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 Fayyaz vs Central Excise Authorities1989 CLC 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Faryad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 214 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1866 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq vs Mst. Saadia Akhtar And Another1989 MLD 2471 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq Qureshi vs Government of Punjab and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 872 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farid Khan vs The Civil Judge I, Abbottabad And 3 Other1989 CLC 1630 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the orders passed by the lower courts regarding the execution of a money decree for dower and maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a money decree passed under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 can only be executed as arrears of land revenue or if the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked. The Peshawar High Court held that the recovery of a decretal amount as arrears of land revenue under subsection (3) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is discretionary and not mandatory; if the executing court refrains from issuing such a direction, it may adopt the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court laid down the principle that the execution of family court money decrees is not exclusively restricted to land revenue recovery, and constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to aid attempts by a judgment-debtor to deprive a decree-holder of the fruits of litigation.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of a decretal amount as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is mandatory or discretionary for the executing court?
- Can an executing court adopt the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for executing a money decree passed by a family court?
- Does section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 bar the application of all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in execution proceedings before a Family Court?
- Muhammad Fareedun vs The State1989 SCMR 992(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad, which refused leave to appeal against the Sessions Judge's rejection of the petitioner's application in the second round of litigation. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value of statements not recorded under oath and whether witnesses whose statements were recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or otherwise not on oath can be proceeded against for perjury. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit because none of the witnesses gave statements in Court under oath, notably those of Bara Khan and Mst. Samina which were recorded under section 164 or without solemn affirmation, meaning they cannot be prosecuted for perjury. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can witnesses whose statements are recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without oath be proceeded against for perjury?
- What is the evidentiary status of witness statements not given under oath in court?
- Muhammad Essa vs Mst. Haseena Begum through Legal Heirs1989 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pending civil suit where the petitioner sought to amend his plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, claiming ownership of a plot, had initially sued the respondents' predecessor-in-interest for possession of a portion of the property occupied as a licensee. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was allegedly ousted from the remaining portion of the property, prompting him to seek an amendment to claim possession of the entire property, revalue the suit, and claim mesne profits for shops let out by the respondents. The High Court rejected the amendment on the grounds that it would change the nature of the suit and that the tenants occupying the shops were not impleaded. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the rejection, holding that while physical enlargement of the subject-matter does not necessarily alter the nature of a suit based on ouster, the failure to implead the necessary parties (the tenants in occupation of the shops) was fatal to the amendment request. Leave to appeal was refused, with liberty granted to seek a lawful amendment impleading all necessary parties.
Questions settled- Does the physical enlargement of the subject-matter of a suit due to subsequent dispossession alter the fundamental nature of a suit based on ouster?
- Can an amendment to a plaint seeking possession and mesne profits of leased shops be allowed without impleading the tenants in occupation?
- Is an oral request to delete certain portions of a proposed amendment sufficient to overcome objections of non-joinder of necessary parties without a formal written application?
- Muhammad Easah vs Amir EtcK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 190 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Easah vs Amir and others1989 P Cr. L J 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, Division, Sargodha1989 MLD 980 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Settlement Commissioner Sargodha DivisionK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 62 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Nizam Ud Din And Other1989 MLD 237 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Nazir Ahmad And Other1989 MLD 3449 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Muhammad Hanif1989 CLC 177 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Mst.Naziran and others1989 SCMR 2037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a dispute over the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, Muhammad Din, sought a review of the Supreme Court's previous finding that he had failed to establish the filing of an NCH Form under Settlement Scheme No. 1, which would have entitled him to the transfer of the upper floor of the subject property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim entitlement to the entire upper floor in preference to the respondents, who were occupants and applicants under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, despite the absence of the original NCH Form or a duplicate copy in the record. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that without the NCH Form, it was impossible to ascertain the specific property the petitioner sought to acquire. The Court established the principle that in the absence of evidence affirmatively showing an applicant sought specific property, proceedings cannot be deemed 'pending' under the relevant settlement scheme, and transfer rights cannot be asserted over portions not in the applicant's occupation.
Questions settled- Can an applicant claim entitlement to property under Settlement Scheme No. 1 without producing the NCH Form or a duplicate copy to prove the scope of their application?
- Does the mere submission of an NCH Form create a pending proceeding for property not in the applicant's occupation?
- Is a finding regarding the non-filing of an NCH Form reviewable when the petitioner cannot produce evidence of the specific property claimed?
- Muhammad Din vs Fateh Muhammad And 4 Other1989 MLD 162 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Addl. Commissioner Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Additional Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Abdul RashsidK.L.R.1989 Revenue Cases 72 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din vs Abdul Rashid1989 MLD 394 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din Through His Legal Heirs vs Taj Muhammad1989 MLD 4319 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Din and 6 others vs Allah Lok and 3 others1989 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the cancellation of a temporary land allotment originally granted to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee for maintenance purposes. The petitioners had sought to cancel the temporary allotment, arguing the allottee had already received permanent land elsewhere. The Chief Settlement Commissioner initially cancelled the allotment and transferred the land to the petitioners. However, the High Court set aside this order, finding that the land had been sold by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in 1960, thereby excluding it from the compensation pool. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner retained jurisdiction to cancel and re-allot land that had already been excluded from the compensation pool. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that once land is excluded from the compensation pool, the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacks the jurisdiction to transfer it. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, confirming that the property was not available for allotment to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to cancel and re-allot land that has been excluded from the compensation pool?
- Does the sale of land by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs effectively remove that land from the compensation pool?
- Can land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance purposes be transferred to third parties after it has been excluded from the compensation pool?
- Muhammad Daud vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bux vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 193 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota vs The State1989 MLD 4671 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 482 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 723 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota vs Mst. Amanat Bibi1989 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision arising from a suit for the recovery of money. The respondent, the ex-wife of the petitioner, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 18,300 representing the price of her goods and property left in the house of the petitioner following her divorce. The trial court decreed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4,000, which the District Judge enhanced to Rs. 14,600 on appeal, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. The core legal question was whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the contention that the claim involved dower falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Family Court. The Supreme Court held that the civil court had proper jurisdiction because the suit was strictly for the recovery of the price of the respondent's personal property rather than a claim for dower. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding the price of the goods warrant no interference.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the recovery of personal property left in a former husband's house after divorce?
- Whether a claim for the price of goods left behind constitutes a claim for dower falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Family Court?
- Can findings of fact regarding the price of goods be interfered with in civil revision or leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Boota Azeemi vs Director, Local Government and Rural1989 PLC (C.S.) 87 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Boota and others vs Inayatullah and others1989 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning the possession of land and the validity of a mutation. The respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Sher Muhammad, had challenged a mutation of sale, alleging it was without consideration and ineffective against his rights. The trial court decreed the suit in his favor, a decision upheld by the appellate court and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the respondents' second suit, filed in forma pauperis after an earlier similar application was rejected for non-payment of court fees, was legally barred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court, however, declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts, which established that no sale had actually occurred and no consideration was paid. Consequently, the Court held that the technical objection regarding the maintainability of the second suit did not warrant disturbing the concurrent factual findings, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a court in civil revision interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of sale consideration?
- Does the rejection of an application to sue in forma pauperis bar a subsequent suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Muhammad Boota And 2 Others vs The S.C.O. Irrigation Circle1989 CLC 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bohra, and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bohra and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bilal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2444 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1636 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Shaukat Ali1989 MLD 349 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Saudagar Khan1989 MLD 17 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Muhammad Shafi and another1989 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously declined to restore a petition and refused to condone the delay in filing. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition before it was also barred by a period of six days. The Court directed the petitioner's counsel to provide a satisfactory explanation or show sufficient cause for the delay to justify condonation. The counsel failed to provide any satisfactory explanation or demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of a valid explanation for the delay, the petition could not be entertained. The Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was time-barred. This judgment reinforces the principle that the condonation of delay is not a matter of course and requires the petitioner to demonstrate sufficient cause for the failure to file within the prescribed limitation period, failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide sufficient cause for a delay in filing a petition warrant its dismissal?
- Is the condonation of delay in filing a petition a matter of right or discretion?
- Muhammad Bashir vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a writ petition dismissed by the Lahore High Court regarding the entitlement of a reinstated workman to back benefits. The petitioner, a Boiler Engineer, was dismissed from service and subsequently reinstated by the Punjab Labour Court with full back benefits under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On appeal by the management, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the reinstatement but modified the order to exclude back benefits. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against this exclusion. The core legal question raised before the Supreme Court is whether back benefits can be withheld from a workman whose termination is found to be illegal, in the absence of proof that he was gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service. Holding that the plea raises a question of general public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can back benefits be withheld from an illegally terminated workman without proof that he was engaged in gainful employment during the period he was out of service?
- Muhammad Bashir vs Bagga alias Sardar Khan1989 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a vendee's petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption matter. The core legal question revolves around whether a pre-emptor, who is the real brother of the vendor, possesses a superior right of pre-emption compared to the petitioner-vendee, who is a real nephew. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a real brother is higher in the order of succession than a real nephew under the applicable statutory provisions. Consequently, the petition was found to be without substance, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the right of pre-emption under the relevant statute is determined strictly according to the order of succession, wherein a brother holds a superior position to a nephew.
Questions settled- Does a real brother of the vendor have a superior right of pre-emption compared to a real nephew?
- Is a real brother higher in the order of succession than a real nephew under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Muhammad Bashir vs Additional District Judge, Lahore And Other1989 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir and 6 others vs Abdul Razzaq and 6 others1989 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which decreed a suit for possession of the suit-property in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. The property in question was originally owned by the plaintiffs' predecessor, mortgaged to a non-Muslim evacuee in 1932, and later redeemed through an order of the Custodian Evacuee Property in 1954 subject to payment for the cost of any superstructure. Subsequently, the settlement authorities transferred portions of the property, leading to competing claims between the occupant-allottees and the original owners. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for possession, and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The Supreme Court considered whether the transfer in favour of the respondents was a nullity and whether possession could be sought without determining the superstructure's value. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian's order established the plaintiffs' title and the petitioners lacked locus standi to make the plaintiffs' title conditional, as the superstructure's value was never determined or defaulted upon. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an owner-mortgagor is entitled to possession of redeemed evacuee property when the value of the superstructure has not been determined by the Custodian?
- Does an occupant-allottee have the locus standi to challenge the title of the owner-mortgagor whose property was redeemed by a competent authority?
- Can a civil suit for possession succeed when the plaintiff's title is established through a lawful redemption order of the Custodian Evacuee Property?
- Muhammad Bashir and 3 others vs Executive Engineer, Khairwala1989 PLC 349 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir alias Bashir Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 459 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashi vs The State And Another1989 MLD 2865 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1989 MLD 4376 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs Station House Officer1989 P Cr. L J 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs Muhammad Waryam and 2 others1989 SCMR 1157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that altered the respondents' convictions from Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing their sentences from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The respondents were convicted for the murder of Wali Muhammad, involving injuries caused by blunt weapons, including the blunt side of a hatchet. The High Court reasoned that because the respondents used the blunt side of the hatchet, they lacked the specific intent to cause death, thereby bringing the offence under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argues that the nature of the injuries, specifically those to the head, does not justify this reduction in conviction. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing, granted leave to appeal, and ordered that if the respondents have not yet completed their sentences, they shall remain in custody pending the disposal of the appeal, or if released, they must provide bail to ensure their presence.
Questions settled- Whether the use of the blunt side of a hatchet in a fatal assault negates the intent to cause death under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the infliction of multiple head injuries with a blunt weapon warrant a conviction under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Muhammad Bakhsh vs Mst. Iqbal Begum And 6 Others1989M L D 313 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh Siddique vs Superintending Engineer, Mesco1989 PLC 947 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh and others vs The State1989 SCMR 1473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and sentences of the petitioners for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners were initially convicted by a trial Magistrate, and their subsequent appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners raised two primary contentions: first, that there was an unreasonable delay of one year in the announcement of the High Court judgment after the conclusion of arguments; and second, that the trial court had erred in its assessment of the case following a remand order that had previously resulted in the acquittal of several co-accused. The Supreme Court held that while judgments should be announced within a reasonable period, the delay did not vitiate the conviction as the High Court had duly considered the evidence. Regarding the second contention, the Court found that the issue was not raised before the High Court and that the trial Magistrate was entitled to independently appraise the evidence upon remand. Finding no question of law of public importance, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a delay in the announcement of a judgment after the conclusion of arguments automatically vitiate a conviction?
- Is an appellate court obliged to consider a legal argument that was not raised before the lower court?
- Can a trial court, upon remand, reach a conclusion contrary to a previous judgment that was set aside by an appellate court?
- Muhammad Bakhsh and others vs Muhammad Miskeen1989 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their revision petition and confirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts against them. The dispute arose over a plot of land allegedly encroached upon by the respondent, a contiguous owner. The petitioners originally filed a suit for possession, which went through various stages of appeals, remands, and revisions. The lower appellate court and the High Court ultimately found that the respondent was the owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of a valid purchase and continuous possession, and that the petitioners failed to prove their possession within the statutory period of twelve years. The Supreme Court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. Holding that the findings were based on a thorough adjudication of facts and supported by evidence, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that concurrent findings of fact on possession and ownership will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or contrary to law.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and ownership can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a plaintiff required to prove possession of the disputed land within twelve years of filing the suit for possession?
- Does a continuous entry in the Khasra Girdawari suffice to prove long-standing physical possession?
- Muhammad Badar Ul Munir vs Chairman, Arbitration Council and 21989 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning family and custody disputes. During the proceedings, the parties presented a memorandum of agreement reflecting a comprehensive out-of-court settlement addressing child custody, maintenance claims, dower amounts, return of dowry, dissolution of marriage via Talaq-e-Mubarat, withdrawal of pending criminal proceedings, and related matters. The core legal question addressed is whether a pending civil petition and underlying family disputes can be disposed of in terms of a mutually agreed compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the agreement is genuine, entered into without coercion, and lawful, and consequently converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it in terms of the agreed compromise. The key principle laid down is that the court may dispose of matters in accordance with lawful compromises reached freely between parties in family and civil disputes.
Questions settled- Can a civil petition for leave to appeal be disposed of in terms of a compromise agreement reached between the parties?
- Whether an agreement involving child custody, maintenance waiver, and divorce can be acted upon by the court when entered into without coercion?
- Muhammad Badar Ul Muneer vs Chairman, Union Councils And Other1989 CLC 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azim vs Mst.Zubaida1989 MLD 4618 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azim Malik vs The Government of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 2 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to extradition proceedings initiated against a fugitive offender. The petitioner, the brother of the fugitive, sought to set aside a warrant of custody and removal issued by the Federal Government. The core legal question was whether the warrant was legally valid when it cited a statutory provision (Section 952 of the U.S. Code) that differed from the offense for which the fugitive was charged, requisitioned, and inquired into by the Magistrate (Section 963 of the U.S. Code). The Supreme Court held that the warrant was without lawful authority and of no legal effect because it failed to correspond to the requisition, the charge, or the inquiry report. The Court emphasized that such discrepancies are fatal to the validity of extradition proceedings, particularly given the treaty obligation that a surrendered person cannot be tried for offenses other than those for which extradition was granted. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, declared the warrant void, and directed that the inquiry report remain pending for the Federal Government to pass a lawful order.
Questions settled- Does an extradition warrant remain valid if it cites an offense different from the one for which the fugitive was requisitioned and inquired into?
- What is the effect of a discrepancy between an extradition inquiry report and the final warrant of custody and removal?
- Is the Federal Government required to ensure that an extradition warrant strictly conforms to the underlying charge and inquiry report?
- Muhammad Azim Malik vs Government of Pakistan and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional and statutory challenge regarding extradition proceedings initiated against a fugitive offender, Muhammad Saleem Malik, under the Extradition Act, 1972. The core legal questions involved the existence and applicability of the Extradition Treaty between Pakistan and the United States, whether conspiracy to import hashish constitutes an extraditable offence, the territorial jurisdiction of foreign courts over a conspirator physically absent from that country, the admissibility of evidence under special extradition laws vis-à-vis general laws, the competence of a First Class Magistrate to conduct the inquiry, and the procedural requirements of the Federal Government under section 11 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the extradition treaty was validly in existence, that offences relating to dangerous drugs and conspiracy in connection therewith are extraditable, that physical presence is not a prerequisite in conspiracy charges, and that special provisions of the Extradition Act regarding evidence and magisterial inquiry prevail. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether the non-publication of an extradition treaty in the official Gazette impairs its existence and efficacy under the Extradition Act, 1972?
- Does an extradition offense relating to dangerous drugs include a conspiracy to import and distribute hashish?
- Is physical presence within the demanding state a necessary prerequisite for exercising criminal jurisdiction in a case of conspiracy?
- Do the special evidentiary provisions under Section 9 of the Extradition Act, 1972 prevail over the general provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Whether a First Class Magistrate has jurisdiction to conduct an extradition inquiry for an offense otherwise triable exclusively by a Court of Session?
- Muhammad Azim Malik vs A.C. & S.D.M. Preedy (South), Karachi and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the validity of extradition proceedings conducted by an A.C./S.D.M. instead of the District Magistrate, who was the officer specifically nominated by the Federal Government under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1972. The core legal question was whether the nomination of a specific Magistrate under the Act constitutes a persona designata role that is non-delegable. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Government’s power to nominate a Magistrate First Class is exclusive, and the designated officer is the only competent authority to conduct the inquiry. Consequently, the proceedings conducted by unauthorized magistrates were declared without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. The Court further ruled that this jurisdictional defect was not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Establishing the principle that in detention matters under Article 199(1)(b) of the Constitution, the Court bears an unconditional duty to ensure the legality of detention, the Court rejected arguments regarding estoppel or acquiescence, affirming that jurisdictional requirements in such sensitive matters cannot be waived.
Questions settled- Is the power of the Federal Government to nominate a Magistrate under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1972, a non-delegable power?
- Can a jurisdictional defect in an extradition inquiry be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the High Court have an unconditional duty under Article 199(1)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to satisfy itself regarding the legality of detention regardless of the parties' conduct?
- Is a District Magistrate always considered a Magistrate of the First Class for the purposes of the Extradition Act, 1972?
- Muhammad Azeem vs Director-General, Lahore Development1989 PLC 229 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azeem alias Jeemo vs The State1989 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the murder of Muhammad Ilyas and causing injuries to others. The petitioner, Muhammad Azeem, challenged the quantum of the sentence imposed by the High Court, while not contesting the conviction itself. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of life imprisonment, as modified by the High Court, was excessive given the circumstances of the case. Upon reviewing the record and hearing counsel, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine the quantum of the sentence. The Court held that the appropriateness of the sentence imposed required further judicial consideration, thereby allowing the petition to proceed on the limited question of sentencing severity.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely to examine the quantum of a sentence?
- Is a conviction under section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to review regarding the severity of the sentence imposed?
- Muhammad Azam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1830 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azam And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2805 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs The State1989 MLD 3977 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Project Director, WAPDA, Bhalwal and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 407 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Muhammad Afzal And 4 Other1989 CLC 2043 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Islamabad and another1989 SCMR 646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for restoration of a dismissed civil petition and an underlying challenge concerning the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and failed to file a departmental appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, delaying it for over a year and a half. The sole explanation offered for the substantial delay was the petitioner's apprehension that no relief would be granted by the appellate authority, specifically the Inspector-General of Police under whose tenure the retirement order was passed, until that official was transferred. The Service Tribunal rejected this explanation as unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of subjective apprehensions regarding bias or lack of relief as a valid ground for condoning prolonged delay in filing departmental remedies. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, holding that subjective expectations or personal apprehensions regarding an authority's attitude do not constitute a sufficient or lawful excuse for failing to pursue statutory remedies within the stipulated limitation period.
Questions settled- Does an apprehension that an appellate authority will not grant relief constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a departmental appeal?
- Can failure to challenge a compulsory retirement order within the prescribed limitation period result in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred?
- Whether subjective expectations regarding the attitude of an administrative authority justify bypassing statutory limitation rules?
- Muhammad Ayub represented by Legal Heirs and others vs Ghulam1989 SCMR 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Circuit, dated 2-4-1988, which reversed the appellate court's decision and restored the trial court's decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerned the limitation period and whether the suit was barred by time. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the trial and revisional courts regarding limitation and the merits were based on a correct appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, and affirmed that a valid decree had already been passed in favour of the respondent by the trial court on 17-3-1981, which was properly maintained by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact supported by proper evidence regarding limitation and pre-emption rights will not be interfered with, and a pre-emption decree passed prior to relevant target dates remains valid and executable.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit filed and decreed prior to the target date of 31st July 1986 remains valid?
- Can the High Court in revision reverse the finding of the appellate court on the question of limitation if it is based on a proper appraisal of evidence?
- Muhammad Ayub Khan Tanoli, M.P.A., Minister Of Law And Parliamentary1989 CLC 2456 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub Khan And 4 Others vs Chairman, Inspection Team, Chief Executive Secretariat, Muzaffarabad And Another1989 CLC 870 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub and others vs The Province of Punjab1989 SCMR 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership and possession of evacuee land. The petitioners claimed ownership through a chain of title originating from an allotment to a displaced person in 1966. However, the trial court found that the petitioners never held physical possession, as the land was under the supervision of the Forest Department. Furthermore, the courts below held that, pursuant to a specific administrative directive (Memorandum No. 65/775-RL), evacuee lands in the possession of the Forest Department were excluded from allotment to refugee claim holders. The petitioners contended that once land entered the Compensation Pool, it could not be excluded by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the administrative directive did not remove land from the Compensation Pool but merely regulated the method of disposal for lands already held by the Forest Department. The Court held that the initial allotment was invalid, and the petition was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Questions settled- Can evacuee land in the possession of the Forest Department be validly allotted to refugee claim holders under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Does an administrative directive excluding specific evacuee lands from allotment constitute an unlawful removal of property from the Compensation Pool?
- Is a claim of ownership and possession maintainable where the land in question is under the established supervision of a government department?
- Muhammad Ayub and others vs Mst. Nusrat Begum1989 SCMR 1379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-10-1988, whereby the High Court accepted the landlady's appeal and ordered the ejectment of the tenants from the disputed shop on the ground of bona fide personal use. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding on the issue of personal bona fide need. The Supreme Court held that the appreciation of evidence fell within the proper scope of the High Court in a first appeal, and no misreading or non-consideration of evidence was established to warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the judgment of the High Court and granting the tenants four months to vacate the premises. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court is competent to re-examine and re-appreciate evidence in a first appeal, and its findings on questions of fact such as bona fide personal need will not be disturbed by the apex court unless misreading or non-consideration of evidence is shown.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in a first appeal is competent to reverse the finding of a Rent Controller regarding bona fide personal need?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the High Court in rent matters?
- Muhammad Ayub And Another vs The State1989 MLD 683 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub and 4 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1667 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayaz Khan Etc vs Haji Bhurey Khan EtcK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 507 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayaz Khan and 2 others vs Haji Bburey Khan and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 1697 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Awais vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 377 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Awais Khan And Others vs Pakistan And 2 Other1989 MLD 3011 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs WAPDA1989 PLC (C.S.) 825 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1989 MLD 2940 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1989 SCMR 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder and related offenses involving a land dispute between two parties. The petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, and others were charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following an altercation over a disputed boundary that resulted in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to several others. The trial court convicted the petitioner and others, sentencing the petitioner to death. On appeal, the Lahore High Court maintained the petitioner's conviction for murder but modified the conviction of a co-accused. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the prosecution's evidence was discrepant, that injured prosecution witnesses were unreliable, that the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by the accused party, and that the accused party acted in defense of their lawful possession of the land. Finding that the petitioner's submissions regarding the evidentiary inconsistencies and the potential for the accused party to have been the victims of aggression merited further judicial review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the conviction.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party in a cross-case scenario undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution evidence is found to be significantly discrepant regarding the initial aggressor in a land dispute?
- Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when the evidence suggests the accused party may have been acting in defense of lawful possession?
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1989 MLD 4856 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The Province of Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs S.H.O., C.I.A. Staff1989 MLD 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Philips Electrical Co. of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 1479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition against the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner's services with respondent No. 1 were terminated following a resignation he allegedly tendered. The Labour Court initially reinstated the petitioner, but upon appeal, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the reinstatement, holding that the resignation was voluntary and that the petitioner's application before the Labour Court was time-barred. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the voluntary nature of the resignation and the limitation bar suffered from any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the findings of the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the voluntary nature of a resignation can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is an application before the Labour Court maintainable if it is barred by time?
- Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Usman Faroooi1989 MLD 2047 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Gulraj Begum1989 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the defendant challenged the authority of the plaintiff's attorney to institute the suit. The Trial Court initially rejected the plaint, finding the general power of attorney insufficient and the subsequent special power of attorney (Ex. P/7) ineffective. The High Court reversed this, holding the suit properly instituted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant could challenge the admissibility and mode of proof of the special power of attorney for the first time in appeal, having failed to object at the trial stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that objections regarding the mode of proof of a document must be raised at the trial when the document is tendered. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver, precluding such objections in appellate proceedings. The Court further clarified that Section 33 of the Registration Act 1908 pertains specifically to registration requirements, and Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1872 is not exhaustive regarding the proof of execution of powers of attorney.
Questions settled- Can an objection regarding the mode of proof of a document be raised for the first time in appeal if it was not raised at the trial stage?
- Does the requirement of authentication under Section 33(1)(c) of the Registration Act 1908 apply to all powers of attorney or only those presented for registration?
- Is Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1872 exhaustive regarding the methods for proving the execution of a power of attorney?
- Muhammad Aslam vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1989 PLC 877 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Chief Engineer, 200 M.W. Gas Turbine Power1989 PLC (C.S.) 297 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Allah Ditta1989 MLD 3325 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs Allah DittaK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate vs Rashid Ahmed and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in an urban settlement dispute between an auction-purchaser and a transferee in possession. The core legal question was whether the auction of the disputed property was lawful given that the transferee had been in possession and had a pending application for the reduction of the transfer price before the competent Settlement Authority. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the auction was without lawful authority because the Settlement Authorities failed to properly determine the property's value before proceeding with the auction. The Court reasoned that the respondent, as the transferee in possession, could not be penalized for the Settlement Authorities' failure to decide the pending application regarding the transfer price. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of laches, noting that the respondent had actively pursued the matter. The key principle established is that an auction of property conducted by Settlement Authorities without first resolving pending applications regarding the valuation or transfer price is legally flawed and cannot be sustained, particularly when the transferee is in possession.
Questions settled- Can an auction of property by Settlement Authorities be sustained if the transferee's application for price reduction remains pending?
- Does a delay in litigation constitute laches where the party has been actively agitating the dispute before the relevant authorities?
- Can a transferee in possession be penalized for a default caused by the Settlement Authorities' failure to determine the property's value?
- Muhammad Aslam Shah vs Habib Khan and 11 others1989 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a pre-emptor against a High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision. The core legal question presented was whether the pre-emption amount had been correctly fixed and decreed by the lower courts. The petitioner contended that an agreement to sell, executed within a year of the actual sale transaction, indicated a significantly lower price than what was ultimately paid, suggesting an inflated sale price. Conversely, the respondent argued that the discrepancy was adequately explained by evidence on the record, which the trial and appellate courts had concurrently accepted. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error of law or principle in the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the finality of the concurrent factual determinations regarding the pre-emption price.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction when concurrent findings of fact exist regarding the pre-emption price?
- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a pre-emption suit where no error of law or principle is demonstrated?
- Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The Superintendent of Police, Bannu and 21989 PLC (C.S.) 452 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-06Read full judgment →