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 Sharif vs The ST a Te1989 PLD Revenue 2 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The Additional District Judge I, Bahawalnagar1989 CLC 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Sher Muhammad1989 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04
  benami transactionsecond appealconcurrent findings of factleave to appealmisreading of record
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning a house in Sheikhupura, where the respondent filed a declaratory suit claiming to be the real owner and alleging that the petitioner, his brother-in-law who purchased the property in 1946, was merely a 'benamidar'. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently dismissed the respondent's suit, finding that the petitioner was not a benamidar. However, a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the respondent's second appeal, set aside the concurrent findings, and granted the declaration. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the question of ownership and benami transaction was one of fact and that the High Court erred by interfering with concurrent factual findings and misreading the record regarding the production of the original sale-deed. The Supreme Court held that the contentions required examination and granted leave to appeal, directing security for costs and preparation of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of whether a person is a benamidar is a question of fact?
  • Is it open to the High Court in second appeal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts?
  • Does the misreading of the record by the High Court regarding the production of the original sale-deed warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Settlement Commissioner (Urban), Punjab and 21989 SCMR 1449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06
  Supreme Court of Pakistanleave to appealavailable propertyforgery and fabricationlocus standiconstitutional petitionproperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions directed against a common judgment of the High Court concerning the transfer of urban property. The core legal questions involve determining whether the disputed property was available property in 1974, the legal effect of a departmental report indicating the property was not available and that the transfer was procured through forgery and fabrication, and the extent of locus standi when the contest is between a vendee and a third party rather than solely between vendor and vendee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the connected petition to examine these questions, noting that the lower authorities and the High Court failed to provide a determinative finding on the availability of the property, and that allegations of forgery required a thorough probe rather than leaving the matter in uncertainty. The appeal was ordered to be further processed subject to addressing procedural steps regarding deceased parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the disputed property was available property at the relevant time?
  • What is the legal consequence of a transfer made on the basis of forgery and fabrication in the record?
  • Does a third party have the locus standi to challenge a transfer independently of the sale-deed between the vendor and vendee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Riasat Ali and others1989 SCMR 1973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08
  murdersudden quarrelright of private defenceculpable homicide not amounting to murderpetition for leave to appealexceeding right of private defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a criminal matter where the respondent, Riasat Ali, along with others, was convicted by the trial court under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased following a sudden quarrel over a seating arrangement near a television set. The High Court acquitted two co-accused but altered Riasat Ali's conviction by applying Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to nine years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the sudden fight and circumstances warranted the application of Exception IV to section 300 or Exception II relating to the exceeding of the right of private defence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that although Exception IV was not strictly applicable as the unarmed deceased was not in an advantageous position, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Exception II to section 300 since he acted under an apprehension of simple injury during a sudden grappling and thus exceeded his right of private defence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal and alteration of sentence was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the infliction of two knife blows on an unarmed deceased in a sudden fight brings the case under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a person who exceeds the right of private defence during a sudden grappling become entitled to the benefit of Exception II to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What constitutes taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Qurban Ali Shah And Other1989 MLD 4868 · Lahore High Court · 1959-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Khan and others1989 SCMR 1657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-03
  leave to appealinconsistent pleascivil revisiondeclaratory decreejurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a defendant's petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which arose from a declaratory decree concerning the title to suit property in favour of the respondents. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner could simultaneously claim ownership through purchase while seeking to oust the civil court's jurisdiction based on the respondents' allegation that he was a tenant. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot be permitted to take inconsistent and self-contradictory pleas in litigation. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary relief of leave to appeal will be refused when a party attempts to approbate and reprobate by denying tenancy for its own claim of ownership while trying to rely on the adversary's assertion of tenancy solely to contest the forum's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party take inconsistent and self-contradictory pleas regarding its status as a tenant or owner in civil proceedings?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the petitioner attempts to approbate and reprobate regarding the jurisdiction of the forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Ishaque and others1989 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-18
  leave to appealalteration of convictiondefence versionreduction of sentencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that altered the respondents' conviction from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-I read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the High Court had reduced the respondents' sentences from imprisonment for life to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence by accepting the defence version presented by the accused-respondents, thereby justifying the alteration of the conviction and the subsequent reduction of the sentence. Upon reviewing the impugned judgment and considering the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. The Court held that the High Court had correctly evaluated the evidence and properly accepted the defence version. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, concluding that the case did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal, and the petition was dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that accepts a defence version based on the evidence?
  • Is the alteration of a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 permissible if the defence version is accepted by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Inayat Ullah1989 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-17
  civil appealconversion of petitionconnected appealsSupreme Court practiceprocedural directions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal involving questions similar to those pending in another civil appeal. The core legal question concerns the appropriate procedural treatment of a petition raising identical issues to a pending appeal before the Court. The Court decided to convert the petition into an appeal, directed the deposit of security within two weeks, and ordered that the newly converted appeal be heard together with the connected pending civil appeal on the existing record with a direction to file all essential documents. The key principle laid down is that petitions raising identical questions as pending appeals may be converted and connected for joint hearing to ensure judicial consistency and efficient disposal of related litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be converted into an appeal when similar questions are involved in a pending appeal?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct connected appeals involving the same questions to be heard together?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Fazal Wahab1989 PLC 93 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs District Magistrate, Rani Myar Khan1989 P Cr. L J 1218 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Gujranwala and another1989 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22
  embezzlementdisciplinary proceedingsservice lawdismissal from servicePatwariinquiry officerPunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Patwari, from service. The petitioner was accused of embezzling land revenue collected from a Lambardar. Initially, a preliminary inquiry exonerated the petitioner, but the Collector disagreed with the findings and ordered a second inquiry. Following this second inquiry, where the petitioner was found guilty, the Collector dismissed him from service. The Commissioner and the Punjab Service Tribunal subsequently upheld this dismissal. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found consistent evidence indicating that the petitioner had received land revenue but failed to deposit it into the government treasury in a timely manner, thereby confirming the charge of embezzlement. The Court held that the disciplinary authority acted correctly in dispensing with the petitioner's services given the established misconduct. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit. The judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary authorities may order further inquiries if dissatisfied with initial findings and that consistent evidence of financial misconduct warrants dismissal from public service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary authority order a second inquiry if it disagrees with the findings of an initial inquiry?
  • Does the failure of a public servant to deposit collected land revenue into the treasury constitute grounds for dismissal?
  • Is the dismissal of a public servant justified when there is consistent evidence of financial misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Amanullah1989 MLD 4085 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Abdullah And Other1989 MLD 3759 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 728 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs Settlement Department And Other1989 MLD 3342 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Muhammad Safdar and others1989 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26
  special oathdecision on oathbinding statement of counselleave to appealtenant locus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review petition against a second appeal judgment relating to a suit for possession of a house. The core legal question concerns the binding nature of a statement made by a counsel offering to have the suit decided on a special oath taken by the plaintiff, and whether a tenant without title can challenge such proceedings when the owners of the property did not appeal. The Supreme Court held that the oath proceedings involved a question of fact and that the counsel's action on behalf of defendants was binding, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with certain observations regarding the counsel's conduct expunged. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning statements and offers for special oath made during trial are questions of fact, and actions undertaken by counsel in the presence of and on behalf of parties generally bind them unless successfully disproved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement made by a counsel offering to have a suit decided on a special oath is binding on the defendants?
  • Can a mere tenant without title challenge a decree passed on the basis of a special oath when the actual property owners have accepted the judgment?
  • Does a finding regarding oath proceedings during trial constitute a question of fact not warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs Land Acquisition Collector1989 MLD 4558 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs Lahore Development Authority And Other1989 MLD 95 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30
  housing schemedevelopment authoritylis pendensstatus quoevacuee propertykatchi abadiproperty rightsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of the Lahore Development Authority's (LDA) implementation of the 'Katchi Abadi Musafar Gali Scheme' over land previously part of the sanctioned 'Lala Devi Dyal Chandok Housing Scheme'. The petitioners, who purchased plots in the original scheme via public auction from the Settlement Department, challenged the LDA's unilateral reduction of street widths and alteration of the original scheme to carve out additional plots. The core legal questions were whether the LDA could alter a pre-existing, sanctioned housing scheme without proper notification or hearing, and whether allotments made during the pendency of stay orders were valid. The Court held that the LDA's actions were illegal, noting that the original scheme remained in force and had not been validly rescinded. Furthermore, the Court established that any alteration to a development scheme detrimental to property owners requires an opportunity for them to be heard. Additionally, the Court ruled that property transfers made by the Authority in violation of subsisting status quo orders are void under the doctrine of lis pendens.

  Questions settled

  • Can a development authority unilaterally alter a previously sanctioned housing scheme without providing an opportunity for affected property owners to be heard?
  • Does a development scheme sanctioned under the City of Lahore Municipal Corporation Act 1941 continue to remain in force if not formally cancelled?
  • Are property allotments made by a statutory authority in violation of a subsisting status quo order valid?
  • Is it mandatory for a development authority to publish the sanctioning of a development scheme in the official Gazette under the Lahore Development Authority Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Ahmad Din, through his Legal Heirs and 21989 SCMR 644 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-10
  abatement of appealleave to appealpossession of landtenancy-at-willLaw Reforms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Regular Second Appeal as having abated due to the deaths of several parties. The underlying dispute involved a suit for possession of land, where the plaintiff claimed ownership and alleged the defendants were tenants-at-will. The Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge had previously decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the abatement of the appeal was legally incorrect because the deaths of the relevant parties occurred after the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance XII of 1972. The Supreme Court found that the contention regarding the non-abatement of the appeal in light of the Law Reforms Ordinance XII of 1972 required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the legal provisions governing abatement were correctly applied by the High Court following the enactment of the said Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a party to an appeal after the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance XII of 1972 result in the abatement of the appeal?
  • Whether a regular second appeal can be dismissed as abated when the deaths of the parties occurred subsequent to the enactment of the Law Reforms Ordinance XII of 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs Additional Deputy Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 4406 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs The State1989 MLD 714 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs Muhammad Latif and 3 others1989 SCMR 2040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11
  remand orderamendment of pleadingswritten statementapprobate and reprobatenatural justiceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that remanded a suit for declaration to the trial court for further proceedings. The petitioners had previously challenged the trial court's decree in the High Court, arguing that they were prejudiced because they were denied the opportunity to file an amended written statement following an amendment to the plaint, which violated principles of natural justice. The High Court accepted this argument, which was conceded by the respondents, and remanded the case to the trial court to rectify this error. Upon approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioners unexpectedly argued that there was no necessity for an amended written statement, effectively challenging the very relief they had successfully obtained in the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the High Court's decision to remand the case was fully justified given the circumstances and the petitioners' earlier position. The Court affirmed that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging an order that granted them the specific relief they previously sought.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a High Court order that grants the specific relief they previously requested?
  • Does the failure to allow an amended written statement after an amendment to the plaint constitute a valid ground for setting aside a decree?
  • Is a remand order justified when the trial court fails to provide an opportunity to file an amended written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 4 Others vs Makhdoom Alam1989 CLC 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shari F vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 731 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamir And Another vs Muhammad Bakhsh And Another1989 CLC 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzada alias Shada and another vs The State1989 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16
  leave to appealcriminal appealmurder convictionapprover testimonycorroborationreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two connected petitions for leave to appeal filed by convicts challenging their convictions and sentences for murder. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence supporting the conviction, specifically whether the testimony of an approver requires independent corroboration in material particulars and the credibility of a corroboratory witness whose statement was recorded twelve days after the occurrence without a prior report to the investigating authorities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the evidence warrants a reappraisal in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to both convicts, establishing the principle that where the reliability of corroboratory testimony and approver evidence is open to serious doubt regarding timeliness and natural conduct, the case merits a thorough re-examination of the evidence through an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction rest solely on the testimony of an approver without independent corroboration in material particulars?
  • Whether the delay of twelve days in recording the statement of a crucial corroboratory witness affects the reliability of such evidence?
  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the evidence in a murder case requires reappraisal in the interest of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad vs Khairati Khan and others1989 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04
  leave to appealsettlement proceedingspermanent transfer deedclerical mistakeproperty disputecivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which restored a trial court decree in favor of the respondent concerning the ownership and correct numbering of a disputed property originally acquired through settlement proceedings. The core legal question involved whether the disputed premises constituted two separate properties or one, and whether settlement authorities could rectify a clerical mistake in transfer documents after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed. The Supreme Court held that the unchallenges settlement finding regarding the non-availability of the property attained finality against the petitioner, and that authorities retain the competence to rectify mere clerical mistakes that do not affect the merits or substantial rights of the parties. The court established the principle that final administrative adjudications regarding property availability are binding, and ministerial or clerical corrections to transfer documents are permissible notwithstanding the prior issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities are competent to correct a clerical mistake in transfer documents after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Does an unchallenged administrative decision regarding the non-availability of property attain finality against a claimant?
  • Can a civil court interfere with ministerial corrections of property numbers that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad And Another vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Coast1989 MLD 536 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 203(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah And Another vs Said Ahmad Shah And 7 Other1989 CLC 791 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1989 MLD 4803 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 686 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad And 51989 CLC 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Khan and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1989 MLD 844 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Sardar Noor Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-05
  settlement of propertydisplaced personpermanent transfer deedfunctus officiopendente literefugee statussettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a house under settlement laws, specifically regarding the appellant’s status as a displaced person from occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal questions were whether the appellant qualified as a refugee based on documentary evidence and whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) rendered settlement authorities functus officio despite pending litigation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was indeed a refugee, citing overwhelming documentary evidence, including election records for refugee constituencies, which the lower authorities had erroneously disregarded. Regarding the PTD, the Court held that a PTD issued while an appeal or revision is pending is subject to the outcome of those proceedings and does not grant immunity from challenge. The key principle laid down is that the issuance of a PTD does not deprive settlement authorities of jurisdiction if the property transfer remains sub judice, as such a deed is issued pendente lite and remains subject to the final adjudication of pending appeals or revisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed render settlement authorities functus officio if an appeal or revision is pending?
  • Can a Permanent Transfer Deed issued during the pendency of an appeal or revision be challenged?
  • Is a person elected to a refugee constituency considered a refugee for the purposes of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Province of West Pakistan1989 MLD 3133 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Younis And Another1989 MLD 3450 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Sharif And Other1989 MLD 993 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Shamsun Nisa And Another1989 MLD 152 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Razia Ghafoor and 3 others1989 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21
  leave to appealreview applicationex-parte decreelimitationnegligence of counselbreach of confidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his review application by the High Court of Sind, which had earlier refused to set aside an ex-parte decree passed against him. The original suit resulted in a decree after the petitioner's engaged counsel failed to participate at the concluding stages. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was dismissed as time-barred and not maintainable. A subsequent appeal and a review application were likewise dismissed. The core legal question was whether the negligence or breach of confidence by a party's own counsel constitutes a sufficient ground to reopen concluded proceedings and set aside a decree. The Supreme Court held that a counsel's breach of confidence does not justify reopening causes affecting other parties, and that a review application cannot be used as an indirect effort to achieve a rehearing of the matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the negligence or breach of confidence by a party's own counsel constitutes a sufficient ground to set aside a decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a review application be utilized as a means to seek a rehearing of the matter?
  • Does the breach of confidence between a client and their counsel justify the reopening of causes affecting other persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 380 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Ghafoor1989 MLD 4622 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs The Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 1811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-22
  Ejected Tenants Schemeproprietary rightsgovernment landleave to appealallotment disputestatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by lessees of government-owned land against the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition. The dispute concerns the petitioners' claim for the grant of proprietary rights over land allotted to them under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, which the authorities have denied. The petitioners challenged the denial, arguing that the condition restricting land within a five-mile limit of Sargodha City is inapplicable and that the land was classified as 'Baqaia Sarkar' rather than 'Charagah' area at the time of allotment. Additionally, they contended that the proposed use of the land for a school building is no longer relevant as the site is being relocated. The Supreme Court, noting that leave to appeal had been granted in similar cases, determined that the issues raised warranted a full examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the petitioners' claims alongside other similar pending matters, while directing that the existing status quo be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the condition restricting proprietary rights to land outside a five-mile limit of a city is applicable to allotments under the Ejected Tenants Scheme?
  • Does the classification of land as 'Baqaia Sarkar' versus 'Charagah' affect the eligibility for proprietary rights?
  • Can the proposed public use of allotted land for a school building be a valid ground for denying proprietary rights if the site is relocated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Others vs Collector And Other1989 MLD 3089 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 276 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and anothers vs Muhammad Din1989 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Abbassi vs The Inspectorgeneral of Police, Lahore1989 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28
  service tribunalpolice disciplinary proceedingstransfer ordercompulsory retirementgross indisciplineleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Inspector in the Punjab Police against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner was transferred to the Special Branch, an order he sought to evade by requesting multiple leaves. Upon the rejection of his leave requests and his failure to resume duty or appear before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in response to a show-cause notice, he was dismissed from service for gross indiscipline. The appellate authority altered the punishment to compulsory retirement, which the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's transfer order and subsequent disciplinary action for non-compliance and absenteeism were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit as there was no satisfactory explanation for the petitioner's failure to obey the transfer order or present himself before the competent authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the resultant penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public servant can be disciplined for failing to comply with a lawful transfer order?
  • Does unauthorized absence from duty constitute gross indiscipline warranting dismissal or compulsory retirement?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary matters without a satisfactory explanation from the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 754 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Superintendent, Jail, Muzaffargarh and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 248 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Government of the Punjab and 18 others1989 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04
  civil serviceseniorityestoppelapprobate and reprobateservice tribunalappointment date
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, was previously removed from service under Section 11-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which allowed for the removal of civil servants appointed between January 1, 1972, and July 5, 1977. In earlier proceedings before the Punjab Service Tribunal, the petitioner successfully challenged his removal by asserting that he was a fresh appointee as of September 3, 1977, thereby falling outside the scope of Section 11-A. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to claim seniority based on an earlier appointment date of September 29, 1975. The Punjab Service Tribunal rejected this claim, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by taking inconsistent positions; having secured relief by successfully arguing he was a fresh appointee from a later date to avoid the application of Section 11-A, he was estopped from claiming an earlier appointment date for the purpose of seniority. The petition was dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim an earlier date of appointment for seniority purposes after successfully arguing a later date to avoid removal under Section 11-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Does the principle of approbate and reprobate prevent a litigant from taking inconsistent positions in successive legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir and another vs Station House Officer, Chiniot1989 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1989 MLD 4169(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1989 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30
  criminal leave to appealtriple murderdeath sentenceplea of self-defenseeyewitness testimonyappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Sarwar against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming his death sentence on three counts for the triple murder of Mst. Seeman, Muhammad Yaseen, and Mst. Naziran. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt or if the alternative version of self-defense presented by the accused in his statement was credible. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness testimony of the injured witness and other corroborating evidence firmly established the guilt of the petitioner, and that the accused's self-serving version admitting to inflicting injuries after supposedly disarming the victim was inherently unbelievable and unjustified. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and death sentence. The key principle laid down is that where an accused presents a version of self-defense admitting to acts of violence after disarming the alleged attacker, such explanation is legally untenable and liable to be rejected when contradicted by reliable eyewitness testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of an accused pleading self-defense can be accepted when he admits to inflicting injuries on unarmed persons after allegedly disarming the attacker?
  • How should conflicting versions between the prosecution case and the accused's statement be evaluated by the court?
  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness provides sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Directorgeneral and others1989 SCMR 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16
  service appeallimitationtime-barred appealFederal Service Tribunalspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a former employee against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had provided a valid and sufficient explanation for the delay in filing his appeal before the Tribunal. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner was under a clear legal obligation to explain the delay in his filing, a burden he failed to discharge. Consequently, the Tribunal acted correctly and in accordance with the applicable law and rules when it dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The Supreme Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay presented before it either, and therefore, dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that an appellant bears the burden of justifying any delay in legal proceedings and that failure to do so justifies the dismissal of an appeal as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellant under a legal obligation to explain the delay in filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Does the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay justify the dismissal of an appeal as time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Tehsil1989 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-16
  service tribunalleave to appealreinstatementtermination of serviceconsequential benefitsback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26-4-1983. The petitioner, a Patwari whose services were terminated during his medical leave, challenged the termination through departmental hierarchy and ultimately succeeded before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which ordered his reinstatement and directed that his absence from duty be treated as leave of the kind due. The core legal question raised in the petition is whether the Service Tribunal, upon reinstating the petitioner into service, failed to exercise jurisdiction by disallowing him consequential benefits such as salary and seniority towards pension. The Supreme Court held that the point raised regarding the denial of consequential benefits requires determination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine whether a reinstated employee is entitled to back benefits and related service adjustments upon reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee reinstated into service by a Service Tribunal is automatically entitled to back benefits and salary for the period of absence?
  • Does the denial of seniority towards pension upon reinstatement constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Butt vs Dr. Rafiuddin and others1989 SCMR 1319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22
  service matterdisciplinary proceedingsremoval from servicecompetence of authorityservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a laboratory attendant challenging his removal from service at Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The petitioner was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings initiated after he allegedly refused to perform his duties regarding a patient's blood investigation and insulted a medical officer. After failing to secure relief through departmental appeals before the Medical Superintendent and subsequently the Service Tribunal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Medical Superintendent possessed the legal competence to remove the petitioner from service and whether the disciplinary action was vitiated by bias. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims regarding the lack of authority of the removing officer or the alleged prejudice. The Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that in the absence of evidence or reference to relevant rules demonstrating procedural illegality or lack of competence, the disciplinary action taken by the hospital administration remains valid and undisturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Deputy Medical Superintendent competent to remove a laboratory attendant from service in a hospital setting?
  • Does a failure to participate in a regular departmental inquiry preclude a petitioner from challenging the resulting dismissal order on grounds of bias?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sardar And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4728 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sardar and 10 others vs District Education Officer (Male), Bahawalnagar and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 285 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sam) vs Senior Personnel Manager, FFC, Rawalpindi and another1989 PLC 357 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salman Khurshid vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1989 PLC 826 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 539 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1729 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and anothers vs Mst. Amatus Saboor and 4 others1989 PLD Karachi 185 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1670 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Abdullah Nazkani vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 817 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salehoon vs Mst. Bilquis Begum and others1989 SCMR 1478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13
  leave to appealdower alienationlis pendensproperty disputeregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, concerning the validity of property alienation by one Ghulam Muhammad in favor of respondent No. 1 in lieu of dower, and a subsequent gift in favor of the petitioner during the pendency of litigation. The core legal questions involve the validity of the initial dower alienation, the effectiveness of a subsequent pendant lite transfer, and the petitioner's locus standi to challenge the same alongside jurisdictional objections. The Supreme Court held that the alienation in favor of the respondent, along with its conditions, was fully proved, rendering the petitioner's claim on merits unfounded, and thus refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a bona fide alienation in lieu of dower is valid and effective against subsequent alienations made during the pendency of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an alienation of property in lieu of dower is valid against subsequent alienations made during the pendency of litigation?
  • Does a subsequent transferee during the pendency of litigation have the right to challenge a prior valid alienation in favor of another respondent?
  • Whether technical objections can override a fully proved alienation of property in favor of a respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 233 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryjaphhavicarious liabilitytentative appraisalbenefit of doubtSection 497 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose out of an FIR registered under Sections 304 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner was accused of holding the deceased (Japhha) while a co-accused delivered a fatal knife blow. The petitioner argued that he was not connected to the motive, that police investigation found a similarly situated co-accused innocent (casting doubt on the petitioner's presence), and that whether a single-blow fatal attack required two men to secure the victim presented a matter requiring further inquiry. The prosecution contended that the crime occurred in daylight with specific roles attributed and that trial was imminent. The High Court held that benefit of doubt applies at the bail stage and that a tentative appraisal of evidence is permissible. Where the petitioner's case falls under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as requiring further inquiry, bail is a matter of right. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail as of right under Section 497(2) of the CrPC when the case calls for further inquiry into their guilt?
  • Does the benefit of doubt regarding an accused person's presence at the scene apply at the stage of granting bail?
  • Does the upcoming commencement of trial bar the High Court from exercising its discretion to grant bail under Section 497(2) of the CrPC?
  • Is a tentative appraisal of material on record permissible while deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 457 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Salam Ullah BaigK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Province of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 915 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Mushtaq Ahmad1989 CLC 2136 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Ibrahim1989 SCMR 288(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07
  civil revisionleave to appealconcurrent findings of factgiftSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit concerning an alleged gift made by his father, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The core legal question involved whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the gift made by the respondent in favor of the petitioner could be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the gift was made stood concluded by concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court had rightly dismissed the civil revision. The Supreme Court established the principle that findings of fact affirmed concurrently by lower courts will not be disturbed in civil revision or leave to appeal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the making of a gift be challenged in a civil revision?
  • Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact affirmed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1989 PLC 891 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sind and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 310 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Malik vs Agriculture Engineer, Rawalpindi Division1989 PLC 605 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and others vs Muhammad Aslam and others1989 SCMR 600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08
  petition for leave to appealspecific performanceconcurrent findings of factcivil revisionagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, which dismissed the civil revision of the petitioners. The original suit was filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest for the specific performance of an agreement to sell a disputed house, which was subsequently sold to another party after the original vendor's death. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court all dismissed the suit through concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and finding no misreading or non-reading of the evidence, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether concurrent findings of fact could be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law. The Court held that since concurrent findings of fact were properly reached and no point of law was raised or substantiated, the petition lacked merit. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading, non-reading of evidence, or a valid question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained when no point of law is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem And Another vs Hakim Ali1989 MLD 1420 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1989 MLD 4847 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and 2 others1989 PLC 879 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs District Manager, K.T.C. North Karachi Depot and another1989 PLC 796 · Labour Court · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Khan And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2726 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadique vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1989 MLD 3976 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The StateK.L R1989 Criminal Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1989 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Sakhi through Fateh Muhammad1989 PLD Supreme Court 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-24
  pre-emptionabatement of suitdeath of partylegal representativessubstitution of heirscivil procedurelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal in a pre-emption suit where the petitioner challenged the High Court's judgment accepting the respondent's regular second appeal. The core legal question addressed is whether the death of a plaintiff-respondent during the pendency of an appeal, without an application for the impleadment of legal heirs within the limitation period, causes the proceedings to abate following the amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Supreme Court held that under the amended provisions of Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the failure of legal heirs to apply for impleadment does not cause the suit or appeal to abate; the Court may proceed with the matter, and any judgment pronounced has the same force and effect as if the death had not occurred. The key principle laid down is that the 1972 amendment removed automatic abatement upon the death of a party, allowing courts to continue proceedings notwithstanding the absence of a substitution application, provided there is no proof that the legal heirs knowingly failed to seek impleadment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the death of a plaintiff or appellant during the pendency of proceedings automatically results in the abatement of the suit or appeal under the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court proceed with a suit or appeal notwithstanding the failure of legal representatives to apply for impleadment within the period of limitation?
  • What is the legal effect of a judgment pronounced after the death of a party when no application for substitution has been made pursuant to the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Din and another1989 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05
  petition for leave to appealacquittalocular testimonycorroborationcross-caseunexplained injuriesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges under sections 302, 323, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in disbelieving the ocular testimony regarding the respondent when the same witnesses were relied upon to convict his co-accused, and whether injuries sustained by the respondent and his wife were adequately explained by the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted with the impugned judgment of acquittal, as the ocular testimony against the respondent remained uncorroborated, unlike that of his co-accused whose conviction was supported by the recovery of a blood-stained weapon, and the eyewitnesses had suppressed the origin of injuries sustained by the respondent's side in a cross-case. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitnesses conceal the true genesis of injuries sustained by the accused party in a counter-case, their testimony against that particular accused requires strong independent corroboration, and selective reliance on ocular testimony is permissible when corroborated by independent material evidence such as weapon recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony can be disbelieved against one co-accused while being relied upon against another?
  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to explain injuries sustained by the accused party affect their credibility?
  • Is corroboration through weapon recovery necessary to sustain a conviction when ocular evidence is partially doubted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Anver: Majeed and another1989 P Cr. L J 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-21
  lachesacquittalSection 265-K CrPCconstitutional jurisdictionOffences in Respect of Bankscriminal breach of trustcheatingSpecial Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the successor bank challenging an order of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 408, 409, 420, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  The core issues were whether the petition was barred by laches, whether a Special Court could pass an order of acquittal under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. prior to framing a charge or taking evidence after initially issuing process under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and whether the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional defects warranting constitutional intervention given that Section 10 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 expressly excludes appeals against acquittals.

  The High Court held that the petition suffered from unexplained laches, as delay in challenging an acquittal must be strictly viewed. On merits, the court held that Section 265-K Cr.P.C. permits acquittal at any stage, including prior to charge-framing, if the charge is groundless or no scheduled offence is disclosed. Finding no jurisdictional defect, the High Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court exercise powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused prior to the framing of charges or recording of evidence?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in filing a constitutional petition against an acquittal order under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the petition liable to dismissal for laches?
  • Can the High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with an acquittal order passed by a Special Court where statutory appeal against acquittal is expressly excluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Administrator, Residual Properties and others1989 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01
  constitutional jurisdictionresidual propertiesremand orderleave to appeallocus standiadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sadiq. The petitioner sought to challenge an order dated 13-10-1979 passed by the Administrator, Residual Properties, Multan Division, which remanded a dispute concerning a building site to the Deputy Administrator. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner possessed the standing to invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge an interlocutory remand order in a property dispute. The High Court, relying on the principles established in Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, held that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke such jurisdiction, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient grievance or legal standing to warrant interference. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding that the petitioner failed to make out a case for leave to appeal. The key principle reaffirmed is that constitutional jurisdiction is not to be invoked against interlocutory administrative orders where the petitioner fails to establish a compelling legal grievance or entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge an interlocutory remand order passed by an administrative authority?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to constitutional relief if they fail to establish a sufficient legal grievance regarding an administrative remand order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Others vs Sarfaraz Azam Lodra And Other1989 MLD 3960 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and another vs Jalal Khan and others1989 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24
  pre-emption suitspecial leave to appealsubsequent salesuperior right of pre-emptionequal footing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit dismissed by the trial Court, decreed by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently restored in its dismissal by the High Court upon second appeal. The core legal question considered by the courts was whether the original vendees had sold the disputed land to a subsequent purchaser prior to the institution of the pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court in the affirmative regarding the prior sale was unexceptionable and declined to interfere. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a pre-emption suit fails against a subsequent vendee when the transfer occurred before the institution of the suit and the pre-emptors are on an equal footing with said subsequent vendee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit can succeed against a subsequent vendee when the pre-emptor is on an equal footing with him?
  • Does a pre-emption suit fail if the original vendees sold the land to a third party prior to the institution of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2047 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir alias Natt vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →