financial irregularities in land revenue recovery. The petitioner challenged the decision on three grounds: first, that he was treated disparately compared to a similarly situated colleague, Muhammad Masud Shaukat, who received relief; second, that the punishment was unjustified on merits; and third, that there was a procedural irregularity in invoking Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, while citing Rule 6(2). The Supreme Court examined the Tribunal's findings, noting that the Tribunal had distinguished the petitioner's case from that of Muhammad Masud Shaukat based on specific factual differences and the lack of extenuating circumstances. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court observed that the charge-sheet clearly indicated the adoption of the procedure under Rule 6(3). Finding that the Tribunal had adequately addressed all grounds and that no substantial question of law arose, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim parity of treatment with a colleague if the Service Tribunal has distinguished their cases on factual grounds?
- Does the citation of Rule 6(2) in a charge-sheet invalidate proceedings if the actual procedure followed was that of Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal if the Service Tribunal has adequately addressed all factual and legal contentions raised by the petitioner?
- Multan Improvement Trust And Others vs Sultan Mahmood And Other1989 MLD 441 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Multan Development Authority through its Director General vs Muhammad Ramzan and 8 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from nine petitions for leave to appeal filed against the acceptance of respondents' Civil Revisions by the High Court regarding interim relief in pending suits. The core legal question concerns the circumstances under which the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretionary interim orders passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that it seldom interferes with orders determining interim relief unless there is a grave illegality, a clear abuse of process, or a gross injustice easily discoverable. Furthermore, the High Court had adequately safeguarded the interests of the petitioner authority by directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the suits within six months. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of interim jurisdiction by the High Court absent a grave illegality or gross injustice, particularly when the High Court has taken care to protect the rights of the parties through expedited trial directions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with interim relief orders passed by the High Court?
- Does the mere possibility of a different opinion by the Supreme Court justify interference with the High Court's discretionary interim orders?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interim order where the High Court has taken care to safeguard the petitioner's interest through expedited trial directions?
- Mulazim Hussain And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4647 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mukhtiar Hussain And Others vs Elahi Bakhsh And Other1989 CLC 747 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar vs The State1989 MLD 694 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 419 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar and another vs Muhammad Ashraf alias Abdullah1989 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose out of a suit challenging inheritance claims. The legal representatives of the deceased's sister challenged the claim of the respondent, who asserted he was the son and sole heir of the deceased. The trial court initially decreed the suit upon finding that the deceased had died issueless. However, this finding of fact was reversed on first appeal, which determined that the respondent was indeed the son of the deceased. The High Court subsequently upheld the first appellate court's judgment in its civil revisional jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that discrepancies in the appraisal of evidence warranted setting aside the findings of the two higher courts. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the appellate court and the High Court. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on minor discrepancies in the appraisal of evidence?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a High Court revisional judgment upholding a first appellate court's finding of fact on inheritance?
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 843 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 425 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad And Others vs The State1989 M LD 3730 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2485 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mukfitar Ahmad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co. vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others1989 PTD 781 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mujhammad Nawaz vs Mushtao And Other1989 MLD 647 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammd Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 471 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubaid and others vs Nathey Khan and others1989 SCMR 1704 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff side against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which stemmed from a suit for administration involving the right to inherit the property of Faiz Muhammad, who died in 1950. The core legal question concerned whether the suit was barred by previous litigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case stood concluded by concurrent findings of the lower courts that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, as supported by the facts regarding the earlier litigation presented by the petitioners' counsel. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and a related contempt application, not being pressed, was also dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a suit is barred by res judicata based on concluded findings of lower courts, leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision will be refused.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for administration and inheritance is barred by res judicata in light of earlier litigation?
- Will leave to appeal be refused when the lower courts concurrently find the suit to be barred by res judicata?
- Muhammad Zikirya vs Muhammad Raees and another1989 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant's side seeking the enhancement of the respondent's sentence from imprisonment for life to death in a murder case. The High Court had earlier upheld the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment, while dismissing the petitioner's criminal revision for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death was the more proper punishment based on the circumstances of the case, particularly considering factors such as the convict's tender age at the time of the offence and the prosecution's failure to provide details of the motive at an earlier stage. The Supreme Court held that the approach of the courts below on the question of sentence was neither illegal nor suffered from any error of principle. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that mitigating factors like tender age and lack of clear motive properly weighed in favour of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent sentencing discretion of lower courts when based on mitigating factors like tender age?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to detail the motive at an earlier stage constitute a valid ground for withholding the death penalty?
- Can a complainant maintain a petition for leave to appeal seeking enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death?
- Muhammad Zaman vs Mst. Zaitoon Bibi and 16 others1989 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against whom a civil suit was decreed throughout based on a special oath administered to the plaintiff-respondent on the petitioner's own offer. The core legal question concerns whether the special oath taken involving a minor child and the Holy Qur'an was repugnant to justice and decency, or affected a third party's rights under the Oaths Act, 1873, and whether such a statement could otherwise be relied upon as material evidence or a settlement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly distinguished the case from precedents where a third party's rights were adversely affected, and further noted that even if the strict provisions of the Oaths Act did not apply, the statement served as valid material evidence and a binding compromise or estoppel against the retracting party. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, laying down the principle that an offer and acceptance of a special oath, even outside strict statutory bounds, can bind the parties as an evidentiary settlement or compromise.
Questions settled- Whether a special oath involving a minor child is repugnant to justice and decency so as to invalidate a civil decree?
- Can a statement made pursuant to a special oath offer be relied upon as material evidence or a compromise when the Oaths Act does not strictly apply?
- Does an offer to be bound by a special oath create an estoppel against a party seeking to withdraw from it?
- Muhammad Zaki vs Karachi Development Authority and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahid vs The State1989 MLD 642 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaffar vs Province of Sind and others1989 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging a student's two-year rustication. The petitioner, having been denied admission to a medical college despite his merit position, made representations to higher authorities, which the college principal deemed a violation of disciplinary rules. The core legal question is whether such representations constitute a disciplinary violation warranting rustication and whether the penal provisions of the college prospectus, which must be strictly construed, were applicable to the petitioner's conduct. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court failed to address the petitioner's underlying grievance regarding merit-based admission or the applicability of the disciplinary rules to his specific actions. The Court emphasized that penal provisions require strict construction and suspended the rustication order pending the final appeal. The key principle established is that disciplinary action against a student requires a clear nexus between the alleged misconduct and the student's affairs within the institution.
Questions settled- Whether a student's representation to higher authorities regarding admission grievances constitutes a violation of disciplinary rules?
- Are penal provisions in a college prospectus subject to the principle of strict construction?
- Does a college have the authority to rusticate a student for conduct that lacks a nexus to the affairs of the college?
- Muhammad Zafar Sohail vs Secretary-General (Defence), Aviation1989 PLC (C.S.) 205 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf vs Muhammad Abdullah And Other1989 MLD 3477 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf and another vs Saeed Akhtar and another1989 SCMR 331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a specific performance case where the petitioners sought to challenge the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the High Court. The trial court had rejected the petitioners' claim for specific performance in favor of a bona fide second vendee, and these concurrent findings of fact were affirmed by the District Judge and subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether interference with concurrent findings of fact is warranted in a second appeal, and whether an alternative plea of pre-emption could be sustained. The Supreme Court held that no infirmity existed in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts, and noted that the alternative plea of pre-emption could not be pursued in light of the precedent in Sardar Ali's case. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing the principle that concurrent findings of fact of lower courts will not be disturbed in second appeal absent any legal infirmity or where not properly contested below.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal regarding specific performance?
- Can an alternative plea of pre-emption be granted when barred by established binding precedent of the Supreme Court?
- Is leave to appeal maintainable against the dismissal of a second appeal where concurrent findings of fact contain no legal infirmity?
- Muhammad Yunus vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 799 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Zubair Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from delays in the disposal of an interlocutory matter regarding a temporary injunction. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court pertains to the efficient management of civil litigation and the avoidance of protracted delays caused by focusing excessively on interlocutory proceedings at the expense of the main suit. The Court held that the trial court must prioritize the disposal of the suit on its merits to prevent unnecessary delays. Consequently, the Court directed the plaintiffs to produce evidence regarding the merits of the case on the next scheduled date and instructed the trial court to finalize the suit within three months of the conclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the status quo be maintained until the final decision of the main suit, while granting the trial court the liberty to reconsider the temporary relief if the defendant causes unnecessary delays in the progress of the proceedings. This judgment emphasizes the judicial duty to expedite trial proceedings over interlocutory disputes.
Questions settled- Should trial courts prioritize the disposal of the main suit over interlocutory matters to prevent delays?
- Can a trial court reconsider temporary relief if a defendant causes unnecessary delays in the main suit?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to set a specific timeline for the disposal of a suit by the trial court?
- Muhammad Yousif Memon vs Governor of Sind1989 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal, which upheld the petitioner's dismissal from his position as an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, having been dismissed by the Chief Minister of Sind following disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, contended that he was denied sufficient opportunity to defend himself and was refused access to certain documents during the inquiry. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had fully participated in the inquiry proceedings and noted that the grievance regarding the lack of opportunity to defend was not raised before the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court examined the Registrar's correspondence, which clarified that the requested documents were either already in the petitioner's possession or irrelevant to his case. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's contentions lacked substance. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the disciplinary process and that the petitioner's rights were not violated during the inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can claim denial of opportunity to defend if they fully participated in the inquiry proceedings?
- Is a disciplinary authority justified in refusing access to documents that are either already in the possession of the accused or irrelevant to the charges?
- Can a plea regarding the denial of opportunity to defend be raised for the first time in an appeal before the Supreme Court if it was not urged before the Service Tribunal?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1989 MLD 4173 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division and others1989 SCMR 757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop between two parties, Muhammad Yousaf (the appellant) and Ehsan Ali (the respondent), who were partners in business. The core legal question was whether the respondent, despite not being the original allottee, could be considered in possession of the shop for the purpose of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, given their partnership arrangement. The Settlement Authorities, upheld by the High Court, found that the shop was divisible and that both parties were in constructive possession, leading to a vertical division of the property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the Settlement Authorities regarding the divisibility of the shop and the constructive possession of both partners were based on evidence and did not warrant interference. The Court affirmed that a partner in a business, depending on the factual circumstances and evidence of joint interest, can be deemed to be in possession of the premises, thereby justifying the equitable division of the property between the parties.
Questions settled- Can a partner in a business be considered in constructive possession of the premises for the purpose of property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the existence of a partnership business between an allottee and another party preclude the other party from claiming possession of the shop?
- Can Settlement Authorities order the vertical division of a shop if it is found to be divisible?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Rehmat Ali and others1989 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for a declaration of ownership based on an alleged oral gift. During the proceedings, the petitioner offered to have the primary defendant, Rehmat Ali, make a special statement on oath upon the Holy Quran, agreeing that if the defendant swore the gift was not made, the plaintiff would forfeit his claim and the suit would be dismissed. The defendant fulfilled this condition, leading to the dismissal of the suit, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the suit could be dismissed in its entirety when only one of the co-defendants made the oath. The Supreme Court held that since the plaintiff specifically intended for Rehmat Ali alone to make the oath to decide the entire suit, he could not subsequently add new conditions regarding the other co-defendants. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that a party is bound by the specific terms of an oath-based settlement they proposed and cannot resile from it once the opposing party fulfills the condition.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff challenge the dismissal of a suit based on an oath taken by a defendant when the plaintiff himself offered to be bound by that specific oath?
- Whether a suit can be dismissed in its entirety when a plaintiff agrees to abide by the statement on oath of a single defendant among multiple co-defendants?
- Can a party add new conditions to a special oath-based agreement after the opposing party has successfully performed the oath?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad alias Mamma and 5 others1989 SCMR 1268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the principal respondent's conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his death sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while upholding the acquittal of his three co-accused. The occurrence arose out of a dispute regarding cattle grazing, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased and simple injuries to an injured witness. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court, noting that the rival versions and the circumstances surrounding the immediate cause of the occurrence—wherein cattle rounding and snapping led to a sudden altercation—justified the alteration of the conviction and the acquittal of the co-accused due to lack of independent corroboration for common intention. Furthermore, the petition seeking to set aside the acquittal was also found to be barred by time. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted and dismissed both criminal petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to nomenclature under the circumstances of the case?
- Can an acquittal of co-accused be interfered with in the absence of independent corroboration connecting them to the common intention?
- Is a criminal petition for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed when it is barred by time and lacks sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Javed Iqbal And Other1989 MLD 4069 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Ghulam Rafiq and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Chief Settlement Commissioner1989 CLC 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1349 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry vs The Member, Board of Revenue/ Chief1989 PLD Lahore 322 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding consolidation proceedings. The core legal question concerns whether a private partition of joint land among co-sharers creates a binding right to specific possession during consolidation, and whether questions of fact can be interfered with in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a private partition and the entitlement to retain specific possession of joint property are purely questions of fact that do not warrant interference by the apex court. The key principle laid down is that pure questions of fact settled concurrently by lower forums and revenue authorities will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of a private partition among co-sharers is a question of fact?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land consolidation proceedings?
- Are purchasers of land through a private partition entitled to keep joint property in their possession during consolidation?
- Muhammad Yousaf And Another vs Fazal Dad1989 CLC 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and 7 others vs Muhammad Azim and 2 others1989 SCMR 1998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the High Court's acceptance of a civil revision. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest had secured an ex parte declaration decree, and subsequent applications and appeals by the respondents to set aside the decree were dismissed by the lower courts. However, the High Court allowed the respondents' civil revision, holding that a dispute existed regarding personal service by the process server, whose non-examination by the petitioners failed to rebut the sworn deposition of non-service by the respondents. The core legal question concerned the burden of proof and appraisal of evidence regarding personal service of summons. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's appraisal of evidence and its finding that the onus of proving service shifted to and remained undischarged by the petitioners suffered from no legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that where a party provides an uncontroverted deposition on oath regarding non-service of summons, the burden shifts to the opposing party to substantiate service through appropriate evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proving personal service shifts to the plaintiff when the defendant makes an uncontroverted deposition on oath regarding non-service?
- Does the High Court's appraisal of evidence in a civil revision regarding service of summons warrant interference by the Supreme Court when free of legal infirmity?
- Muhammad Yousaf And 43 Others vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property1989 CLC 1761 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others vs Nazir Ahmad and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus vs The State1989 MLD 2917 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus vs Shahid Naveed1989 CLC 837 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus vs Fayyaz HamidK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →