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 Nafees And Others vs Tariq Mehmood And Other1989 MLD 112 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Akhtar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4865 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadar Khan And 2 Others vs Jam Khair Muhammad1989 CLC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-15
  co-ownershippartition suitlis pendensexchange deedrevisional jurisdictionpossessionregistration of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which granted a decree for possession to the respondent against the petitioners. The core legal question was whether a co-owner can eject another co-owner from joint property without seeking partition, and whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to an exchange deed executed before, but registered after, the institution of a suit. The Court held that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a portion of joint property cannot be dispossessed by another co-sharer except through a suit for partition. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to an exchange deed executed prior to the filing of the suit, as the transaction is considered complete upon execution, with registration merely validating the document. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment, restored the trial court's decision dismissing the suit, and affirmed that the proper remedy for the respondent was a partition suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint property be dispossessed by another co-sharer without a suit for partition?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to an exchange deed executed before the institution of a suit but registered after?
  • Is a transaction considered complete upon execution for the purposes of lis pendens, even if registration occurs later?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar Malik vs Pakistan, through Secretary and others1989 SCMR 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18
  service matterinfructuous petitionseniority disputeadministrative remedyPunjab Constabulary
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an administrative matter regarding the petitioner's employment status. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, had been absorbed into the Punjab Constabulary. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petition remained maintainable given that the primary relief sought—absorption into the service—had already been granted. The Court held that since the petitioner had already been absorbed into the Punjab Constabulary, the petition had become infructuous. Regarding the petitioner's additional grievances concerning seniority and associated service benefits, the Court declined to adjudicate these issues, noting that the petitioner had not exhausted appropriate administrative remedies. The Court dismissed the petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue his claims regarding seniority and benefits before the relevant competent authority. The key principle laid down is that where the primary relief sought in a petition has been rendered moot by subsequent events, the petition becomes infructuous, and ancillary service disputes should be addressed through proper departmental channels rather than by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition become infructuous when the primary relief sought has already been granted?
  • Can the Supreme Court adjudicate claims regarding seniority and service benefits when the petitioner has not first approached the relevant competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustafa Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi1989 PLC 1004 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs Province of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-29
  evacuee landauctiondeputy commissionerapprovalcivil suitleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the auction of agricultural land held under the scheme for disposal of unallotted evacuee rural agricultural land. The core legal question is whether an auction of evacuee land accepted by the Assistant Commissioner creates a binding ownership right without the mandatory statutory approval of the Deputy Commissioner or designated authorities. The Supreme Court held that since the applicable scheme explicitly subjects any auction to the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Officer, or Settlement Officer, and such approval was validly refused following an inquiry into lack of proper publicity, the cancellation of the auction proceedings was lawful and without jurisdictional defect. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that an auction under the settlement scheme remains incomplete and confers no title until it receives the requisite statutory approval from the designated competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does an auction of evacuee agricultural land create binding ownership rights without the approval of the Deputy Commissioner?
  • Can the Deputy Commissioner refuse to approve an auction held under the evacuee land scheme upon finding procedural irregularities?
  • Whether an auction conducted by the Assistant Commissioner is complete without the sanction required under the scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa vs Additional District Judge1989 CLC 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murtaza Kazi vs University of Sind, Jamshoro, Sind1989 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Election Tribunal (Local Councils), Peshawar1989 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08
  local council electionelection petitionno evidenceconstitutional jurisdictionpleadingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an Election Tribunal's decision in a local council election dispute. The core legal question was whether the Election Tribunal acted lawfully in declaring the petitioner the winner based on allegations that three minor voters had cast ballots for the respondent, thereby altering the election outcome. The High Court had overturned the Tribunal's decision, finding that the petitioner had failed to raise this specific plea in his pleadings and, crucially, that there was no evidence presented to support the claim that the alleged minors had voted or that they had voted for the respondent. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Tribunal's findings were based on no evidence. The Court held that where a tribunal reaches a conclusion without any evidentiary basis, the High Court is justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to correct the error. The principle laid down is that an election result cannot be altered based on allegations unsupported by evidence or pleadings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Election Tribunal declare a candidate elected based on allegations not raised in the pleadings?
  • Is a High Court justified in interfering with an Election Tribunal's decision when there is no evidence to support the Tribunal's findings?
  • Does the lack of evidence regarding the identity and voting preference of alleged minor voters invalidate an election challenge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Malik vs The Government of Punjab through Secretary, S & Gad1989 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksservice tribunallimitationnatural justicecondemned unheardcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the expunction of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.). The petitioner, an Extra Assistant Commissioner, challenged the adverse remarks—specifically regarding his integrity and public conduct—arguing that he was condemned unheard and that no proper inquiry was conducted. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had correctly identified the appeal as time-barred and declined to condone the delay. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the contention that the petitioner was denied a fair hearing, noting that the petitioner had absented himself from proceedings using medical certificates, which the authorities viewed as a tactical maneuver. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that no rules or principles of natural justice were violated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal decline to condone a delay in filing an appeal against adverse remarks?
