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 Younus Nashad, General Secretary vs La Rosh Restaurant1989 PLC 478(1) · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and another vs Mst. Hajira Bi1989 SCMR 1670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-11
  rented premisesevictiondefault in rentnuisanceleave to appealappraisement of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the landlord against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the tenant's eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction on the grounds of default and nuisance. The core legal question concerned whether the tenant's conduct constituted actionable nuisance and whether the ground of default was validly established given the timing of the rent payment and the exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appraisement of evidence regarding nuisance suffered from no legal infirmity and that, even assuming a default occurred, the circumstances warranted the exercise of discretion in favor of the tenant. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact on the question of nuisance by the High Court will not be disturbed absent a material defect, and courts may exercise discretion in favor of tenants regarding technical defaults depending on the facts and circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's appraisement of evidence regarding the ground of nuisance in a rent dispute can be interfered with?
  • Is a tenant entitled to the exercise of discretion in their favor regarding a technical default in the payment of rent under the circumstances of the case?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the setting aside of an eviction order where findings of fact are unexceptionable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 740 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4674 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and 3 others vs The Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another1989 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-19
  service tribunallimitationdepartmental appealdismissal from serviceWAPDAexclusion of time
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, employees of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) working as meter clerks, were dismissed from service following allegations of recording bogus figures and causing revenue losses. Their departmental appeals before the Executive Engineer were returned, and their subsequent grievance petitions before the Labour Court were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Later, their appeals before the Superintending Engineer were rejected, and subsequent appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal were dismissed as time-barred. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Federal Service Tribunal could independently consider the bar of limitation when the departmental appellate authority had not based its decision on limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while an appellate court is not bound to examine limitation regarding a lower forum, it commits no illegality in doing so. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's finding of fact that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 as proceedings before the Labour Court were not initiated with due care and caution. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can on its own take into account the bar of limitation when the lower appellate authority did not base its order on limitation?
  • Are appellants entitled under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 to exclude the time spent prosecuting grievance petitions before a Labour Court when computing limitation for departmental appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis alias Joona vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Naseer Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15
  evictionpersonal needtenantconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by landlords against their tenant for a shop situated in Lahore on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction application, but the District Judge set it aside on appeal and dismissed the application. The landlords invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which accepted the writ petition, quashed the District Judge's order, and restored the eviction order after finding the District Judge's reasons for rejecting the plea of personal need to be untenable. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the appellate court's factual findings regarding personal need in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court did not suffer from any infirmity and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with an appellate rent authority's findings when such findings are based on untenable reasons and discard evidence on grounds not recognized by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of a District Judge regarding personal need in rent matters under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can an appellate rent authority discard landlord's evidence on grounds not recognized by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Muhammad Yasin Khan1989 SCMR 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-12
  pre-emptionsuit for possessionsuperior right of pre-emptionleave to appealcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a decree for possession through pre-emption granted in favor of the respondent, Muhammad Yasin Khan. The petitioner, Muhammad Younas, challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that the respondent failed to establish a superior right of pre-emption and that the legal precedents relied upon by the High Court were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the Additional District Judge, which had been affirmed in revision, and found them to be well-reasoned, addressing both the factual and legal aspects of the dispute. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any superior right to purchase the land in question or to establish any error in the lower courts' application of the law. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contentions raised and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the decree of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Does a respondent in a pre-emption suit bear the burden of establishing a superior right to purchase the land in dispute?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted if the petitioner fails to demonstrate a superior right of pre-emption?
  • Is a judgment of an appellate court that addresses both factual and legal aspects of a pre-emption claim considered well-reasoned?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Khushal1989 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-08
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionheritable rightimproved statusinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning whether a person who did not possess a superior right of pre-emption at the time of sales could subsequently avail of an improved status acquired through inheritance to pre-empt the sales of disputed properties. The core legal question considered by the court is whether the right of pre-emption is heritable. Relying on the precedent established in Azizur Rehman and others v. Muhammad Nawaz, the Supreme Court held that the right to pre-empt a sale is not heritable. Consequently, the court established the key principle that an appellant cannot utilize an improved status acquired by inheritance subsequent to the sale to pre-empt the property. The appeals were accordingly dismissed without orders as to costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of pre-emption is heritable?
  • Can a person who did not possess a superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale rely on a subsequent inheritance to pre-empt the sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 131 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Muhammad Farooq And Other1989 MLD 2010 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and others vs Mst. Rashida Bibi1989 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17
  pre-emptionagricultural landsale-deedleave to appealShariat Ordinanceappellate practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed a suit for pre-emption in favour of the respondent. The petitioners, who had purchased agricultural land via a registered sale-deed in 1976, challenged the respondent's superior right of pre-emption, which was based on her status as the sister of the vendor. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the legal basis for the respondent's superior right was not recognised under Islamic Law and contended that the High Court judge should have referred the matter to a Full Bench constituted under the Shariat Ordinance. The Supreme Court declined to entertain this contention, noting that the argument regarding the referral to a Full Bench was never raised before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Consequently, finding no other points of law raised by the petitioners, the Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will generally not entertain new arguments or objections that were not pleaded or raised before the lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new contention regarding the constitution of a Full Bench under the Shariat Ordinance for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Is a contention not raised before the High Court entertainable in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 219 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen And Others vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1989 MLD 218 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen alias Bola vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Qaim Khatoon1989 CLC 1737 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Muhammad Akram And Other1989 MLD 2961 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Sirajuddin1989 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21
  statutory tenancyvoid contractpari delictosuit for declarationcivil court jurisdictionsettlement of propertyillegal agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of property in Model Town, Lahore, originally transferred to the respondent by the Settlement Department. The parties executed an exchange deed for a portion of this property, which was subsequently found to violate the Co-operative Model Town Society's bye-laws regarding plot sub-division. The core legal question was whether the respondent could maintain a suit for declaration of title despite the illegality of the exchange deed and the respondent's lack of physical possession. The Supreme Court held that the respondent could maintain the suit based on his independent title derived from the Settlement Department, rather than the void exchange deed. The Court affirmed that a plaintiff may recover property by relying on their own title, even if the property came into the defendant's possession via an illegal contract, provided the plaintiff does not need to found their claim on that illegality. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a suit for mere declaration was maintainable because the appellant was a statutory tenant, and the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to order ejectment under the relevant rent restriction laws.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff recover property based on their own title if the defendant's possession originated from an illegal contract?
  • Is a suit for mere declaration maintainable when the defendant is a statutory tenant and the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to order ejectment?
  • Does the doctrine of pari delicto prevent a party from asserting title independent of a void agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Government of Baluchistan and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-29
  Special Courttransfer of casespeedy trialjurisdictionstatutory guidelinespublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court of Baluchistan, which had challenged the transfer of a murder case from an ordinary criminal court to a Special Court for Speedy Trials. The petitioner was being tried for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code before an Additional Sessions Judge when the Government of Baluchistan transferred the case under section 5(2) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987. The core legal question was whether the government's power to transfer a case to a Special Court could be exercised without considering the statutory guidelines defining an 'offence' under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the power to transfer a case is conditional upon the offence satisfying the statutory guidelines of being gruesome, brutal, sensational, or shocking to public morality, and the transfer order must reflect the application of mind to these guidelines. As the impugned transfer order lacked any consideration of these guidelines, it was illegal. The appeal was allowed and the transfer order was quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can transfer a criminal case to a Special Court without considering the statutory guidelines defining an offence under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987?
  • Does the power to transfer a case to a Special Court require the transfer order to show the existence of guidelines such as an offence being gruesome, brutal, or sensational?
  • Is a transfer order that merely reproduces the words of Section 5(2) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 without factual justification legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Mir vs Revenue Officer No. 2, Electricity, WAPDA, Gujranwala and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Khan, and Other vs Ghulam Din and OtherK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 19 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The Pioneer Steel Mills. Muridke and others1989 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01
  Industrial RelationsTermination of ServiceLimitationConstitutional JurisdictionLabour CourtSpecial Leave to Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declined to interfere with an order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a former Security Inspector at Pioneer Steel Mills, had his services terminated and subsequently sought reinstatement by filing a petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. While the Labour Court initially accepted the petition and ordered reinstatement, the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside this decision. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction regarding the Tribunal's order, specifically concerning the issue of limitation. The Supreme Court examined the findings of both the appellate authority and the High Court regarding the limitation period. Holding that there was no merit in the petitioner's contention that he was unaware of the termination order, the Supreme Court affirmed that the lower courts had correctly adjudicated the matter. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the issue of limitation?
  • Can a petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 be maintained if the issue of limitation has been thoroughly examined by the lower appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Muhammad Yaqoob Arif and AnotherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 3 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Abdul Kadir And 4 Other1989 MLD 557 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Sethi vs President, National Bank of Pakistan and another1989 PLC 899 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and another vs Chiragh Din1989 SCMR 1377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10
  civil revisionoathsettlementpower of attorneycounsel authorityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The underlying litigation involved a suit for possession between real brothers. The High Court had dismissed the civil revision based on a settlement reached between the parties, which was predicated on an offer to make an oath and the subsequent acceptance and performance of that oath. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the validity of the High Court's order, specifically questioning the authority of their counsel to enter into such a settlement. The Supreme Court examined the power of attorney and found that the counsel indeed possessed the requisite authority to bind the petitioners to the settlement. Finding no merit in the contentions raised, the Court held that a settlement based on a duly performed oath, entered into by counsel with valid authority, is binding. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the finality of the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a settlement based on an offer and acceptance of an oath binding on the parties?
  • Does a counsel have the authority to bind a client to a settlement if the power of attorney grants such authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaq00b and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08
  test identification paradeevidentiary valuecriminal appealdacoityidentification proceedingsjudicial custodypolice remandacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of four appellants under sections 395 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by a Special Court for Speedy Trials. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value of test identification proceedings when conducted with procedural irregularities. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as the identification parade was fundamentally flawed. The court emphasized that identification evidence is merely corroborative, not substantive, and is subject to strict scrutiny. It laid down comprehensive principles for valid identification parades, including the necessity of holding them at the earliest opportunity, ensuring judicial custody of suspects prior to the test to prevent police interference, maintaining proper ratios of dummies to suspects, and requiring the supervising Magistrate to meticulously document all precautions and procedures. Finding that the parade in this case suffered from excessive delays, lack of proper precautions, and failure to follow established guidelines, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Is test identification evidence considered substantive evidence or merely corroborative?
  • What are the mandatory procedural requirements for conducting a valid test identification parade to ensure it inspires judicial confidence?
  • Does an identification parade held after a significant delay, where suspects were in police custody, possess evidentiary value?
  • What is the required ratio of dummies to suspects in an identification parade?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin (Represented By L.Rs) vs Muhammad Siddique And Other1989 MLD 3093 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yameen Khan And Others vs Khushi Muhammad1989 MLD 535 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yakub vs Abdul Kadir And 3 Other1989 MLD 563 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wazir and 3 others vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 298 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem Khan vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd.1989 PLC 732 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waris and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Walayat vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 593 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Walayat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 834 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Naseem Bibi And Other1989 MLD 5007 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Muhammad Ramzan1989 MLD 4554 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Additional Secretary, Government of N.W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs Department and 8 others1989 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22
  withdrawal of writ petitionfresh writ petitionOrder XXIII Rule 1(3) CPCmaintainabilityres judicataconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether a second writ petition on the same subject-matter and seeking identical relief is maintainable after an earlier writ petition was withdrawn without obtaining permission to file a fresh one. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, holding that the petition lacked merit and was barred. Applying the principles enshrined in Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court held that withdrawing a prior petition without liberty to institute a fresh one renders the earlier High Court order final, thereby barring a subsequent writ petition filed on the same subject-matter for similar relief. The Court affirmed that authorities executing possession must verify that the gifted land corresponds to that taken from the petitioner, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second writ petition maintainable when an earlier writ petition involving the same subject-matter was withdrawn without permission to file a fresh one?
  • Do the principles of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to bar subsequent writ petitions filed for the same relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Hajra Bi Trust And 2 Others vs Messrs Haji1989 MLD 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Messrs Tobacco International Ltd.1989 PLC 59 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uris vs Superintendent of Police, Nawabshah and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 498 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Chaudhry And Others vs Anwar Ali1989 MLD 148 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and others vs Ghulam Rasool and another1989 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24
  pre-emptionleave to appealcourt-feerejection of plaintSardar Ali case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a decree in a pre-emption suit can be validly passed after the cut-off date established by the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The trial court had initially rejected the plaint due to a delay in the payment of court fees, but the Additional District Judge subsequently set aside this order and decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptors. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that under the principles laid down in Sardar Ali, no new decree could be passed in favour of pre-emptors after 31-7-1986. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petitioners' contention regarding the applicability of the Sardar Ali precedent, granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and ordered the matter to be heard on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree in a pre-emption suit be passed after 31-7-1986 in light of the judgment in Sardar Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287)?
  • Does the failure to pay court fees within the prescribed time justify the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2476 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail And Another vs Faqir Muhammad1989 CLC 1529 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and 2 others vs The State1989 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30
  murderocular evidencerelated witnessesmedical corroborationrecovery of weaponscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Zafar. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and allegedly interested eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of weapon recoveries and medical evidence, and the legal effect of injuries sustained by the accused and an acquitted co-accused during the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the eyewitness testimony was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence and blood-stained weapon recoveries, and the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them untrustworthy when their presence is established. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution case and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be discarded solely on the ground that they are related to the deceased?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt vitiate the conviction of other co-accused based on the same ocular testimony?
  • Are minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of blood-stained weapons recovered from the accused in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Through Legal Heirs vs Taj Muhammad1989 MLD 524 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tarr) and another vs The Controller and the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Lahore1989 PLC 671 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq. vs The State1989 MLD 742 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taj and another vs Subedar Muhammad Rasheed1989 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-17
  pre-emptionconditional decreeexecution of decreedeposit of sale priceautomatic dismissalmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the suit for possession, conditional upon the petitioners depositing the balance sale price by a specific date, failing which the suit would be dismissed. The petitioners failed to deposit the amount by the deadline, yet the land was subsequently mutated in their favor years later. The respondent challenged this execution, seeking annulment of the mutation. The trial court initially dismissed the respondent's application, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, a ruling affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed whether a pre-emption decree remains valid when the mandatory deposit is not made within the stipulated time. The Court held that in the absence of a valid extension of time granted by a competent forum, the failure to deposit the pre-emption money by the deadline renders the decree void and results in the automatic dismissal of the suit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that compliance with Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory for the survival of a pre-emption decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-emption suit stand automatically dismissed if the pre-emption money is not deposited within the time fixed by the court?
  • Can a pre-emption decree be executed if the condition regarding the deposit of the sale price has not been met?
  • Is a formal extension of time required from a competent forum to validate a deposit made after the deadline set in a pre-emption decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The ST a Te1989 PLD Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-12
  murderocular testimonyapprehension with weaponretracted confessionfirearms expert opinionjurisdictiondeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Arbab Sikandar Khan Khalil, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused and a murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the evidentiary value of retracted confessions, and the jurisdictional competence of the trial court to try an offence under the arms legislation. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy eyewitness testimony, prompt apprehension with the weapon of offence, and supporting ballistic and medical reports, while upholding the acquittal of the co-accused due to a lack of incriminating evidence. However, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the relevant arms ordinance to try the weapons charge, setting aside that specific conviction. The key principle laid down is that direct ocular testimony, when consistent and corroborated by prompt recovery of the weapon and forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction even in the absence of established motive, and that statutory jurisdictional bars regarding specific offences must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and prompt recovery of the weapon of offence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a retracted confessional statement form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration and when the delay in recording it is unexplained?
  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • Whether the absence of a proved motive vitiates an otherwise well-supported prosecution case founded on direct eyewitness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The Chairman, Higher and Secondary Education1989 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15
  unfair meansdisciplinary actionstudent examinationtampering of answer bookleave to appealcircumstantial evidencewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a student against whom disciplinary action was taken for using unfair means in an examination by tampering with an answer book, which challenge was initially dismissed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether circumstantial material and high probability could form the basis for finding a student guilty of tampering with an answer book when the student was the sole beneficiary. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the Disciplinary Committee rightly acted on circumstantial material and high probability, and that no law or rule of evidence prohibited such an approach. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary bodies may rely on circumstantial evidence and logical probability to establish responsibility for examination malpractice where the accused is the direct beneficiary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary committee rely on circumstantial material and probability to establish a student's guilt in examination malpractice?
  • Whether a student can be held responsible for tampering with an answer book based on being the sole beneficiary.
  • Is there any rule of evidence prohibiting the use of circumstantial material in academic disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Etc. vs Deputy Collector Customs, LahorePTCL 1989 CL. 466 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir and others vs Deputy Collectorate1989 P Cr. L J 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad S/O Ali vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs Messrs Nakshbandi Industries Ltd. Karachi1989 PLC 529 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs The State1989 MLD 835 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 44 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Sulfi vs Mst. Azra Shamim1989 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-14
  evictiondefault in payment of rentrent controllerleave to appealtime-barred petitionopportunity of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against a tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The petitioner challenged the eviction, primarily contending that the Rent Controller had unjustifiedly closed his evidence and that the High Court failed to provide sufficient opportunity for a hearing. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the factual findings regarding the default were erroneous. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had been afforded fair and sufficient opportunities to substantiate his pleas before the lower forums. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to present any additional material he allegedly wished to submit when given the opportunity during the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for interfering with the High Court's judgment, which had correctly upheld the eviction order based on the established default. The petition was dismissed both on the grounds of being time-barred and on its merits, with leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an eviction order based on default in rent payment sustainable when the tenant was afforded sufficient opportunity to present evidence?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred?
  • Does the closure of evidence by a Rent Controller constitute a valid ground for interference if the party was given fair opportunity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Malik vs Factory Manager, Lever Brothers (Pak)1989 PLC 909 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Khawar vs The Board of Directors, the Sind1989 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suhail vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan vs Muhammad Saleem and others1989 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10
  leave to appealreduction of sentenceacquittalappreciation of evidencemotivefamily honourmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted one respondent and reduced the death sentence of the other respondent to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence leading to the acquittal and the reduction of sentence based on the motive of family honour. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal based on appreciation of evidence warranted no interference, and the reduction of sentence by the High Court, taking into account the motive set up by the prosecution, was a valid exercise of discretion and not arbitrary. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down that appellate courts may consider prosecution-established motives of family honour as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence by the High Court?
  • Can the motive of family honour set up by the prosecution serve as a mitigating factor for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Was the discretion exercised by the High Court in reducing the sentence arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan vs Bashir Ahmad1989 MLD 2722 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sirjees Nagi vs Secretary, Establishment Division1989 PLC (C.S.) 201 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1989 MLD 810 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 104 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Raja Mumtaz, D.S.P. C.I.A. Staff, Rawalpindi and another1989 P Cr. L J 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 131 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Ramzan1989 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-06
  permanent injunctionleave to appealrevisional jurisdictionappreciation of evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  Muhammad Siddique filed a suit for permanent injunction against Muhammad Ramzan, which was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the decree and dismissed the suit, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court in revision. Muhammad Siddique then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that the agreement Ex.P1 was duly proved and that the lower appellate and high courts erred in their conclusions. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court had thoroughly evaluated the evidence and rightly concluded that the agreement was not proved, and that the High Court committed no material irregularity or illegality in refusing to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court declined to re-appraise the evidence and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed in revisional or appellate jurisdiction absent any legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when no material irregularity or illegality is shown?
  • Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal where the lower appellate court has thoroughly evaluated the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mst. Aziz Begum And Other1989 MLD 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 3524 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Fateh Muhammad1989 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Director, Excise and Taxation And Other1989 MLD 1858 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Director of F.I.A. And 2 Other1989 MLD 361 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Board of Directors, Rural Supply Cooperative1989 PLC 593 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Anjum vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 3 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 194 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others vs Syed Mansoor Ali Shah1989 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-31
  cantonment rent restrictionlandlord and tenantdenial of titledefault in payment of renteviction petitionnotice of transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from eviction petitions filed by the respondent against the petitioners under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, alleging default in rent and personal requirement for reconstruction. The petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting ownership in a third party, Mst. Khurshid Jehan Begum. The Rent Controller and the Peshawar High Court both ruled in favour of the respondent, finding that the relationship existed and that the third party had no title to the property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that once a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and fails to plead payment or tender of rent, the Rent Controller is not bound to inquire into the merits of the default ground. Furthermore, the Court clarified that no statutory provision requires a property transferee to give written notice to a tenant, and a tenant denying the landlord's title while committing a breach of the duty to pay rent is not entitled to equitable discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is required to go into the merits of an eviction case once the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and fails to plead payment of rent?
  • Does the law require a transferee of property to give a written notice of transfer to the tenant?
  • What is the effect of a tenant denying the landlord's title and setting up title in a third party regarding equitable discretionary relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others vs Auqaf Department, Punjab through Chief Administrator at Multan and another1989 SCMR 1683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-26
  leave to appealwaqf propertylimitation periodexclusion of timejurisdictionauqaf department
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of proceedings under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, wherein a property taken over by the Auqaf Department was challenged by the petitioners. The core legal question concerns whether the time spent before various forums without jurisdiction can be excluded under the Limitation Act, 1908, to save an application under section 7 of the Ordinance from being time-barred, and whether the Supreme Court can intervene to ensure a hearing on merits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the misreading of dates and the exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, warrant a detailed examination to secure justice and ensure the matter is adjudicated on its merits at least once.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent pursuing a remedy before forums having no jurisdiction be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Whether an application under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 can be dismissed as time-barred without correctly accounting for the period spent in previous litigations?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to ensure that a litigant is afforded an opportunity of hearing on merits at least once?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2670 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs The State1989 MLD 676 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Muhammad Shafi and 4 others1989 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10
  specific performancecontractual obligationequitable reliefburden of proofcivil revisionreadiness and willingness
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the reversal of a trial court's decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. The petitioner sought specific performance of a house sale agreement, claiming that part of the balance payment was adjusted against a theft committed by the vendor's sons, an arrangement allegedly reached before a Panchayat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to specific performance despite failing to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, and whether the appellate court correctly assessed the evidence regarding the alleged theft and subsequent adjustment agreement. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court was justified in dismissing the suit, finding that the petitioner failed to produce key witnesses to substantiate the alleged Panchayat agreement and the theft claim. The Court affirmed that equitable relief of specific performance is unavailable where a party's conduct is not above board and where they fail to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract terms.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party entitled to specific performance of a contract if they fail to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their obligations?
  • Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's findings of fact if the record indicates the plaintiff failed to produce material evidence to support their claim?
  • Does the failure to produce key witnesses regarding an alleged out-of-court settlement justify the dismissal of a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq and others vs Fateh Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07
  pre-emptioncivil revisionstate landnew plearevisional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the vendees in a pre-emption matter against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The petitioners contended that the suit land was state land and therefore exempt from pre-emption. However, this plea was raised for the first time during the revision petition before the High Court, having not been raised before the lower courts. The High Court refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction on this ground because the respondents had not been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut this belated plea. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the refusal to exercise revisional jurisdiction under such circumstances was unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that a new factual plea requiring evidence cannot be raised for the first time at the revisional stage if it deprives the opposing party of the opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new plea for the first time in civil revision before the High Court if it requires factual evidence that the opposing party had no opportunity to rebut?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction when a plea of land being state land is raised belatedly?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq And Another vs Wali Muhammad1989 CLC 2098 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddioue vs Mst. Fatima Begum1989 MLD 3170 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sherin Sahibzada through Legal Heirs and 7 others vs Lal1989 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13
  pre-emption decreeco-sharerrule of sinkersupreme court appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a pre-emption decree. The core legal questions examined by the Court are whether a pre-emption decree could lawfully be passed in favour of a respondent after a Civil Court declared him not to be a co-sharer, which formed the basis of his qualification for the suit, and consequently, whether a decree could be passed in favour of the other pre-emptor or if he would lose his claim by the application of the rule of sinker. The Court considered the petition a fit case for examination, granted leave to appeal, ordered security, directed the preparation of the appeal on the present record, and ordered status quo to be maintained subject to all exceptions. The key principle relates to the application of the rule of sinker in pre-emption suits and the necessity of maintaining foundational qualifications for pre-emption claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption decree could have been passed in favour of a respondent after a declaration by a Civil Court that he was not a co-sharer?
  • Whether a decree could be passed in favour of the other pre-emptor by application of the rule of sinker?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher and others vs Malik Muhammad Anwar Khan Tiwana1989 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-11
  pre-emptiondeposit of pre-emption moneyexecution of decreepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioners' objection petition in execution proceedings. The core legal question involves whether a pre-emption suit stood automatically dismissed due to a delay in depositing the pre-emption money pursuant to an appellate court's conditional decree, notwithstanding a subsequent order by the Supreme Court granting further time for deposit. The Supreme Court held that the late deposit of the pre-emption amount was effectively rectified and regularized by the Supreme Court's earlier order dated 20-6-1984, which granted the pre-emptor one month's time to deposit the remaining amount. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the executing court and lower appellate forums correctly repelled the petitioners' objections.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-emption suit stand automatically dismissed if the pre-emption amount is not deposited within the time originally stipulated by the appellate court?
  • Can the Supreme Court's subsequent grant of time to deposit the pre-emption amount rectify a previous delay in making the deposit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Yasmin And Other1989 MLD 12 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1989 MLD 3294 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2360 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →