Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Muhammad Sabir Alias Jamal Din vs The State1989 MLD 4031 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sabir Alias Jamal Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 708 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sa Diq vs Bostan and anothers1989 PLD Azad J&K 33 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Roshan vs Mst. Razia Bibi And Another1989 MLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rifiq vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz vs Wapda and 2 others1989 SCMR 1727(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld his dismissal from service on charges of serious misconduct. The petitioner was accused of misconduct bordering on criminal offences, specifically involving the receipt of an illegal gratification, which was supported by material on record, including his own admission. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the case raised any substantial question of law of public importance to warrant interference with the Tribunal's findings. The Court held that no such question of law of public importance was made out in the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the concurrent findings regarding the establishment of the charges and the resulting dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Does an appeal involving concurrent findings on misconduct by a service tribunal raise a question of law of public importance warranting leave to appeal?
- Can an admission of receiving illegal gratification support a charge of serious misconduct in service matters?
- Muhammad Riaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1233 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz vs Messrs Onyx Industries1989 PLC 69 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz Malik vs Syed Asad Ali SHAWand others1989 PLC (C.S.) 650 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Steel, Karachi1989 PLC 1019 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others1989 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which accepted the service appeal of respondent No. 3 and adversely affected the seniority of the petitioners. The petitioners were initially inducted as Trained Graduate Teachers on an ad hoc basis in 1976-77 due to a ban on regular appointments, and their services were subsequently regularized in 1980 with retrospective effect from their original date of induction. The core legal question concerns the legality of granting retrospective effect to the regularization of ad hoc appointees, the availability of vacancies, and the principles governing service seniority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions regarding whether there is any prohibition in law in regularizing ad hoc appointees from their original date of induction, subject to vacancies and service conditions, and the necessity of a uniform policy to avoid arbitrariness, require detailed examination. The Court directed the petitioners to implead affected parties.
Questions settled- Whether there is any prohibition in law in regularizing ad hoc appointees with effect from their original date of induction subject to the existence of vacancies and satisfaction of other service conditions?
- Does the retrospective regularization of ad hoc employees require the availability of vacancies at the time of initial induction?
- Whether a uniform policy should be followed in regularizing ad hoc appointments to avoid injustice, favoritism, or arbitrary decisions?
- Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2932 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2151 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Riasat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Razzaq vs Judge Family Court And Another1989 MLD 4518 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Razzaq vs Ehsanullah Khan, Manager, Administration1989 PLC 438 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Razik vs Muhammad Sardar and others1989 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the form of a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned the procedural consequence of a petitioner's failure to provide instructions to their legal counsel despite attempts to establish contact. The court was presented with evidence, including a copy of a letter and postal receipt, demonstrating that the petitioner's Advocate-on-Record had made diligent efforts to communicate with the client but remained without instructions. Consequently, the learned counsel was compelled to plead no instructions before the court. The court's decision was to dismiss the petitions for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that where a petitioner fails to maintain contact with their legal counsel or provide necessary instructions for the prosecution of their case, the court is justified in dismissing the petition for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to pursue the matter diligently. This ensures the efficient administration of justice and prevents the docket from being clogged by inactive or abandoned litigation.
Questions settled- What is the consequence when a petitioner fails to provide instructions to their counsel?
- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner's counsel pleads no instructions?
- Muhammad Raza vs Abdul Majid Etc.K.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 658 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Raza vs Abdul Majid and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 1695 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rauf and anothers vs The State and others1989 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a criminal appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted one of two co-accused in a murder case, despite the trial court's conviction. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting the benefit of doubt to the co-accused by attributing blunt force injuries to accidental falls, thereby disregarding the eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal was based on a cursory examination of the evidence. The Court found that the medical evidence, which confirmed both sharp and blunt force injuries, corroborated the eyewitness accounts of the deceased's wife and mother-in-law. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of the acquitted co-accused, ruling that the evidence sufficiently established that both assailants acted in furtherance of a common intention to commit the murder. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence corroborates eyewitness testimony regarding multiple assailants using different weapons, courts must evaluate the collective criminal act and common intention rather than isolating individual injuries to grant the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court acquit a co-accused by isolating individual injuries when medical evidence corroborates the presence of multiple assailants?
- Does the presence of both sharp and blunt force injuries on a deceased support the theory of multiple assailants acting in common intention?
- Is the testimony of close relatives of the deceased admissible and credible in a murder trial?
- Muhammad Rashid and others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1989 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition involving questions of fact and law. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's order in light of similar matters pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal since leave had already been granted in a connected matter raising identical questions of fact and law. The Court ordered the appeal to be heard along with the connected civil petition and directed that the status quo previously granted shall continue until the disposal of the main appeal, subject to the deposit of security.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when identical questions of fact and law are already under consideration by the Supreme Court in a connected matter?
- Can an existing status quo order be continued until the disposal of the main appeal upon the grant of leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Rashid And Others vs Assistant Commissioner, Multan And Other1989 MLD 4409 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1989 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an ex-Cashier in the Education Department, filed two separate petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgments of the Lahore High Court upholding his convictions for misappropriation of government and provident funds in multiple separate criminal cases. The core legal question concerned whether sentences awarded in two separate trials based on distinct First Information Reports can be ordered to run concurrently. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where an accused is convicted in two different cases registered on different occasions through separate FIRs resulting in separate judgments, the sentences cannot be ordered to run concurrently. The petitions were consequently dismissed on merits.
Questions settled- Whether sentences resulting from two separate trials on different FIRs can be ordered to run concurrently?
- Does a conviction for misappropriation of government and provident funds warrant leave to appeal when the merits are undisputed?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs The Secretary, Cooperative Societies, Government of Unjab and 5 others1989 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a writ petition regarding the inheritance of agricultural land allotted by a Cooperative Farming Society. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the land based on a nomination made by the original allottee, his maternal uncle, under the Cooperative Societies Act. Following the allottee's death, the Assistant Registrar divided the land between the deceased's widow and a tenant. The petitioner's subsequent revision petition before the Secretary was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred and on merits, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's nomination under the society's bye-laws conferred an exclusive right to the land and whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the Secretary's discretionary refusal to condone the delay. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary properly exercised discretion in refusing to condone the delay and correctly determined that the resolution regarding the petitioner's nomination was void. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that discretionary administrative decisions regarding limitation and the validity of internal society resolutions warrant no interference.
Questions settled- Does a nomination under the bye-laws of a cooperative society confer an absolute right of inheritance to allotted land?
- Can a court interfere with the discretionary power of an administrative authority to condone or refuse to condone a delay in filing a revision petition?
- Is a resolution of a cooperative society regarding the nomination of a member subject to judicial review if found to be void?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Soofi Muhammad Bashir1989 MLD 548 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Province of Punjab1989 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order dismissing the petitioner's revision petition, which had challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing his civil suit for proprietary rights. The petitioner's father was initially appointed as a temporary lambardar and allotted land by way of a lambardari grant under a Scheme framed in the former State of Bahawalpur. The Scheme permitted proprietary rights only for permanent lambardars and was withdrawn in 1960. Although the petitioner's father became a permanent lambardar in 1963, and the petitioner later succeeded him, neither qualified under the Scheme since it had already been withdrawn before the father attained permanent status. The core legal question was whether a temporary lambardar or their successor could claim proprietary rights under a withdrawn scheme after acquiring permanent status subsequent to the withdrawal. The Supreme Court held that neither the petitioner nor his father were entitled to proprietary rights as the Scheme stood withdrawn prior to attaining permanent status. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary lambardar is entitled to acquire proprietary rights under a lambardari grant scheme withdrawn before attaining permanent status?
- Does a successor of a lambardar acquire a right to proprietary grants if the predecessor failed to qualify under the applicable scheme during their lifetime?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Munshi Ahmad Hassan And Other1989 MLD 3036 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional writ petition. The matter originated from the selection and appointment of a Lambardar, where the Collector appointed the respondent, the Commissioner reversed it on appeal in favor of the petitioner, and the Member, Board of Revenue restored the Collector's order on revision. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the selection between eligible candidates falls within the discretion of the competent authority and does not constitute an act without lawful authority. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's reasoning, holding that choosing a better candidate rests on the administrative discretion of the competent authority, which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be without lawful authority. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the selection and appointment of a Lambardar between eligible candidates falls within the discretion of the competent authority?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with administrative discretion exercised by revenue authorities in selecting a Lambardar?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Member (Rev.), Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by pre-emptors against the dismissal of their pre-emption claims. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a pre-emption decree could be passed in favour of a pre-emptor where no decree had been passed by any court at any stage prior to 31-7-1986. Relying on its previous precedent in the case of Sardar Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287), the Court held that since no decree was passed in favour of any of the petitioners prior to the crucial date of 31-7-1986, no decree could now be passed in their favour. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions, affirming the principle that pre-emption claims lacking a pre-existing decree prior to the cutoff date cannot be decreed.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption decree can be passed in favour of a pre-emptor if no decree was passed prior to 31-7-1986?
- Does the absence of a prior decree before the crucial date bar the passing of a pre-emption decree?
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Managing Director Ittehad Chemicals1989 PLC 902 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Haji Muhammad SardarK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Haji Muhammad Sardar And Other.1989 MLD 533 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan Through Legal Heirs vs Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha And 4 Other1989 MLD 286 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of offenses under Sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an FIR registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted where no specific role indicating preparation for dacoity was ascribed to the petitioner and trial proceedings had not commenced despite significant delay. The Lahore High Court observed that although the case was registered in December 1987, not a single witness had been examined by the trial court. Furthermore, the court noted that no specific role was attributed to the petitioner to establish that he was making preparations to commit dacoity beyond his presence with co-accused persons. Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The key principle affirmed is that lack of specific overt acts and prolonged delay in trial proceedings justify the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no specific overt act or preparation for dacoity is ascribed to the accused?
- Does an unexplainable delay in commencing trial proceedings entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether mere presence with co-accused without evidence of preparation suffices to withhold bail in an offense under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Muhammad Ramzan Khan vs Deputy Director Food and another1989 SCMR 1641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by an Assistant Food Controller against a judgment of the Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal concerning departmental recovery. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a Food Grain Inspector for a shortage of empty wheat bags at a food centre, resulting in an order imposing equal monetary recovery on both officers. While the co-accused officer deposited his share, the petitioner challenged the recovery before the Service Tribunal, arguing that he was not in charge of the empty bags and thus not liable for their loss. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding as a matter of fact that although the bags were dispatched to the co-accused, they were actually received by the petitioner at the destination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether this factual finding of liability warranted interference. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that since a factual finding was recorded against the petitioner establishing his receipt of the bags, no interference was called for, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a finding of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding the physical receipt of departmental goods bar interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can an officer escape departmental financial liability for missing goods when it is established as a matter of fact that he received them at the destination?
- Muhammad Ramzan and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 3676 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 1745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court regarding land treated as evacuee property. The petitioners contended that the land belonged to them and was mortgaged to an evacuee who obtained a final foreclosure decree against them in 1945. Despite this decree, the petitioners filed an application for redemption in 1946 under section 4 of the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the foreclosure decree acted as a complete bar. The core legal question was whether Section 2 of the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938, covers subsisting mortgages subject to a foreclosure decree so as to override such decree. The Supreme Court held that while the explanation to Section 2 excludes decrees for redemption, it does not exclude foreclosure decrees, leaving the 1945 final decree intact as a bar. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down that foreclosure decrees are not excluded by Section 2 of the Act.
Questions settled- Does Section 2 of the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938 exclude a foreclosure decree obtained by a mortgagee?
- Whether an application for redemption of mortgage is maintainable when a final foreclosure decree has already been passed against the mortgagor?
- Does the explanation to Section 2 of the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938 apply to foreclosure decrees as it does to redemption decrees?
- Muhammad Ramzan and another vs Punjab Road Transport1989 PLC 109 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan And 6 Others vs Abdul Shakoor1989 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan And 2 Others vs Mst. Chiragh Bibi1989 CLC 418 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan alias Jan Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan Ahmad vs Messrs Karachi Electric Supply Co.1989 MLD 1613 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ram Zan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 561 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs WAPDA1989 PLC (C.S.) 417 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs The Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering1989 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs The State1989 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 521 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.1989 PLC 265 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique vs Commissioner, Sargodha Division and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 364 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-08-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique Meer, Printer & Publisher, Urdu Daily 'Mussawat', Lahore vs Government of the Punjab through Home Secretary and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 12 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique and others vs Mst. Muqaddas Begum and others1989 SCMR 1123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their civil revision, which had arisen out of a suit for possession through partition. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised technical points but failed to point out any reliable or cogent evidence to establish that the title of the respondents, as challenged by the petitioners, was not validly established. Finding the petitioners' case to be weak on merits regarding the challenge to title, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal will be refused when the petitioner fails to point out cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate weak challenges to the established title of the opposing party in partition and possession matters.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal can be granted when the petitioner fails to point out reliable and cogent evidence supporting their challenge to the respondents' title?
- Is a civil revision arising out of a suit for possession through partition maintainable without cogent evidence on title?
- Muhammad Rafique and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 43 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique and anothers vs Additional Chief Secretary Home, Government of Baluchistan, Quetta and anothers1989 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses petitions challenging the transfer of criminal cases from forums under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 to Special Courts established under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987. The core legal questions involved whether the Government possessed the unhindered discretion to transfer pending cases without notice and whether principles of natural justice required a pre-transfer hearing. The Court held that while the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 is a special central legislation that overrides earlier laws and empowers the Government to transfer cases involving gruesome or sensational offences in the public interest, such an administrative transfer severely prejudices the accused and deprives them of safeguards under normal procedure. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the appropriate Government must afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused and reflect objective considerations of public interest in the transfer order, setting aside the impugned orders for want of a pre-decisional hearing and remanding the matters for fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 override earlier local and special criminal legislations?
- Is it mandatory for the Government to provide an opportunity of hearing to an accused person before transferring a pending criminal case to a Special Court?
- Must the transfer order passed under Section 5 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 reflect objective considerations and guidelines of public interest?
- Does an accused person have a vested right to select the forum for their trial once a challan has been submitted?
- Muhammad Rafique And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2677 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 110 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The Superintending Engineer, Lahore and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 212 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-03-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1989 MLD 51 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State And Another1989 MLD 216 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 276 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs Tasleemul Hasan1989 SCMR 470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court concerning rent control proceedings. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against Abdul Hamid, alleging default in rent and personal use. The petitioner intervened, claiming he was the actual tenant, but the Rent Controller and the High Court both held that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and the respondent. However, the High Court simultaneously recorded an undertaking from the petitioner to vacate the premises and ordered the execution of an eviction order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that once the authorities determined the petitioner was not a tenant and lacked locus standi, they possessed no jurisdiction over him to pass an ejectment order or enforce an undertaking. The Court ruled that the Rent Controller, being a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, could not exercise authority over a non-tenant, and set aside the High Court's order directing the execution of the eviction against the petitioner while allowing proceedings against the actual tenant to proceed on merits.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to pass an ejectment order against a person found not to be a tenant?
- Can an intervenor who is held not to be a tenant be bound by an eviction undertaking in rent proceedings?
- What is the extent of jurisdiction of a Rent Controller as a tribunal?
- Muhammad Rafiq vs Punjab Province And Another1989 MLD 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq Bhalli vs Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E), Punjab Central Zone, Lahore and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 689 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq And Others vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 3981 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq and another vs Sardar and another1989 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the sale of State land. The respondent filed a suit for a permanent injunction to protect his possession of the land, which he claimed to have purchased from the second petitioner. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge decreed it in favor of the respondent. The petitioners subsequently filed a civil revision before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the land transfer violated Section 19 of the Colony Act due to a lack of required sanction and argued that the second respondent lacked the authority to alienate the land. The Supreme Court held that these pleas could not be entertained at the revisional stage because they were not raised in the written statement nor were issues framed regarding them at the trial stage. By failing to seek an additional issue at the trial court, the petitioners were deemed to have abandoned these arguments. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new legal plea in a civil revision that was not pleaded in the written statement or framed as an issue at the trial stage?
- Does the failure to request an additional issue at the trial court constitute an abandonment of a plea regarding the authority to alienate land?
- Is a court justified in refusing to consider arguments regarding statutory violations if those arguments were not raised during the initial trial proceedings?
- Muhammad Rafiq And 9 Others vs Mst. Noor Begum And Other1989 CLC 2292 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafio And Others vs Ralley Khan Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 3823 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafi vs The State1989 MLD 4919 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim vs The State1989 MLD 4801 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Qasim vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 45 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Pervez Ehsan Ullah vs The State1989 SCMR 1388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which declined the petitioner's request to transfer two criminal cases, including one for double murder, from District Sargodha to another district. The core legal question was whether the hostility of the local Bar Association, press condemnation, and the alleged inability to secure local legal representation warranted the transfer of the trial in the interest of a fair trial. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked substance, noting the absence of concrete evidence such as the actual resolution of the Bar Association or affidavits showing that local lawyers refused to accept the brief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that matters of case transfers without substantial questions of law should ordinarily conclude at the High Court level. The key principle laid down is that mere allegations of local hostility and press condemnation, unsupported by verifiable evidence regarding the refusal of legal representation, are insufficient to justify the transfer of a criminal trial.
Questions settled- Does the passing of a condemnation resolution by a local Bar Association automatically warrant the transfer of a criminal trial to another district?
- Is unverified press condemnation and the absence of affidavits from lawyers declining briefs sufficient proof of denial of legal representation for case transfer?
- Should petitions regarding transfer of criminal cases without substantial questions of law of public importance be entertained by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Pervaiz vs Assistant Subinspector1989 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Oasim Ali Khan vs Messrs Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd.1989 PLC 288 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Noor And 3 Others vs Ghulam Mu14ammad And 30 Other1989 CLC 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the plaintiff's suit for declaration and consequential relief regarding agricultural land was decreed. The core legal questions involved the propriety of invoking Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for default in producing evidence and appearance, and the effect of revenue mutations contrary to a previous High Court judgment. The Peshawar High Court held that where the defendants failed to produce evidence despite being granted a last opportunity and absented themselves without offering any explanation for the default, the trial court was legally justified in applying Order 17 Rule 3, C.P.C. and deciding the suit on the available record. The High Court established the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the trial court's invocation of summary procedure for evidentiary default is supported by the record and left unexplained by the defaulting party.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is justified in invoking Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party fails to produce evidence on a last given opportunity and remains absent without explanation?
- Can revenue mutations sanctioned in violation of a previous binding High Court judgment be challenged through a civil suit?
- Does an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the trial court properly exercises its discretion upon the default of the defendants?
- Munna And Others vs The State1989 MLD 102 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 338 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir vs The Secretary, Cooperative Department And Another1989 MLD 1156 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeking the appointment of an arbitrator regarding a dispute over the cancellation of a shop allotment. The petitioner had previously challenged the cancellation through administrative and judicial channels, culminating in a Supreme Court judgment that upheld the cancellation. The core legal questions were whether the present petition was barred by limitation and whether the principle of res judicata precluded the petitioner from re-litigating the matter through arbitration. The Court held that the petition was time-barred under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action arose upon the initial cancellation of the allotment, and the three-year limitation period had expired. Furthermore, the Court held that the matter was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata, as the Supreme Court had already adjudicated the legality of the allotment cancellation. The Court emphasized that re-litigating settled matters constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that arbitration cannot be used to circumvent final judicial determinations.
Questions settled- Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to decisions rendered in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a party invoke an arbitration clause after the underlying dispute has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
- Does the filing of a petition to re-litigate a matter already decided by the Supreme Court constitute an abuse of the process of law?
- Muhammad Nazir Through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Sarwar And Other1989 MLD 293 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir And Others vs Muhammad Nazir And Other1989 CLC 442 · Board of Revenue · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir and another vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate1989 PLC 632 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir and 9 others vs Muhammad Sa Diq and 7 others1989 PLD Azad J&K 28 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 147 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate vs Abdul Hamid and another1989 P Cr. L J 691 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1989 MLD 4613 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1989 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the double murder of his sister and niece, for which he was sentenced to death. The core legal question was whether the death penalty was appropriate given the disputed nature of the motive and the appellant's plea regarding the immoral character of the deceased. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence of guilt overwhelming, but reduced the sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The Court held that the prosecution's alleged motive—a dispute over a 'Watta' marriage arrangement—was weak, contradicted by circumstances, and unsupported by independent evidence. Conversely, the appellant’s contention regarding the deceased's immoral conduct, while not definitively establishing 'grave and sudden provocation,' cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution's narrative. The Court established the principle that where the prosecution’s alleged motive is disproved or remains shrouded in mystery, and the circumstances suggest a potential, albeit unproven, motive of honour or provocation, the imposition of the extreme penalty of death is not warranted.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for murder entitle the convict to a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the motive alleged by the prosecution is found to be weak or disproved?
- Is the death penalty appropriate when the motive for the crime remains shrouded in mystery?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Muslim and others1989 SCMR 1285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby upholding the trial court's acquittal of five respondents in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing leave to appeal against the acquittal, given the evidentiary challenges and the existence of competing theories regarding the incident. The Supreme Court found that the crime was an unnoticed occurrence and the prosecution failed to establish a case free from reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the prosecution and defense versions presented parallel theories, with the defense version appearing more plausible. Specifically, the Court noted the physical impossibility of the alleged injury mechanism and the failure of the prosecution to prove the intent to kill. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that where prosecution evidence is unreliable and two compatible theories exist, the acquittal must stand. The judgment reinforces the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal when the prosecution case is riddled with doubt.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal when the prosecution evidence is unreliable and creates reasonable doubt?
- Is leave to appeal against an acquittal justified when the defense version appears more plausible than the prosecution's theory?
- Does the existence of two compatible parallel theories regarding the commission of a crime warrant the dismissal of an appeal against acquittal?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Khan And 5 Other1989 CLC 2140 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of an inheritance dispute over agricultural land originally owned by the parties' father. Upon the issueless deaths of two brothers, revenue authorities mutated the shares in favor of the surviving brothers. Subsequently, one brother filed a suit for a declaration regarding his 5/6th share, which the trial court dismissed on technical grounds of limitation and estoppel. On appeal, the Additional District Judge decreed the suit, finding that the plaintiff was a full brother while the defendant was a consanguine brother, and therefore the plaintiff had a superior right of inheritance. The defendant challenged this decree in revision, arguing waiver, estoppel, and limitation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that devolution of inheritance under Muslim Law is automatic upon death and incapable of being waived or abandoned under the rule of spes successionis. The Court further held that the plea of estoppel was meritless in the absence of a representation, and that the suit was within time as the parties were co-sharers.
Questions settled- Can an heir waive or abandon their right to inherit before or upon the opening of succession under Muslim Law?
- Does the rule of spes successionis prevent the transfer or abandonment of a prospective right of inheritance?
- Does the limitation period bar a suit for possession between co-sharers when the status of the parties is undisputed?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Aslam and others1989 SCMR 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the decision of the District Judge. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that they relied upon inadmissible evidence in violation of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court examined the record, specifically the statement of one of the plaintiffs, to determine whether the lower courts had contravened the statutory requirements regarding the admissibility of evidence. Upon review, the Court found that the evidence relied upon was not inadmissible and that the lower courts had correctly complied with the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. Concluding that the impugned judgment contained no error of law and involved no question of public importance requiring further examination, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The decision affirms the finality of the lower courts' concurrent findings on evidence.
Questions settled- Does the reliance on evidence by lower courts constitute an error of law if it complies with Section 50 of the Evidence Act?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when there is no error of law or question of public importance?
- Muhammad Nawaz and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application involves a post-arrest bail plea filed by three applicants facing trial for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value and effect of ex parte affidavits sworn by eyewitnesses exonerating the accused persons after previously implicating them in the First Information Report. The Sindh High Court held that when eyewitnesses file affidavits disowning or contradicting their earlier prosecution versions, it exposes the ocular testimony to doubt and brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that such affidavits cannot be outrightly ignored at the bail stage if they create a conflict between two sets of statements, thereby warranting further inquiry and the grant of bail when remaining evidence is inadequate.
Questions settled- Whether affidavits sworn by eyewitnesses exonerating the accused can be considered for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does a contradiction between initial statements and subsequent affidavits of eyewitnesses bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in a capital charge when the primary ocular testimony is exposed to doubt by subsequent statements of witnesses?
- Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Government of Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 897 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz And Others vs Deputy Administrator (Residual1989 MLD 3514 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz and another vs Hassain Ahmad and 13 others1989 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal was instituted by the vendees against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their Regular First Appeal in a pre-emption dispute. The petitioners primarily contended that the High Court dismissed their appeal without formally summoning the trial court record, and additionally challenged concurrent findings regarding ownership of the estate and the determination of the land price. The Supreme Court examined the tenor and contents of the High Court's judgment, particularly noting references to exhibited documents from the lower court, and held that the record was either formally summoned or duly made available for deciding the appeal, thereby rejecting the procedural objection. The remaining contentions regarding ownership and land valuation were identified as pure questions of fact supported by the record. Finding no justification or legal flaw to warrant interference with the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate judgment can be challenged for non-summoning of the record when its contents demonstrate that exhibited lower court documents were duly considered?
- Whether concurrent findings on pure questions of fact regarding ownership and land valuation warrant interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Nasir Jamal vs The State1989 MLD 732 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naseem Sipra vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab1989 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeals seeking the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his annual confidential reports for the years 1979 and 1980. Although the petitions were filed with a delay of ten to fourteen days, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay to examine the merits of the case. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's decision to uphold the adverse remarks was legally sound and within its jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the petitioner's service record and reached a decision in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference, as the impugned order was neither contrary to law nor lacking jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that in the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance, leave to appeal could not be granted. Accordingly, all three petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal in the interest of justice?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision if it is based on a thorough examination of the service record?
- Is a substantial question of law of public importance required for the grant of leave to appeal in service matters?
- Muhammad Naqi vs Haji Bundoo And 5 Other1989 MLD 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Najeeb vs Mst. Talat Shahnaz and others1989 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two petitions arose from family disputes where the petitioners were directed to pay maintenance to a wife and minor children, respectively. After their constitutional petitions were dismissed by the High Court, the petitioners sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether an ex-wife could apply for maintenance under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 for the period when the wedlock was intact and for the iddat period. The Court held that an application by a divorced wife for maintenance covering the period of intact wedlock and the iddat period is competent, as she is covered by the term 'wife' within the meaning of Section 9 of the Ordinance. Regarding the second petition, where the petitioner argued that a minor daughter had married and was no longer entitled to maintenance, the Court noted this point was not raised before the trial court and dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to apply to the trial court for variation of the maintenance order.
Questions settled- Can a divorced wife apply for maintenance under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 for the period when the marriage was intact and for the iddat period?
- Is a divorced wife considered a 'wife' under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 for the purpose of claiming past maintenance and iddat maintenance?
- Can a petitioner raise a new factual plea regarding a minor child's marriage and maintenance entitlement for the first time before the appellate or constitutional court without having raised it before the trial court?