  • Does the absence of an officer from inquiry proceedings based on medical certificates constitute a violation of natural justice?
  • Is an inquiry mandatory before recording adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muneer vs Nazir Ahmad And Other1989 MLD 4194 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs The State1989 MLD 2951 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Khan vs The State1989 MLD 4068 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad Khan vs The Member, Federal Land1989 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-19
  writ petitionwithdrawal of petitionlocus standileave to appealland reformsaggrieved party
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a High Court judgment that had granted relief to the respondents in a writ petition. The petitioner, who had originally filed a joint writ petition with the respondents challenging the annulment of a land gift by the Federal Land Commission, subsequently withdrew from the High Court proceedings. Despite the petitioner's withdrawal, the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the petition on behalf of the remaining respondents, who were the donees of the land, and ruled in their favor. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal this judgment. The core legal question was whether a party who voluntarily withdrew from a writ petition in the High Court could subsequently challenge the judgment rendered in favor of the remaining parties. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having withdrawn from the contest, lacked the standing to challenge the judgment. The Court affirmed that the remaining respondents, as the primary aggrieved parties, were entitled to the fruits of the judgment, and the petitioner could not deprive them of that relief after abandoning the litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who has voluntarily withdrawn from a writ petition in the High Court subsequently file a petition for leave to appeal against the final judgment?
  • Does the withdrawal of one co-petitioner from a joint writ petition preclude the remaining petitioners from pursuing the matter to a final judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar Tikka vs The Government of Punjab and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-19
  ad hoc appointmentmartial law instructionpublic service commissiontermination of serviceintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's Intra-Court Appeal against the termination of his ad hoc appointment as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in relaxation of rules by the Punjab Government. Subsequently, Martial Law Instruction No. 21 was issued to regularize ad hoc appointments, requiring cases to be reviewed by the appropriate selection authority. The appellant's case was referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission, which declared him suitable for the post. However, the Governor subsequently declared him ineligible and terminated his services, a decision upheld by both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government could terminate the services of an ad hoc appointee after the Public Service Commission had found him suitable under Martial Law Instruction No. 21. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the termination order, holding that once the competent selection authority recommended the appointee as suitable pursuant to the Martial Law Instruction, the Provincial Government could not arbitrarily declare him ineligible and terminate his services.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Government can terminate the services of an ad hoc appointee after the Public Service Commission has found him suitable under Martial Law Instruction No. 21?
  • Does an ad hoc appointee have the right to challenge termination of service under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is it obligatory upon the Provincial Government to act upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commission regarding regularisation under Martial Law Instruction No. 21?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mubeen and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 557 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mian vs Judge Family Court And Other1989 MLD 955 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Matin Hasjhmi vs National Construction Co.K.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 39 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Matin Hashmi vs National Construction Company1989 PLC 278 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maobool Hussain vs Mst. Razia Begum1989 SCMR 1620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-28
  leave to appealcivil revisionTamleekcourt-fee deficiencydeclaration and possessionconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the decree in a suit for declaration and possession concerning a disputed Tamleek. The core legal question involves the propriety of the concurrent findings of fact regarding the Tamleek and the consequences of failing to make up a deficiency in court-fee within the stipulated time. The Supreme Court held that no substantial error of law or principle was committed by the lower courts in their appraisal of the material, and the findings of fact were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, holding that the case was not a fit one for interference under revisional or appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the disputed Tamleek?
  • Does the failure to make up the deficiency in court-fee within the time granted by the Court warrant the dismissal of the appeal?
  • Are there any substantial errors of law or principle in the appraisal of material that would justify the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 441(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik alias Maloo vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Makik vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Luqman vs Shahmand and another1989 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15
  leave to appealintention to killgrievous hurtblunt weaponcriminal liabilityappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the respondent's conviction from murder to voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The respondent was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased using a blunt weapon (Sota). On appeal, the High Court concluded that the respondent lacked the requisite intention or knowledge to kill, citing the nature of the weapon and the specific injuries sustained, and consequently reduced the conviction to Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner, the son of the deceased, challenged this finding, arguing that the repeated blows to the head and neck of an elderly victim clearly demonstrated an intention to kill. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the High Court's assessment of the respondent's intent and the nature of the injuries warranted further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued a bailable warrant for the respondent's arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the repeated use of a blunt weapon on the head and neck of an elderly person can establish an intention to kill under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does the nature of the weapon used and the specific injuries sustained preclude a finding of intent to commit murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad LATIFPetitiner vs Muhammad Hanif and 2 others1989 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-06
  leave to appealenhancement of sentenceacquittalmotivepre-planned murdercriminal liabilityLalkara
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of respondent Muhammad Hanif for murder but reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and acquitted co-respondent Khadim Hussain. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused and reducing the sentence of the principal accused. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's case, which alleged the deceased was attacked by the respondents. The High Court had acquitted Khadim Hussain, attributing to him only a 'Lalkara' (incitement) and noting his prior involvement in a 1967 incident. Regarding Muhammad Hanif, the High Court reduced the sentence because the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive or immediate cause for the 1981 attack, given the long lapse since the 1967 incident. The Supreme Court found no substance in the petitioner's argument that the murder was pre-planned. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a proven motive for a murder justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction be maintained while reducing the sentence based on the failure of the prosecution to establish an immediate cause for the crime?
  • Is an acquittal based on the attribution of only a 'Lalkara' to an accused legally sustainable in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1000 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Paras Textile Mills1989 PLC 828 · Labour Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Khan And 15 Others vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan And 31989 CLC 2402 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-09-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2701 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and others vs Muhammad Akram and others1989 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-22
  consolidation of holdingsland mutationtransfer of landconsolidation proceedingsstatutory prohibitionvoid transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner regarding disputed land mutations. The core legal question was whether land mutations attested during the pendency of consolidation proceedings, without the requisite sanction of the Consolidation Officer, were legally valid and enforceable. The petitioner had sought to rely on these mutations to claim additional land, despite the respondent's denial of any sale. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transactions were void ab initio. The Court affirmed that under Section 24 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, a landowner is strictly prohibited from transferring or dealing with any part of their holding during the pendency of consolidation proceedings without prior sanction from the Consolidation Officer. Consequently, the Court established that any transfer executed in violation of this statutory prohibition confers no legal benefit or rights upon the transferee, rendering the mutations ineffective for the purpose of the consolidation scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landowner transfer or deal with their holding during the pendency of consolidation proceedings without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer?
  • Are land mutations attested without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer during consolidation proceedings legally valid?
  • Does a transfer of land made in violation of Section 24 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 confer any rights upon the transferee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Alias Bhopa vs The State1989 MLD 2859 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lateef vs Shukar Din1989 CLC 974 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khusro S. Taslim Hussain Saleem Akhtar Butt Muhammad1989 PLC (C.S.) 144 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nizamui)Din vs Auqaf Department Through Its Administrator1989 MLD 953 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1989 MLD 2832 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 245 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 579 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad ShafiqK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 478 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Malik Feroze Din1989 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Feroze Din1989 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-04
  evacuee propertydemarcation reportsettlement authoritiescivil court jurisdictionproperty disputedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a property dispute between two parties regarding the ownership of a specific godown, which both claimed to have purchased through public auction as evacuee property. The appellant relied primarily on a demarcation report prepared by a Settlement Inspector to assert his title. The core legal question was whether this demarcation report was valid and binding upon the Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that the demarcation proceedings were illegal and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Settlement Inspector had acted without the authorization of a competent authority, as the order for demarcation was issued by an accountant rather than the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Furthermore, the report was prepared without notice to the respondent, and the document itself contained suspicious cuttings and overwritings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower appellate court's decision to reject the report and dismiss the suit, establishing the principle that a demarcation report prepared without lawful authority and without notice to affected parties carries no legal weight and does not preclude judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Can a demarcation report prepared by a Settlement Inspector without notice to the affected party be considered valid?
  • Is a demarcation report prepared under the direction of an unauthorized subordinate official, rather than the competent authority, legally binding?
  • Does a Civil Court have the authority to disregard a demarcation report that is found to be procedurally illegal and unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Faqir Hussain Khan and 3 others1989 SCMR 1164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08
  leave to appealacquittalforgeryinheritance claimadmissibility of documentsquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in a criminal complaint filed under Section 193/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that the respondents committed forgery by misrepresenting the date of death of Mst. Hashmate Bibi to claim an inheritance share. The Magistrate acquitted the respondents after finding insufficient evidence, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal, ruling that the petitioner's evidence regarding the date of death was inadmissible under Section 78 of the Evidence Act 1872. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged these findings. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the date of death was a question of fact, which the lower courts had correctly concluded in favour of the respondents based on credible evidence. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's documentary evidence lacked material authenticity compared to the official record produced by the Union Council. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of a date of death based on conflicting evidence considered a question of fact that appellate courts should generally not disturb?
  • Does a document regarding death occurring in pre-partition India require authentication under Section 78 of the Evidence Act 1872 to be admissible in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Alam Din1989 CLC 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and another vs Mst. Zubaida Begum and 6 others1989 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10
  pre-emption suitright of pre-emptioninheritability of pre-emptiontenancy rightssuccessor tenantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether the right of pre-emption, specifically when granted to a tenant under Martial Law Regulations, is inheritable and whether it survives the death of the original tenant if the successor does not meet the necessary tenancy requirements at all relevant stages of the suit and decree. The petitioners argued that the right of pre-emption is not inheritable and that the successor tenant, Muhammad Nazir, did not qualify as the tenant at the relevant times, whereas the eldest son, who might have qualified, had relinquished the tenancy. The Supreme Court, finding that these submissions regarding the inheritability of the pre-emption right and the application of the Punjab Tenancy Act require deeper examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the legal questions raised regarding the survival of the pre-emption right post-death of the original tenant warrant a full hearing on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of pre-emption granted to a tenant under Martial Law Regulations inheritable upon the death of the original tenant?
  • Does a pre-emption suit based on tenancy survive if the successor tenant does not maintain tenancy status at all relevant stages of the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad and 6 others1989 SCMR 1714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-28
  consolidation of holdingswrit jurisdictionfindings of factleave to appealBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition concerning a consolidation of holdings matter. The dispute originated from a modification made by a Member of the Board of Revenue to an order previously passed by an Additional Commissioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the order issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, was passed without jurisdiction or was otherwise illegal, and whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the merits. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court noted that the counsel admitted the order was neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. The petitioner's argument regarding the alleged disregard for consolidation principles and the deprivation of property possession was found to be a matter of fact and merit, which the High Court had already adequately addressed. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that it found no justification to interfere with the High Court's findings of fact. Leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the Supreme Court will not re-examine findings of fact properly decided by lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact made by the High Court in a consolidation of holdings matter?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner concedes that the impugned order is neither illegal nor without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan alias Muhammad vs The State1989 SCMR 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-29
  leave to appealcriminal petitionnighttime identificationocular and medical discrepancymurderre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition from jail arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner could be reliably identified during a nighttime occurrence by the light of lightning, and whether discrepancies between the eye-witness account and the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and injuries sustained warrant a re-appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence in the case. The key principle laid down is that where material discrepancies exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence, alongside issues regarding nighttime identification, leave to appeal may be granted to thoroughly examine and re-evaluate the evidentiary record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be reliably identified during a nighttime occurrence by the flash of lightning?
  • Does a material discrepancy between the eye-witness account of the number of shots fired and the medical evidence warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
  • Whether the absence of corroborative blunt weapon injuries on the complainant's person affects the credibility of the ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan alias Malli and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 532 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil vs The Province of Punjab Through Its Secretary To1989 CLC 163 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil vs District Judge, Rawalpindi And 4 Other1989 CLC 1865 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Mansoor Hafiz1989 MLD 4240 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Khan alias Khalid Javed Khan and 3 others vs Sher1989 SCMR 1629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13
  pre-emptioncourt-feerevisional jurisdictioncontumacyleave to appealprecedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee challenging the High Court's refusal to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in pre-emption cases. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the pre-emptors' case regarding the payment of court-fee was governed by the principles established in the precedent of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289). While the petitioner's counsel initially argued that the issue of 'contumacy' required further examination by the Court, relying on the leave-granting order in Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Abdul Hamid (1986 SCMR 333), the Court rejected this contention. The Supreme Court held that the case was indeed covered by the Siddique Khan ruling. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the judgment in Iqbal's case was distinguishable because the Siddique Khan precedent had not been brought to the Court's attention at that time. On the merits, the Court found no evidence of 'contumacy' as defined in Siddique Khan, and consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the precedent established in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another govern the payment of court-fee in pre-emption cases?
  • Does the failure to bring a relevant precedent to the Court's notice in a prior case affect the binding nature of that precedent in subsequent matters?
  • What constitutes 'contumacy' in the context of court-fee payment in pre-emption litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and others vs Messrs at.M. Corporation Ltd. and others1989 SCMR 1537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15
  special leave to appealcompany disputesarbitration awardreferee reportwinding up of companyrectification of registercivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for special leave to appeal arise from disputes among the shareholders of a private limited company, Messrs. A.T.M. Corporation Limited, involving civil litigation, arbitration proceedings, and multiple petitions under the Companies Ordinance. Differences arose regarding company management and shareholding, leading to a civil suit, subsequent appeals, revisions, and company petitions in the High Court. During the proceedings, a deed of settlement was filed under which a former High Court Judge was appointed as a Referee to resolve the disputes. The Single Judge in the High Court treated the Referee's report as an award, rejected objections, and disposed of all pending civil revisions and company petitions accordingly. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in disposing of the matters on the basis of the Referee's report when not all parties had agreed to refer their disputes to the Referee and whether valid grounds existed to challenge the report. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the lack of unanimous agreement among all parties to refer the disputes and the validity of disposing of the matters based on the report required examination, and consequently granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court dispose of civil revisions and company petitions on the basis of a referee's report when not all affected parties agreed to the reference?
  • Whether a report submitted by an appointed referee can be treated as a binding award without unanimous consent of all litigating parties?
  • Are there sufficient grounds to set aside a High Court order that disposes of company and civil proceedings based on a disputed settlement report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 503 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamil vs Noor Muhammad And 5 Other1989 MLD 553 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jehangir vs WAPDA And Other1989 MLD 36 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaweed and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 427 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1989 MLD 2834 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs Asghar Ali and another1989 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14
  leave to appealcriminal revisionsentencing discretionreduction of sentencecompensationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the sentence of the respondent in a criminal case registered under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the reduction of the sentence and the adequacy of the compensation awarded, citing the gravity of the injury inflicted by an iron bar. The High Court had exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence based on the respondent's tender age at the time of the occurrence and the specific circumstances of the case, despite the trial court's failure to formally record the respondent's age. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's exercise of discretion was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and that no principle of law had been violated. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the sentencing decision was a matter of judicial discretion based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the discretion to reduce a sentence based on the age of the accused when the trial court failed to record the age?
  • Is the reduction of a sentence a matter of judicial discretion that warrants interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a violation of law?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely on the grounds of dissatisfaction with the quantum of sentence and compensation awarded by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Iqbal vs Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Chi1989 PLC 574 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The State1989 MLD 4980 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Agricultural Engineer, Gujranwala1989 PLC 831 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil alias Kala vs The State1989 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-07
  leave to appealsentence reductionspur of the momentlack of motivemitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner sought a reduction in his sentence, contending that the trial court's observations indicated the absence of a motive against the deceased. Specifically, the trial court noted that the altercation leading to the fatal injury occurred at the spur of the moment during a conciliatory meeting, rather than being a premeditated act. The petitioner argued that the High Court failed to properly apply its mind to the question of sentencing, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Upon reviewing the arguments and the evidence on record, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question to be determined is whether the circumstances surrounding the incident, particularly the lack of prior motive and the spontaneous nature of the occurrence, warrant a reduction in the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. The Court will examine if the High Court's failure to adequately address these mitigating factors constitutes a legal error requiring appellate intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a prior motive for a crime constitute a valid ground for the reduction of a sentence?
  • Can a sentence be reduced if the offence occurred at the spur of the moment during a conciliatory effort?
  • Does a failure by the High Court to properly consider mitigating factors in sentencing amount to a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil (deceased)through Legal Heirs vs Ahmad Zaman Khan1989 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20
  brick-kiln allotmentindustrial concernevacuee propertysettlement commissionerremandkatchi abadi
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute concerning the allotment and transfer of a brick-kiln situated in Khasra No. 396 in village Qutabpur, Multan, claimed by Muhammad Jamil (now represented by legal heirs) as an industrial concern and by Ahmad Zaman Khan as part of land confirmed to deserving allottees. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in construing an earlier order dated April 3, 1963, of the Additional Settlement Commissioner as conclusively confirming the entire Khasra number in favor of the allottees and thereby precluding the pending claim for the transfer of the industrial concern. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misconstrued the order, ruling that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had left open the question of the brick-kiln's transfer to be dealt with in due course. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Notified Officer to determine the appellants' entitlement to the transfer of the brick-kiln and to examine whether any portion fell within the notification issued under the relevant statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for the transfer of an industrial concern can be deemed rejected by a general order confirming land in favor of temporary allottees?
  • Can an appellate court's interpretation of a settlement authority's ambiguous order be set aside when the text preserves pending applications?
  • Whether the size of an industrial concern's area must be determined upon remand when conflicting revenue records exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs Peer Bakhsh and others1989 SCMR 1564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11
  evacuee agricultural landSettlement Scheme No. VIItransfer of housesubservient to agricultureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court accepting a writ petition filed by the respondent regarding a house situated within the area of evacuee agricultural land transferred to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the house in dispute stood transferred to the respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VII or whether it constituted property subservient to agriculture passing to the agricultural land transferee. The Supreme Court held that since findings of fact established the house was in possession of the respondent as a tenant since before 1947 and lacked any factual basis showing it was subservient to agriculture, the High Court correctly ruled it stood transferred to the respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The key principle laid down is that the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No. VII to a pre-1947 occupant tenant prevails unless there are concrete factual findings that the structure serves purposes subservient to agriculture.

  Questions settled

  • Does a house in possession of a tenant since before 1947 stand transferred under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
  • Can a house claimed as subservient to agriculture be excluded from Settlement Scheme No. VII without supporting factual findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar Toor vs Superintending Engineer, Headquarters, Irrigation, Sargodha and 4 others1989 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17
  compulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsleave to appealService Tribunalmisconductfactual findingscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, sought leave to appeal against an order of compulsory retirement from service, challenging the decision of the Service Tribunal which upheld the disciplinary action taken against him. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted on four grounds, leading to his compulsory retirement following a departmental inquiry. The Service Tribunal, after reviewing the record, concluded that the petitioner had removed government store articles in the early hours of the morning, rejecting his defense that the removal was for official work, particularly noting the suspicious timing involving his wife. The Tribunal further affirmed that the Authorised Officer was justified in proceeding against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the disciplinary procedure was inappropriate and that his explanation warranted consideration. The Supreme Court held that the issues raised were primarily factual and had been thoroughly addressed by the Tribunal. Finding no substantial question of law requiring further examination, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Supreme Court required to re-examine factual findings made by a Service Tribunal in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a compulsory retirement order on the basis of factual disputes already adjudicated by a Service Tribunal?
  • Does the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 constitute a question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Izharul Ahsan Qureshi vs Messrs P.Ia. Corporation1989 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21
  dismissal from servicemisconductforged documentsgrievance petitionlabour courtconstitutional petitionemployment termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, a former employee of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner, a former Technical Librarian, had been dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of misconduct, specifically the submission of forged educational certificates and fraudulent misrepresentation of employment details, including his date of birth. After his dismissal, the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the termination through a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance in the Labour Court and subsequently before the Sind Labour Appellate Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the constitutional petition challenging the concurrent findings of the lower labour forums. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had correctly examined and rejected the petitioner's pleas for cogent and proper reasons. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, finding no merit in the challenges raised against the disciplinary action and the subsequent judicial findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against concurrent findings of labour forums regarding employee dismissal?
  • Does the submission of forged educational certificates constitute valid grounds for dismissal from service?
  • Is a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance the appropriate remedy for challenging dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Naseer Ahmad and another1989 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27
  pre-emptionleave to appealsuperior right of pre-emptiontenant in possessioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption case where the petitioner, a vendee/defendant, challenged the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court which had upheld the pre-emption decree originally granted in favour of the respondents on 30th October 1984. The core legal question concerned whether the decree was hit by the rule laid down in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287) and whether the petitioner's plea of a superior right of pre-emption as a tenant was properly considered. The Supreme Court held that since the decree was passed prior to 31st July 1986, the intervening remand order did not affect the matter under the cited rule, and the findings of fact regarding tenancy could not be reopened. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that decrees passed before the critical date are protected despite intervening remands, and concurrent findings of fact on tenancy in pre-emption suits will not be revisited.

  Questions settled

  • Does an intervening remand order affect the protection of a pre-emption decree passed prior to 31st July 1986 under the rule in Sardar Ali's case?
  • Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence regarding a claim of superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy that has been concluded by concurrent findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Siddiq1989 MLD 3617 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Rafique and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-02
  post-arrest bailmurder casefurther inquirypolice opinion of innocencestatutory right to bailbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to a respondent involved in a murder case. The core legal questions examined were whether superior courts should decline bail in murder cases when trial is imminent, and whether the dismissal of a prior bail application on merits bars a subsequent grant based on a subsequent police finding of innocence under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once the conditions of Section 497(2) are met, an accused is entitled to bail as of right, which cannot be withheld on the ground of judicial practice regarding imminent trials, as statutory right supersedes discretionary practice. The key principle laid down is that the mandatory right to bail under Section 497(2) overrides the general practice of declining bail when a trial is about to commence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is an established practice of superior courts not to grant or cancel bail in a murder case when its trial is to commence within a short time?
  • Whether the dismissal of an earlier bail application on merits is a bar to the grant of bail on a subsequent application supported by a subsequent investigating officer's opinion of innocence?
  • Does an accused become entitled to bail as of right when the conditions under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are satisfied?
  • Would subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate notwithstanding the practice of refusing bail when a trial is imminent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Rafiq and another1989 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27
  bail cancellationmurder casesuccessive bail applicationfurther inquirypolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 in a murder case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions raised concern whether superior courts follow an established practice of not granting or cancelling bail when a trial is set to commence shortly, and whether the dismissal of an earlier bail application on merits by a High Court judge bars a subsequent bail grant based on a subsequent investigating officer's opinion finding the accused innocent, particularly under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, holding that the matter requires detailed consideration and directing the appeal to be fixed for hearing before May 1989. The key principle relates to the evaluation of successive bail applications and the weight to be attached to differing police investigation reports alongside prior judicial determinations on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is an established practice of the superior courts not to grant or cancel bail in a murder case when its trial is to commence within a short time and the date has been fixed?
  • Whether the dismissal of the earlier bail application of an accused on merits by the same judge acts as a bar to the grant of bail on a subsequent application?
  • Whether the view of a subsequent police investigator finding the accused innocent should prevail over earlier considerations for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Hussain1989 MLD 4104 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Khurshid Hussain1989 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25
  pre-emptionwaiverTehreer Tark-i-Shufaleave to appealfindings of factvendee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a vendee challenging the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption matter. The petitioner contended that the lower courts erred in their decision regarding the plea of waiver raised against the respondent/pre-emptor. Specifically, the petitioner challenged the appreciation of evidence concerning the authenticity of the 'Tehreer Tark-i-Shufa' (a document purportedly waiving the right of pre-emption) and argued that the material on record regarding the waiver was not correctly assessed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal error or infirmity in the findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the findings of fact against the petitioner were unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a pre-emption case where no legal infirmity is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a pre-emption matter where no legal infirmity is shown?
  • Is a document of waiver (Tehreer Tark-i-Shufa) subject to re-appreciation of evidence in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar1989 PLC (C.S.) 781 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Akbar Ali1989 MLD 3842 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal needfindings of factpetition for leave to appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of fact regarding the ejectment of a tenant. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court and appellate court erred in appreciating evidence regarding default in rent payment and personal bona fide need of the landlord. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that findings of fact concurrently recorded by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court regarding default and personal need do not warrant interference under extraordinary constitutional or appellate jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact concurred in by lower forums will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court in an ejectment matter can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • Does misreading of evidence on the issue of rent default invalidate findings on personal need?
  • What is the scope of interference by the Supreme Court in factual determinations made by rent tribunals and High Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06
  consolidation schemesuo motu revisionwrit jurisdictionland revenueright holdersadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a writ petition against a decision by the Member, Board of Revenue. The underlying dispute concerned a consolidation scheme sanctioned in 1972, which was later set aside by an Additional Commissioner exercising suo motu revisional powers due to alleged errors. The Member, Board of Revenue, subsequently set aside the Additional Commissioner's order, reasoning that revising a scheme after ten years, during which right holders had settled, was unjustified. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the Member's order affected numerous right holders without notice, that the proceedings were improperly initiated under the Land Revenue Act rather than the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, and that the order was conjectural. The Supreme Court held that since these specific grounds were not raised before the High Court, no case for interference was established. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's refusal to interfere with the administrative decision regarding the long-settled consolidation scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner raise new grounds in a petition for leave to appeal that were not argued before the High Court?
  • Is a consolidation scheme subject to revision after a significant lapse of time where right holders have already settled?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and others vs Kara Ma T, Ali1989 PLD Supreme Court 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27
  doctrine of sinkerpre-emptionindivisible salestranger vendeeco-vendeejudicial precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming the dismissal of the appellants' second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The appellants purchased land via a single, indivisible sale deed. Appellant No. 2 possessed pre-emptive rights equal to the plaintiff/respondent, whereas Appellant No. 1 was a stranger to the land. The suit for pre-emption was decreed against them by the trial court, Additional District Judge, and High Court on the application of the doctrine of sinker. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of sinker applies to pre-emption cases in Punjab despite the absence of an explicit statutory provision in the regional pre-emption law, particularly in light of conflicting precedent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that long-standing judicial precedent over 56 years in Punjab established the doctrine of sinker as valid judge-made law. By associating with a stranger in an indivisible transaction, a co-vendee sinks to the stranger's status and forfeits any preferential pre-emptive right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of sinker apply to pre-emption sales in Punjab despite the absence of an explicit statutory provision?
  • Can a vendee with a right of pre-emption protect their share of purchased land if they join a stranger in an indivisible sale transaction?
  • Does long-standing judicial practice and precedent acquire the status of enforceable law in the absence of conflicting legislation or Sharia principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and anothers vs Sikandar Ali and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 546 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 3 others vs The State1989 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-01
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal appealsurety bondsprosecution rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ismail and three others, which the Supreme Court of Pakistan converted into an appeal. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail in the circumstances presented. Upon consideration, the Court allowed the appeal and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 each and executing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The Court established the principle that while bail is granted, the prosecution retains the right to apply for its cancellation should sufficient evidence against the petitioners emerge. In such an event, the trial Court is empowered to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The petitioners were granted a ten-day period to furnish the required sureties, maintaining their existing bail status in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for pre-arrest bail be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the grant of pre-arrest bail preclude the prosecution from seeking its cancellation if new evidence arises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 764 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs Abdul Majid and others1989 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21
  Permanent Transfer Deedstatus quo orderfunctus officiosettlement authoritiesauction purchaserremand orderresumption of propertyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that accepted a constitutional petition and set aside a remand order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The dispute involved property originally transferred to the appellant's predecessor, subsequently alleged to have been surrendered through a forged deed, resumed without notice, and auctioned to respondent No. 1. While the appellant's appeal was pending before the Additional Settlement Commissioner with a subsisting status quo order, a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) was issued to the auction purchaser. The High Court held that following the issuance of the PTD and relevant rule amendments, settlement authorities were functus officio. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that because an unvacated and unmodified status quo order was in operation, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked competence to issue the PTD. Consequently, the appellate authority was not debarred from deciding the appeal on the merits or ordering a remand.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Deputy Settlement Commissioner competent to issue a Permanent Transfer Deed while an unvacated status quo order issued by an appellate authority is in operation?
  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed in violation of an active stay order render settlement authorities functus officio from deciding a pending appeal on the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ISI-Iaque Khan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1989 PLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq vs Pakistan and another1989 SCMR 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-17
  service tribunaldismissal from servicemisconductconfession of guiltleave to appealdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the dismissal of the petitioner, an ex-Assistant Sub-Postmaster, from service on the charge of misconduct relating to the use of used postage stamps on registered letters. The core legal questions concern whether the proceedings were vitiated because the same officer conducted the raid, issued the show-cause notice, and passed the dismissal order, and whether the prescribed procedure under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules was violated. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting that the petitioner had voluntarily confessed his guilt in a written statement dated 15-9-1982. The key principle laid down is that a voluntary and true confession of guilt in writing obviates procedural objections regarding departmental inquiries.

  Questions settled

  • Does a voluntary and written confession of guilt by a civil servant cure procedural defects in a departmental inquiry?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against a Service Tribunal order when the employee has confessed to the charge of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishfaque vs Asghar Ali and others1989 SCMR 1315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-06
  ejectmentbona fide personal needsecond ejectment applicationrent restrictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded an ejectment application to the Rent Controller for a decision on merits. The landlord, Asghar Ali, initially sought the ejectment of his tenant, Muhammad Ishfaque, on the ground of bona fide personal need, but that application was dismissed. Subsequently, the landlord filed a second ejectment application on a different ground of personal need, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller under section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, a view upheld by the appellate court. However, the High Court set aside these orders and remanded the matter. The core legal question was whether a second ejectment application on the ground of personal need is maintainable shortly after the dismissal of the first, and whether it is barred under section 14 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that no fixed time limit or period of limitation can be prescribed for a change of circumstances regarding personal need, and that the second application was maintainable as it was founded on a fresh cause of action. The key principle laid down is that changes in personal circumstances may occur abruptly depending on the facts of each case, and section 14 does not bar a subsequent application supported by a fresh cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second ejectment application be filed on the ground of personal need shortly after the dismissal of the first application?
  • Whether section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance bars a second ejectment application filed on a fresh cause of action?
  • Is any fixed period of limitation or time limit prescribed for a change of circumstances regarding a landlord's personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 221 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque And 4 Others vs Karam Bibi And 4 Other1989 CLC 445 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2448 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Secretary, Establishment Division and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 127 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Muhammad Shabbir1989 MLD 196 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq through his Legal Heirs vs S. Khurshid Alam1989 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-02
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantregistered gift deeddefault in payment of rentbona fide personal requirementlocus standi of tenantSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the original tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on grounds of default and personal bona fide requirement. Although the Rent Controller decided the issue of default against the landlord, he ordered eviction based on personal requirement, which was upheld by the High Court. Upon the tenant's demise, his legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court, contending inter alia that the Rent Controller failed to frame a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, that no notice under section 18 of the Ordinance was served, and that the registered gift deed in favor of the landlord was invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the tenant had expressly admitted his tenancy in the written statement and the landlord had produced a registered gift deed establishing ownership, no preliminary issue on the landlord-tenant relationship was required. The Court further held that a tenant lacks the locus standi to challenge the validity of a registered gift deed executed in favor of the landlord.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant when the tenancy is admitted in the written statement?
  • Does a tenant have the locus standi to question the validity of a registered gift deed through which the landlord acquired the property?
  • Whether the failure to serve a notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 renders an eviction order unsustainable when eviction is not granted on the ground of default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Shah vs Sardar Muhammad Jahangir Khan, Additional District Judge, Multan And Other1989 MLD 987 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Shah vs Sardar Muhammad Jahangir Khan Addu:K.L.R 1989-Civil Cases 41 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and others vs Muhammad Ismail and others1989 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishao vs Secretary, Establishment Division and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 127 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 499 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →