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 Irshad and another vs Akozai and 4 others1989 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court dated 12-1-1987, which had set aside the decisions of revenue authorities and the Secretary Home regarding a property dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the declaratory suit filed by respondent No. 1 under the PATA Regulation of 1975 was barred by limitation, given that the petitioners had held possession of the suit property since 1952 following a pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the suit was barred by time required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, suspended the operation of the High Court's order, and directed that the appeal be heard on an early date. The key principle laid down is that the question of limitation in suits governed by the PATA Regulation warrants a full hearing by the appellate court when conflicting findings have been rendered by subordinate tribunals and the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether a declaratory suit filed under the PATA Regulation of 1975 is barred by limitation?
- Did the High Court act in excess of its jurisdiction by holding the suit to be within time?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the question of limitation requires consideration?
- Muhammad Irshad Ali vs The State1989 MLD 3968 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1989 MLD 685 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1989 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the criminal breach of trust of prize bonds by a bank cashier. The core legal question was whether the evidence sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt for the misappropriation of assets while under his exclusive custody, and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution provided overwhelming evidence that the prize bonds were in the petitioner's exclusive custody during the relevant period. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for the disappearance implausible and noted his failure to report the shortage immediately. The key principles laid down are that where an accused has exclusive custody of property that goes missing, the burden lies on them to provide a reasonable explanation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court generally declines to undertake a reappraisal of evidence when lower courts have reached concurrent findings based on sufficient material, and an accused's subsequent conduct does not necessarily negate guilt if the evidence of misappropriation is otherwise established.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court undertake a reappraisal of evidence when lower courts have reached concurrent findings of guilt?
- Is a bank cashier in exclusive custody of assets liable for their disappearance if no reasonable explanation is provided?
- Does the reporting of a loss by an accused person necessarily negate the evidence of criminal misappropriation?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Superintendent of Police, Mianwali and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 537 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs SH.Sardar AliK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 92 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Sh. Sardar Ali1989 MLD 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 PLC 300 · Labour Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Suleman and another1989 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising out of suits filed by the petitioner for the specific performance of an agreement of sale of agricultural land, which were decreed in his favour on the basis of a special oath. The core legal question concerns the entitlement to costs of the suits where the trial court exercised its discretion not to award costs, and the subsequent failure of the petitioner's appeals and revision petitions before the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference with the concurrent judgments of the subordinate courts regarding the refusal of costs was made out, and accordingly dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that the award of costs is within the discretion of the trial court, and appellate or revisional courts will not lightly interfere with such exercise of discretion unless compelling grounds are shown.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretion of subordinate courts regarding the award of costs?
- Can a party claim costs as a matter of right following a decree based on a special oath?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Shafi1989 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff failed to deposit the full court-fee within the time granted by the trial court. The trial court, noting that the plaintiff had neglected to pay the deficit for over four years despite a prior order, dismissed the suit. The appellate court subsequently allowed the plaintiff's appeal, exercising its discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to permit the deficiency to be made up. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, holding that the appellate court's exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious and thus not subject to interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the plaintiff had already been granted one opportunity to pay the deficit and was not entitled to a second extension. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the question of whether a second enlargement of time for making up a court-fee deficiency is permissible requires further judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a second extension of time to make up a deficiency in court-fee under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the exercise of discretion by an appellate court to allow a deficiency in court-fee to be made up subject to interference by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Fazal Muhammad1989 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of lower courts regarding rival claims of oral gifts concerning a residential property. Three consolidated suits were initially instituted involving claims of ownership by way of oral gift, a claim for recovery of compensation for use and occupation, and a suit for ejectment of a licensee based on an oral gift. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's suit and decreed the suits of the respondents, which decisions were largely upheld in appeals and subsequent regular second appeal and civil revisions. The core legal question concerned the validity of the rival oral gifts and the concurrent factual determinations made by the lower forums. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the valid oral gift in favour of the respondent were unexceptionable, and the petitioner failed to prove his ownership. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the validity of an oral gift?
- Is a licensee liable to pay compensation for use and occupation of the property to the rightful owner?
- Whether an oral gift of immovable property is established when the donor himself corroborates the transaction in favor of the donee?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Fatima Jinna H Medical College And Another1989 MLD 4237 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs District Magistrate1989 P Cr. L J 412 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs CH.Fazal Muhammad Etc.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 110 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs Mst. Hussaina Begum and others1989 SCMR 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent decrees in favour of the respondents granting them a share in their deceased father's inheritance as daughters. The petitioner's defense rested upon an alleged gift made solely in his favour by the father. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of concurrent findings of fact regarding the disputed gift and the scope of interference by the High Court in second appeal on questions of fact and appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings against the petitioner's claim of a gift suffered from no legal or other infirmities and were rightly maintained by the High Court. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift and appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless vitiated by a legal infirmity, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a gift can be set aside in a Regular Second Appeal?
- Are concurrent findings on the appreciation of evidence liable to interference in the absence of a legal infirmity?
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan and 2 others vs Deputy Director, Food, Gujranwala and 9 another1989 SCMR 1777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for special leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioners, employed as Foodgrain Supervisors/Inspectors, faced departmental proceedings and service termination following the discovery of a wheat stock shortage at their centre. After filing departmental appeals which remained undecided for 90 days, the petitioners approached the Punjab Service Tribunal. During the pendency of these appeals, the departmental authorities dismissed the departmental appeals. The petitioners requested the Tribunal to allow them to challenge these subsequent dismissal orders within their existing pending appeals. The Tribunal rejected this request and dismissed the appeals, holding that the departmental dismissal rendered the pending appeals infructuous. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the Tribunal's view appeared to conflict with the precedent established in S.A. Mukarim v. Government of Sind (1988 SCMR 826). The Court determined that the legal contention regarding the maintainability and procedural handling of the pending appeals in light of subsequent departmental orders required further examination.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a departmental appeal during the pendency of an appeal before the Service Tribunal render the pending appeal infructuous?
- Can a petitioner challenge a subsequent departmental appellate order within the scope of an already pending appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan and 128 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Railways and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 199 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Jaffar vs The State and 6 others1989 P Cr. L J 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 428 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1838 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Muhammad Manzoor and others1989 SCMR 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three connected civil petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the ejectment of the petitioners from agricultural land due to default in rent payments. The core legal question was whether the ejectment order passed by the Collector was illegal and without jurisdiction because it was allegedly decided beyond the statutory time limit prescribed by the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to raise the objection regarding the time-barred nature of the proceedings before the lower revenue authorities or the High Court. Consequently, the Court could not conduct a factual inquiry into whether the case was transferred to the Collector on the date alleged by the petitioners. The Court further distinguished the present case from the cited precedent, noting that in the precedent, the objection regarding the time limit had been raised at the initial stage, whereas here, it was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed that every default in rent payment provides a fresh cause of action.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of limitation for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not raised before the lower revenue authorities or the High Court?
- Does every default in the payment of rent by a tenant provide a fresh cause of action for an ejectment suit?
- Can a court conduct a factual inquiry into the timing of the transfer of a case between revenue officers if the issue was not agitated in the lower forums?
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Fazal Muhammad1989 SCMR 1970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of lower courts in three consolidated suits concerning the ownership of a house and claims for compensation and ejectment. The core legal question involved the validity of competing claims of oral gifts asserted by the petitioner and a respondent, alongside issues of compensation for use and occupation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the oral gift in favour of the respondent and the failure of the petitioner to substantiate his claim were well-founded and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a jurisdictional defect or palpable misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact on the validity of an oral gift?
- Is a licensee liable to be ejected upon a valid transfer of the property by way of an oral gift?
- Can a party claim ownership of a property through an alleged oral gift without sufficient corroborative proof?
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Faiz Alam1989 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave arises from a pre-emption suit wherein the vendees challenged the concurrent dismissal of their civil revision by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question examined was whether the lower courts had misread the evidence regarding whether the appellants were residents of the village where the disputed land is situated, thereby entitling them to claim exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were indeed vitiated by a misreading of the cross-examination of the plaintiff and the statement of the appellants' attorney, which clearly established that the appellants were permanent residents of the village in question. The Court further affirmed that despite the relevant pre-emption law becoming ineffective pursuant to the Shariat Appellate Bench's ruling in Said Kamal Shah's case, it continued to apply to pending appeals in accordance with Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with costs and the impugned judgments and decrees were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact based on a misreading of evidence regarding village residency can be set aside by the Supreme Court?
- Does the pre-emption law declared ineffective continue to apply to pending appeals?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of residency for claiming exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950?
- Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1544 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and another vs Chief Secretary to Government of N.-1989 PLC (C.S.) 773 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and 11 others vs Zeal Pak Factory Limited, Hyderabad1989 PLC 295 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1334 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iq Bal vs Muhammad Safeer and others1989 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether bail granted to the accused persons should be cancelled. The Supreme Court held that no useful purpose would be served by cancelling the bail at this stage, particularly as the trial case was already fixed for arguments. Consequently, the petitions for special leave to appeal were dismissed. Additionally, the Court evaluated the explanation provided by the Station House Officer regarding official conduct and determined that no action was required against him. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may decline to interfere with an order granting bail when the trial has progressed to the stage of final arguments, rendering cancellation impractical or unnecessary.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court cancel bail when the case is already fixed for arguments?
- Whether bail granted by the High Court should be interfered with at the final argument stage?
- Muhammad Iobal vs The General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 472 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iobal vs Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore1989 PLC 921 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iobal vs Ch. Fazal Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 3003 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iobal and others vs Hafiz Ghulam Yasin1989 SCMR 1760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan, which dismissed the civil revision of the petitioners and upheld the pre-emption decree granted in favor of the respondent. The core legal question involves the application of the principle of sinker where vendees with pre-emptive rights join strangers in a land purchase, thereby losing their superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly applied the principle of sinker against the petitioners because some of the vendees joined in the sale did not possess pre-emptive rights in the respective khatas, making them strangers and rendering the entire transaction vulnerable to pre-emption. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums, ruling that joining strangers in a joint sale sinks the rights of co-vendees who might otherwise have had a superior right, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does joining strangers in a sale transaction sink the pre-emptive rights of co-vendees?
- Whether the principle of sinker is correctly applied when vendees without pre-emptive rights are included in a land mutation?
- Can co-vendees with superior pre-emption rights be deprived of those rights by associating with non-pre-emptors?
- Muhammad Inayat vs The State1989 MLD 4074 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Inayat vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas vs The Chairman, Area Electricity Board WAPDA, G1989 PLC (C.S.) 244 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas vs Senior Superintendent of Police and another1989 P Cr. L J 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed challenging the refusal of the Station House Officer (respondent No. 2) to register an First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding the alleged wrongful detention and manipulation of arrest records of the petitioner's relatives by the police. The core legal question addressed is whether it is mandatory for an officer in charge of a police station to register an F.I.R. upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, or if they have the discretion to refuse registration on the ground that no offence is made out. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory in nature, placing a strict statutory obligation on police officers to record information relating to cognizable offences without exercising personal discretion or refusing registration on merits prior to investigation. The key principle laid down is that police officers cannot act arbitrarily or refuse to register an F.I.R. for a cognizable offence, as the veracity of the complaint must be determined through subsequent investigation rather than pre-registration scrutiny.
Questions settled- Whether it is mandatory for a police officer to register an F.I.R. upon receiving information of a cognizable offence?
- Can a police officer refuse to register an F.I.R. on the ground that no offence is made out?
- What is the statutory obligation of a police officer under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Ilyas vs Messrs United Carpets Limited, Karachi1989 PLC 583 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas and another vs The Pakistan Water and Power1989 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed against the disposal of service appeals by the Federal Services Tribunal where a difference of opinion between two members led to the matter being referred to a third member as Chairman. The core legal question concerns whether the third member properly and legally disposed of the appeals when agreeing with one member while simultaneously suggesting amendments to the impugned termination orders due to dissatisfaction with their wording. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the submissions regarding the improper disposal of appeals without sufficient reasoning and potential contradiction carried force. The key principle laid down is that a member acting as a referee in a tribunal must dispose of matters with clear reasoning and consistent conclusions in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Services Tribunal is properly disposed of when a referee member agrees with one view while suggesting amendments to the impugned order?
- Does a difference of opinion among tribunal members require clear and reasoned conclusions when referred to a third member?
- Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 226 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Illyas vs Muhammad Siddique and others1989 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Regular Second Appeal concerning the validity of a consent decree. The core legal question was whether a consent decree passed against the petitioner was voidable on the grounds that he was a minor at the time of the suit's institution and was not represented by a guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because, even if the petitioner were a minor at the institution of the suit, he had attained the age of majority by the time the compromise was reached and the consent decree was passed. Furthermore, the petitioner was represented by his own counsel during the compromise proceedings, and he had signed the written statement in the original suit without raising the issue of minority. The Court affirmed that a consent decree is not invalid when the party, though potentially a minor at the suit's inception, is a major and legally represented at the time the decree is actually passed.
Questions settled- Is a consent decree invalid if a party was a minor at the time of the suit's institution but had attained the age of majority when the decree was passed?
- Does the failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor defendant invalidate a consent decree if the defendant was a major at the time of the compromise?
- Muhammad Iftikhar vs The State1989 MLD 750 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iftikhar Hussain vs National Industrial Cooperative1989 PLC 626 · Labour Court · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a shop (Shop No. 5 in Property No. H/1190, Akbari Mandi, Lahore) under settlement laws. The appellant, a local occupant and old tenant of the shop, applied for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had initially recommended placing the shop on the auction list as an untransferred unit, but subsequent settlement proceedings failed to evaluate the appellant's entitlement or the shop's status as an independent unit, ultimately rejecting his remedies for lack of limitation and locus standi. The Supreme Court observed that settlement authorities and the High Court completely overlooked the critical fact that the shop had not been transferred to anyone else and remained available. The Court held that in the absence of any competing applicant with a superior right, the local occupant in possession could not be denied transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The appeal was accepted, ordering the property transferred to the appellant at the prescribed price.
Questions settled- Whether a local occupant in possession of an untransferred evacuee property is entitled to its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in the absence of any applicant with a superior right?
- Does the failure of settlement authorities to consider an occupant's possession and the availability of an independent unit vitiate their orders denying transfer?
- Can an occupant be denied locus standi to seek transfer of a settlement property when no prior transfer of that unit has been lawfully made to any other party?
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Shabbir Hussain1989 MLD 1604 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 429 · Labour Court · 1988-01-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 164 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Zahoor Ahmad1989 CLC 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 3630 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Revenue Cases 145 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs The Province of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding the refusal of proprietary rights over State land. The petitioner, an allottee, contended that he had satisfied the necessary conditions for the grant of proprietary rights and sought a mandatory injunction against the respondents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to proprietary rights under the notification dated 3-9-1979, given that the land in question had been reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees under a permanent scheme. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the notification specifically excluded lands reserved for permanent schemes from the grant of proprietary rights. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's factual determination that the land was indeed reserved for such a scheme, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that where land is reserved for a permanent scheme, it falls outside the scope of notifications granting proprietary rights to general allottees.
Questions settled- Does a notification granting proprietary rights to allottees of State land apply to land reserved for permanent schemes?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land reservation status?
- Are lands reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees considered part of a permanent scheme for the purpose of excluding them from proprietary rights grants?
- Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Din And Other1989 MLD 964 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore1989 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The core matter involves the denial of proprietary rights to land originally allotted to the petitioner under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in 1956, which was subsequently resumed in 1965 because it fell within the prohibited belt of a first class municipal committee. Although the prohibited zone was temporarily reduced in 1972 allowing the petitioner to apply for conversion of his lease, the municipal committee was upgraded to a corporation in June 1975, extending the prohibited zone back to 10 miles before the petitioner's pending application was decided, leading to its rejection by the revenue authorities. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner lost his status as an allottee in 1965 when the land was resumed and the transaction became closed, and that the authorities were legally competent to alter the limits of prohibited zones. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an allottee retain a right to proprietary rights under the Ejected Tenants Scheme after the land is lawfully resumed due to falling within a prohibited zone?
- Can the alteration of municipal limits and prohibited zones by the competent authorities defeat a pending application for conversion of a lease?
- Does the delay in disposal of an application by revenue staff create a vested legal right in favor of an applicant against subsequent statutory or administrative changes?
- Muhammad Hussain vs Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Rawalpindi and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 175 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Ahmed Din and others1989 SCMR 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil pre-emption suit wherein the petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment setting aside the first appellate court's decision and restoring the trial court's judgment in favour of respondent No. 1, a rival pre-emptor. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency and appreciation of evidence regarding the proof of relationship between the vendor and the pre-emptor. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court committed a material misdirection by rejecting witnesses on the basis of their social status—such as being a beggar or a labourer—rather than evaluating the quality and special knowledge of their testimony. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed no error of law or fact in re-appraising the evidence and restoring the trial court's finding. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that oral testimony regarding family relationship given by a person possessing special knowledge of the pedigree should be weighed on its intrinsic quality rather than the socioeconomic status of the witness, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a court reject the testimony of a witness regarding family relationship solely on the ground of his occupational status or lack of social standing?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact by a first appellate court if the appellate court's decision is based on a misdirection and ignores material aspects of evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of a vendor's testimony regarding his relationship with a pre-emptor claiming to be a co-heir?
- Muhammad Hussain Tahir vs Ashfaq Hussain and another1989 SCMR 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Sind High Court which dismissed an appeal concerning execution proceedings of an eviction order. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner, who intervened at the execution stage alleging he was the true tenant and that the eviction proceedings were collusive, established his tenancy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent evidence such as rent receipts or independent affidavits to substantiate his claim of tenancy, and that the documents produced merely indicated occupation rather than tenancy. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that an application filed at a belated execution stage without proof of tenancy is merely intended to defeat the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Whether an intervening party can challenge an eviction order at the execution stage without proving regular tenancy?
- Do utility bills and identity cards alone establish tenancy for the purpose of recalling an eviction order?
- Can an application filed at the execution stage to recall an eviction order be dismissed as collusive when no rent receipts are produced?
- Muhammad Hussain Shah vs Rashid Bibi and others1989 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed a decree for possession granted in favor of the respondents. The petitioner sought to raise several contentions before the Supreme Court, including the failure of the trial court to frame necessary issues, the non-joinder of the Province of Punjab as a necessary party, the applicability of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the alleged misreading of documentary evidence by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the petition and observed that none of these arguments had been raised before the High Court during the revision proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish a case on merits. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, reaffirming the principle that appellate courts generally will not entertain new arguments or grounds not raised before the lower forums, especially when the petitioner lacks a substantive case on the merits.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise new legal arguments or grounds in a petition for leave to appeal that were not presented before the High Court?
- Does the failure to raise specific legal contentions before the High Court preclude their consideration in a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Hussain Shah and others vs Sajjad Hussain and another1989 SCMR 1752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 5-2-1989. The petitioners sought to challenge the previous decision by relying on the Lahore High Court judgment in Ghulam Hussain and others v. Khan Muhammad and others (PLD 1954 Lah. 655), arguing that the strict requirements of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were not satisfied, thereby rendering the appeal against the defect maintainable. The Supreme Court, in its review jurisdiction, examined the contentions raised by the petitioners. The Court held that the arguments presented had already been adequately considered and addressed in paragraphs 8 and 13 of the original judgment sought to be reviewed. Finding that no valid grounds for review were established, the Court dismissed the petitions. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue matters that have already been adjudicated and addressed in the original decision, particularly when the legal precedents relied upon were previously noted and evaluated by the Court.
Questions settled- Does a review petition lie when the grounds raised were already considered and addressed in the original judgment?
- Are the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 satisfied when a court has already evaluated the relevant legal precedents in its judgment?
- Muhammad Hussain Qadri vs Mst. Razia Begum1989 MLD 905 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain And Others vs The State1989 MLD 785 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs Muhammad Khan1989 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a pre-emption suit where the appellants claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on their status as collaterals of the vendor, Rahmat, a descendant of Fazal Din. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, relying solely on a pedigree-table they produced. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, finding no evidence to connect the pedigree-table to the appellants. The Lahore High Court affirmed this dismissal in second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants had sufficiently established their superior right of pre-emption through the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate courts were justified. The Court emphasized that the mere production of a document without testimony linking it to the parties involved is insufficient to prove a claim. The key principle laid down is that a party asserting a right must provide evidence that specifically connects the documentary proof to their own family lineage to satisfy the burden of proof in pre-emption cases.
Questions settled- Is the mere production of a pedigree-table sufficient to establish a relationship for a pre-emption claim without evidence connecting it to the claimants?
- Can a court rely on a document in evidence if there is no testimony linking that document to the parties asserting the claim?
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs Miran Bakhsh and others1989 SCMR 1064 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the findings of the District Judge in a pre-emption suit. The respondents had originally filed a suit asserting that a transaction labeled as a gift was, in reality, a sale subject to pre-emption. While the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, the District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, concluding the transaction was a genuine gift. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, re-examined the evidence, set aside the District Judge's finding, and restored the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the High Court was competent to interfere with the District Judge's finding of fact regarding the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court was justified in its interference. The Court reasoned that the District Judge had failed to consider critical evidence—specifically, the lack of connection between the donor and the petitioners, the donor's large family, and the donor's small landholding—which were essential to determining the true nature of the transaction.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a District Judge in revisional jurisdiction when critical evidence has been overlooked?
- Is a transaction labeled as a gift subject to pre-emption if it is proven to be a sale?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to consider material circumstances regarding the parties' relationship and financial status justify revisional interference?
- Muhammad Hussain and others vs Khuda Bakhsh1989 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit concerning agricultural land, which was dismissed by the trial court and whose decrees were successively maintained by the Additional District Judge in first appeal and the High Court in second appeal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could successfully challenge longstanding revenue record entries dating back to 1907 on the basis of alleged fraud and misrepresentation when the original record had been destroyed. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed, reasoning that a presumption of truth is attached to revenue records, which becomes significantly strengthened when entries remain unchallenged for over half a century. The key principle laid down is that the heavy onus to rebut the strong presumption of truth attached to long-standing revenue entries rests upon the party alleging fraud, and mere assertions without substantiating evidence are insufficient to dislodge such entries.
Questions settled- Whether a presumption of truth is attached to revenue record entries that remain unchallenged for more than half a century?
- How is the onus discharged when challenging long-standing revenue entries on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation?
- Does the destruction of the original revenue record automatically invalidate entries maintained consistently over decades?
- Muhammad Hussain And 4 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2943 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hayat Khan and another vs The Settlement Commissioner1989 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their second constitutional petition regarding the allotment of a Khasra number. Their first constitutional petition was dismissed on 26 March 1983, against which no further appeal or challenge was pursued. Instead, the petitioners filed a second constitutional petition, which the High Court dismissed in limine on the grounds of laches, discretionary nature of constitutional jurisdiction, and the considerable delay of over ten years in challenging the impugned order dated 5 September 1972, as well as the finality attached to the prior dismissal. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and held that the view taken by the High Court was unexceptionable, noting there was no legal justification for reopening the matter when the petitioners had previously acquiesced in the earlier decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that successive constitutional petitions on the same subject are barred, particularly where the prior dismissal is accepted and the subsequent petition suffers from gross laches.
Questions settled- Whether a second constitutional petition is maintainable on the same subject-matter after the dismissal of the first constitutional petition has attained finality?
- Can the High Court refuse to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of laches and delay in challenging an administrative order?
- Is a delay of ten years in challenging an allotment order passed by the Settlement Department sufficient ground to decline relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Hassan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2461 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassan vs Muhammad Asghar and 6 others1989 SCMR 1155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted of the charges against them. The respondents were originally tried for offences under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the trial court had convicted them, but the High Court acquitted them by giving them the benefit of the doubt due to discrepancies in recovery evidence, interested ocular testimony in conflict with medical evidence, unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses, and weak motive evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence resulting in acquittal warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the arguments advanced by the petitioner lacked substance in light of the High Court's findings and the record, making it an unfit case for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts will not lightly interfere with orders of acquittal based on a plausible appraisal of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court based on a reappraisal of evidence?
- Does discrepancy in the dates of recoveries as stated by attesting witnesses and police officers weaken the prosecution case?
- Whether interested ocular testimony in conflict with medical evidence can form the basis of a conviction?
- Muhammad Hassan vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan ,1989 PLC 601 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassan and others vs Mst. Fatima (Widow) and others1989 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a suit for declaration regarding inheritance and the validity of a gift of land, where the plaintiffs' regular second appeal and prior lower court suits were dismissed. The core legal question concerns the validity of a gift executed by a son on the strength of a power of attorney given by his father, where the petitioners claimed the father had predeceased the gift based on a presumption of death having not been heard of for seven years. The Supreme Court held that the refusal of the High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact was proper, as there was no concrete material establishing the exact date of death, and further noted that even if the father had predeceased the gift, the son as the sole successor could lawfully dispose of the property in favor of his wife. The key principle laid down is that presumptions regarding the date of death without concrete evidence cannot upset concurrent factual findings, and a sole heir is competent to gift inherited property.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the validity of a gift can be interfered with in regular second appeal without concrete material?
- Can a presumption of death under the-not-heard-of rule establish the precise date of death for invalidating a transaction without concrete evidence?
- Whether a sole successor inheriting property is legally competent to gift the same to his wife?
- Muhammad Hassan and another vs Ghulam Shah and another1989 SCMR 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal regarding the validity of certain exchange deeds. The petitioners claimed they had acquired land from the deceased owner, Mst. Mastooran, in exchange for two houses. The respondents, including the deceased's husband and daughter, successfully challenged the exchange in the trial court and the first appellate court, alleging that the deeds were procured through fraud and misrepresentation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the invalidity of the exchange deeds were sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact—that the deeds were procured by undue influence—were supported by the record and that the petitioners' allegations of misreading of evidence were unsubstantiated. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions but directed that if the respondents remained in possession of the petitioners' houses, they must surrender such possession to the petitioners, ensuring equitable restitution.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of an exchange deed?
- Is a party entitled to the restitution of property exchanged under a deed subsequently declared void due to undue influence?
- Muhammad Hashim Zamani vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1492 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Haroon vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1989 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Haroon Rehmani vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs The State1989 MLD 834 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs S.D. Leghari And 4 Other1989 MLD 427 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Refu and others1989 SCMR 1705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition concerning a consolidation dispute. The petitioner challenged the restoration of specific land to the respondent, arguing that the land was incorrectly classified as urban and that the petitioner had planted a garden on the property, which the Board of Revenue had allegedly overlooked. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the Board of Revenue's decision to restore the land to the respondent, who had owned and possessed it prior to consolidation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was unexceptionable. It reasoned that the land's urban status was irrelevant given the respondent's prior ownership and possession, and that the petitioner's claim regarding the garden was not raised before the Board of Revenue. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a plea not raised before the lower forum cannot be entertained for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction, particularly when it requires factual inquiry. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a new plea in a writ petition that was not urged before the lower forum?
- Does the urban or rural classification of land affect the restoration of land in consolidation proceedings where prior ownership is established?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to entertain a plea requiring factual inquiry that was not presented to the Board of Revenue?
- Muhammad Hanif vs Nathoo And Other1989 MLD 500 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Irshad1989 P Cr. L J 1332 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Mst: Zakia And Other1989 MLD 5005 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Incharge Police Post Sheikhan And Another1989 MLD 696 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police and another1989 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service appeal filed by a police official, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.), challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding departmental disciplinary action. The appellant was punished with the permanent forfeiture of one year of approved service for grave misconduct after failing to take action against an alleged kidnapper brought to him by the public. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to relief on the ground of discriminatory treatment, as another A.S.I. named in the same show-cause notice was exonerated. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that each disciplinary case must be decided on its own merits. The Court found that the appellant’s service record, which contained eight adverse entries, justified the punishment imposed, and that the appellant had admitted to the incident. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of parity or equal treatment does not apply automatically in disciplinary proceedings where the individual service records and merits of the cases differ significantly.
Questions settled- Can a public servant claim parity in punishment based on the exoneration of a co-accused in the same disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the doctrine of equal treatment apply to disciplinary actions where individual service records differ?
- Is a service tribunal's decision regarding departmental punishment subject to interference if the official has a poor service record?
- Muhammad Hanif vs Amir Muhammad Baloch and 2 others1989 PLC 700 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif Another vs Mst. Sardaran1989 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif and others vs The State1989 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the convictions of four individuals for murder and murderous assault under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the determination of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically whether the fatal act could be attributed to the group when the motive was allegedly directed at a different individual, and whether the ocular testimony was consistent with medical evidence and prior statements. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the convictions and sentences were decided in accordance with established principles for the dispensation of criminal justice, particularly regarding the application of common intention and vicarious liability in cases where the prosecution's narrative regarding the primary target and the nature of injuries was challenged. The Court dismissed the petition regarding the acquitted co-accused but admitted the petitions for the convicted parties to review the propriety of their convictions and sentences in light of the evidentiary record.
Questions settled- Can vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be established when the motive for the crime is directed at a person other than the deceased?
- Does the infliction of a single fatal blow by one accused preclude the application of vicarious liability to co-accused in a murder trial?
- Is the propriety of a criminal conviction and sentence subject to review when ocular testimony conflicts with medical evidence and prior dying declarations?
- Muhammad Hanif and others vs Azizurrahman and others1989 P Cr. L J 549 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 13 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2710 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hameed Darwesh vs The Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 21989 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a Senior Engineer against the Federal Service Tribunal's order upholding his removal from service by WAPDA. The petitioner, initially proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975, had his inquiry transferred to and completed under the new Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1978, resulting in his removal. The core legal question was whether pending disciplinary proceedings must continue under superseded procedural rules, whether a right to a second show-cause notice constitutes a vested right, and whether the omission of such notice or the handling of the inquiry by a single competent authority vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that procedural rules govern pending proceedings unless a vested right is affected, that there is no vested right in a second show-cause notice, and that without proof of actual prejudice, the omission of such notice does not invalidate the penalty. The petition was dismissed as no question of law of public importance arose.
Questions settled- Whether pending disciplinary proceedings are governed by new procedural rules introduced during their pendency?
- Does a government servant have a vested right in a second show-cause notice under superseded disciplinary rules?
- Whether the absence of a second show-cause notice vitiates disciplinary proceedings in the absence of actual prejudice?
- Muhammad Habib vs Messrs Jabees Limited, Karachi1989 PLC 579 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Habib And Others vs Messrs National Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ha$San Khan vs Muhammad Ishaq Khan And 3 Other1989 CLC 924 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Gulzar vs Mst. Mariam and another1989 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Gul Zaman, Ex-Editor of Debates, Assembly Secretariat1989 PLC (C.S.) 25 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil vs The State1989 MLD 4459 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil vs The State1989 SCMR 1712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction of the respondent under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged that following an exchange of abuses and a dispute over a land pre-emption suit, the respondent fired a gun from his roof, killing two persons and injuring a third. The respondent admitted to the firing but raised a plea of private defense, claiming the deceased and injured persons had trespassed into his house to abduct his daughter. The trial court and the High Court both rejected the defense version and accepted the ocular testimony presented by the prosecution. Upon evaluation of the petitions filed by both the convict and the complainant, the Supreme Court considered that the reasons provided by the High Court for rejecting the defense version and commuting the death sentence required closer examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted in both petitions to examine these legal and factual aspects.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the plea of private defense be accepted when supported by the testimony of the accused person's daughter and the surrounding circumstances?
- Whether the evidence of interested and chance witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without corroboration?
- Muhammad Fazil vs Muhammad Sharafuddin and 10 others1989 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant in a Cantonment area against the dismissal of his Constitutional petition by the High Court, which upheld his eviction order on the ground of personal requirement by the landlord. The petitioner and his brother Sadiq occupied twin shops that were proceeded against for eviction. While the petitioner's litigation underwent remands and a second round of dismissal, the High Court had factored in the finality of an ejectment order against Sadiq in shop No. 616, reasoning that conflicting outcomes would make execution impossible. The core legal question concerned whether the finality of the eviction order against the co-occupant was correctly ascertained and how it impacted the petitioner's case. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted because the factual premise regarding the finality of Sadiq's eviction was contested, and the success of Sadiq in his separate challenge would create a reciprocal reverse situation. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal is warranted to prevent conflicting judicial outcomes in interconnected eviction proceedings concerning amalgamated properties.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when interconnected eviction proceedings risk producing conflicting outcomes?
- Does the finality of an ejectment order against a co-occupant justify the dismissal of a tenant's constitutional petition regarding an amalgamated property?
- Muhammad Fazil Kiani vs Raja Shahbaz Khan1989 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a landlord in a Cantonment area against the High Court's judgment setting aside the eviction of the tenant, which had been ordered on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in requiring the landlord to establish his personal requirement as "indispensable," and whether the landlord's offer of a security undertaking to shift into the premises demonstrates bona fides. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's standard of "indispensable" requirement went beyond the legal requirement, and accepted the landlord's offer of a written security undertaking to occupy the premises within the statutory period as prima facie evidence of bona fides. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to the petitioner submitting the written undertaking.
Questions settled- Does requiring a landlord to establish personal requirement as indispensable exceed the legal requirement for eviction?
- Can a landlord's offer of a security undertaking to occupy the premises establish bona fides in an ejectment matter?
- Muhammad Fazil and others vs A.C., Ferozewala and others1989 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court in an election matter concerning the transfer and correction of an entry in the Electoral Roll. The core legal question revolved around whether the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked to set aside a transfer of vote and thereby restore an incorrect or wrong entry in the Electoral Roll. The Supreme Court held that the discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in aid of injustice or to restore an incorrect entry. The Court affirmed the findings that the application in question was competently made for the transfer of a vote under section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act rather than for correction under sections 10 or 12, and dismissed the petition in limine. The key principle laid down is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction will be withheld by courts if granting relief would result in the restoration of a factual error or the perpetration of an injustice.
Questions settled- Whether the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to restore an incorrect entry in an electoral roll?
- Can an application for the transfer of a vote from one electoral unit to another be treated as an application for the correction of an electoral roll under the Electoral Rolls Act?
- Is there any time limit prescribed for filing an application for the transfer of a vote under section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act 1974?