Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Muhammad Yasin Khan and 2 others1989 SCMR 2028(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09
  cancellation of bailpre-trial investigationdefence versiondiscretion of trial courtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a petition seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the circumstances warranted the immediate cancellation of bail at the pre-trial stage. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by counsel and examining the record provided by the investigating officer, the Court observed that the defence version of the case had not yet been fully investigated. Consequently, the Court held that it was not a fit case for the cancellation of bail at that specific stage of the proceedings. The Court dismissed the appeal but provided a significant qualification: the trial court retains the discretion to cancel the bail granted to the respondents at a later stage, provided that the trial court records essential evidence and determines that a sufficient case for cancellation has been established. This decision reinforces the principle that bail cancellation requires a thorough evaluation of the evidence, and premature cancellation is inappropriate when the defence case remains uninvestigated.

  Questions settled

  • Is it appropriate to cancel bail when the defence version of the case has not yet been fully investigated?
  • Can a trial court cancel bail after recording essential evidence even if an initial petition for cancellation was dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan And Another vs Government of N. W.F.P.1989 CLC 2034 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Javed vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1989 PLC (C.S.) 39 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Gatta And Another vs Karachi Building Control1989 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 543 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Cheema vs National Bank of Pakistan and another1989 PLC 934 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Butt vs The State1989 MLD 754 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Baig vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10
  horse-breeding grantresumption of tenancydiscretionary grantvested rightSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the resumption of his horse-breeding grant. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner acquired a vested right in the discretionary horse-breeding tenancy grant and if the concurrent findings regarding the breach of tenancy conditions warrant interference. The Supreme Court held that horse-breeding grants are discretionary in character and do not create a vested right in favor of the grantee. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that government grants of a horse-breeding nature are purely discretionary and confer no vested rights upon the tenant, rendering discretionary administrative resumption decisions unassailable in the absence of legal right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a horse-breeding grant create a vested right for the grantee?
  • Can concurrent orders of revenue authorities regarding the breach of tenancy conditions be interfered with when the grant is discretionary?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Kala Khan Represented by his Legal1989 SCMR 847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29
  pre-emptiontenantcultivating possessioncross-examinationattorney statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the pre-emption decree granted in favour of the respondent, Kala Khan, on the ground of his cultivating possession as a tenant. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the statement of the respondent's attorney in cross-examination—stating the respondent was in possession as an owner—contradicted the claim of tenancy so as to disentitle him from pre-empting the sale. The Supreme Court held that upon a proper reading of the record and the attorney's statement in its true perspective, the respondent's continuous possession as a tenant since 1948 was duly established and did not contradict his stand. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums that the pre-emptor established valid tenancy for pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement by an attorney in cross-examination referring to possession as an owner defeats a pre-emption claim based on tenancy?
  • Does continuous possession as a temporary allottee establish tenancy for the purpose of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs Mst. Sardar Begum alias Noor1989 SCMR 704 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06
  minoritysale of landbirth and death registerpublic recordadmissibility of evidencewaiver of objectionidentity of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal questions of whether the respondent was a minor at the time of executing a sale-deed and whether an extract from the register of births and deaths sufficiently linked her to the transaction. The respondent had filed a suit for the cancellation of a sale-deed conveying her land, alleging that she was a minor and that impersonation had occurred. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed in favour of the respondent, finding she was a minor, which was upheld by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that municipal registers of births and deaths are public records under the Evidence Act, 1872, rendering certified copies admissible in evidence and presumed genuine. Furthermore, procedural objections to documents produced during evidence are waived if not raised at the appropriate time, and concurrent findings regarding identity and minority status of a party based on unchallenged evidence are binding.

  Questions settled

  • Are certified copies of municipal registers of births and deaths admissible in evidence as public records?
  • Can an objection to the admission of a document produced during the recording of evidence be raised if not objected to at the trial stage?
  • Whether a finding of fact regarding minority or majority status can be easily disturbed in revision proceedings?
  • Does a birth entry recorded shortly after birth prevail over oral evidence regarding age?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State1989 MLD 323 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 616 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And 3 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2833 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Aasi vs The Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Malik vs Anwar Jalil and 4 othersPLD 19 Lahore 279 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Asad vs The State1989 MLD 288 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1310 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-08
  post-arrest bailspecial court jurisdictionordinance expirationArms Ordinancestatutory interpretationpolice recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the arrest of the petitioner, Muhammad Asif, who was found in possession of a Kalashnikov rifle and charas. The petitioner sought bail after the Special Court refused his application, citing the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the Special Court retained jurisdiction over the offence under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, following the expiration of Ordinances Nos. XVI and XVII of 1988. The Court held that the Ordinances, which had expanded the Special Court's jurisdiction to include offences under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, expired on February 13, 1989, as they were not passed by Parliament within the four-month period prescribed by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction at the time of the impugned order. The offence reverted to the normal sentencing regime, falling outside the restrictive bail provisions of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Bail was granted, noting the recovery was witnessed only by police personnel during a prearranged raid.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court retain jurisdiction over an offence if the Ordinance conferring such jurisdiction expires before the court passes an order?
  • What is the effect of the expiration of an Ordinance promulgated under Article 89 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, if not passed by Parliament?
  • Does an offence under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and another vs Messrs Tower International1989 PLC 291 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ASHRAFPctitioner vs Mst. Sakina and 2 others1989 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18
  child custodywelfare of minorsguardian judgecustody disputeleave to appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed in limine the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding the custody of his minor children. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in upholding the Guardian Judge's decision to grant custody of the minors to their mother, Mst. Sakina. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge. The Court held that the High Court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction by confirming the findings of the Guardian Judge after a comprehensive review of all relevant facts. The ratio of the decision emphasizes that in matters of child custody, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children. The Court specifically noted that the petitioner's remarriage and the existence of children from that subsequent union were significant factors supporting the lower courts' determination that the mother was the appropriate custodian. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, affirming the custody arrangement based on the best interests of the minors.

  Questions settled

  • Is the remarriage of a father a relevant factor in determining the custody of minor children?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding child custody when the welfare of the minor is considered?
  • Can a High Court dismiss a constitutional petition in limine regarding a custody dispute if the welfare of the minor has been properly assessed by the Guardian Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1989 MLD 2713 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 821 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 46 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1989 MLD 4681(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Nasreen Begum through Legal Heirs and 3 others1989 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27
  ex parte decreemaintenancereasonable timeultra viresFamily Courtssubstituted servicewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte maintenance decree. The petitioner argued that Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, which prescribes a 30-day limitation period, was ultra vires to Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which allows for an application within a 'reasonable time'. The Court held that Rule 13 is indeed ultra vires because it restricts the 'reasonable time' provision of the parent Act to a fixed 30-day period, which contradicts the legislative intent. However, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders. It reasoned that the petitioner had been duly served via substituted service, and the minor child, who had been deprived of maintenance, would suffer further hardship if the case were remanded for a de novo trial. The Court emphasized that Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is a discretionary jurisdiction intended to advance justice, not to perpetuate the suffering of a minor child entitled to maintenance.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965 ultra vires to Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 regarding the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  • Does the term 'reasonable time' in Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 allow for a fixed 30-day limitation period?
  • Is the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a High Court refuse to interfere in a writ petition even if a legal error is identified, based on the principle of doing substantial justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Government of Punjab and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 267 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Ghulam Safdar and others1989 SCMR 1944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21
  leave to appealacquittalcriminal appealappellate interferencere-appraisal of evidencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent, Ghulam Safdar, of charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had originally been convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock. The petitioner challenged the High Court's acquittal, arguing that the reversal of the trial court's conviction and sentence was erroneous and unjustified based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the arguments and the evidence on record. The Court held that where two reasonable views of the matter are possible, and the view adopted by the High Court is a plausible one, an order of acquittal cannot be interfered with or set aside by the appellate court. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that there were no sufficient grounds to disturb the acquittal. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the High Court's assessment of the evidence constitutes a possible and reasonable view.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court set aside an order of acquittal when the view taken by the High Court is a possible one?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Ghulam Haider And Another1989 CLC 829 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Executive Engineer, Upper Gugera Division, SHEIKHUPURAand others1989 SCMR 1244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08
  service tribunalremoval from servicemisconductabsence from dutysubstituted servicecanal patwarileave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, serving as a canal patwari, remained absent from duty without leave for over a year, prompting disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. After attempts to serve him via registered mail failed, notices were published in two Urdu newspapers, to which he did not respond, leading to his removal by the departmental authorities and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental and service tribunal appeals. The core legal question was whether the removal from service due to prolonged unauthorized absence and substituted service was justified. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authorities were fully justified in removing the petitioner given his unexplained absence for over a year, finding no legal infirmity in the removal order. The key principle laid down is that prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes misconduct warranting removal from service, and substituted service through newspapers is valid when personal service cannot be effected due to the employee's default.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged absence from duty without leave constitutes misconduct warranting removal from service?
  • Is substituted service through newspapers valid when a notice sent by registered cover remains undelivered due to the employee's failure to respond?
  • Does an order of removal from service based on unexplained absence suffer from any legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 403 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Bashir Ahmad Bhatti And Another1989 MLD 3349 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Bahadur Khan and others1989 SCMR 1390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20
  Muslim giftgift deedconcurrent findings of factrevisional jurisdictionfraudulent transactioninterested witnessesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision regarding a disputed Muslim gift deed. The petitioner claimed ownership of land based on a gift deed executed by his aunt, while the respondents, the aunt's husband and minor children, contested its validity. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court concurrently found against the petitioner. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the marginal witnesses were interested parties and that their testimony regarding the timing of the execution contradicted the date on the deed. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to produce the scribe of the deed, and the court found the transaction suspicious given the exclusion of the donor's own children in favor of a nephew. The Supreme Court held that the gift deed was fictitious and fraudulently obtained. It affirmed that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, as the petition raised only factual disputes, and consequently dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Can a gift deed be considered valid when the marginal witnesses provide testimony contradicting the date on the document?
  • Is the failure to produce the scribe of a contested gift deed a relevant factor in determining its authenticity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Arshad Mahmood and others1989 SCMR 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-25
  family maintenanceex parte decreeconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefservice of summonsminor's maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a family maintenance decree. The petitioner, a former husband and father, challenged an ex parte decree for maintenance awarded to his minor son and former wife, claiming lack of service of summons. The trial court had rejected his application to set aside the ex parte decree as time-barred under the Family Courts Rules, a decision affirmed by the District Judge and subsequently the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the lower courts had correctly adjudicated the factual dispute regarding service and maintenance. It emphasized that jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary and should be exercised cautiously. Finding that the petitioner had failed to provide maintenance for his minor son for four years, the Court concluded the High Court exercised its discretion judiciously in refusing relief, and consequently dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 discretionary in nature?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the failure to provide maintenance to a minor child influence the court's exercise of discretionary relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Ismail vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 1991 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others1989 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-14
  service lawpromotionservice tribunaljudicial reviewannual confidential reportsdepartmental discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the Service Tribunal regarding the non-promotion of the petitioner to a Grade-19 post. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in concluding that the petitioner's request for promotion had been considered and rejected simply because no reply was received to his application, and whether the department was required to take a conscious decision on his promotion before considering outsiders. Upon reviewing the official departmental files, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's service record was marked as "average" and that his Annual Confidential Reports for the preceding three years explicitly stated he was "not fit for promotion." Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the department had indeed taken a conscious decision not to recommend the petitioner for promotion. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground for interference with the departmental decision. The petition was dismissed, affirming that where a conscious administrative decision regarding promotion is supported by the service record, judicial interference is not warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a reply to a promotion application necessarily imply that the request was considered and rejected?
  • Is a department required to take a conscious decision regarding an employee's promotion before considering outside candidates?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a departmental decision regarding promotion when the official record indicates the employee is not fit for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2680 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Muhammad Akram Khan and others1989 SCMR 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-28
  withdrawal of suitpermission to file fresh suitamendment of plaintcivil court jurisdictionagricultural landPunjab Land Revenue Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a civil suit for possession through partition of land, wherein the trial court and the first appellate court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the land was agricultural under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and ordered the return of the plaint. During revision before the High Court, the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one due to defects in the drafting of the plaint. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court held that the formal defects and lack of proper description in the plaint could be remedied by allowing an amendment of the plaint at any stage, rather than permitting the withdrawal of the suit. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the suit to the trial court, granting the plaintiffs permission to amend the plaint and append a site plan, while permitting the defendants to file an amended written statement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit should be allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit when its defects can be remedied by an amendment of the plaint?
  • Can an amendment of the plaint be allowed at the revisional stage to cure formal defects and properly describe the suit property?
  • Whether a civil court has jurisdiction in a partition suit involving land alleged to be agricultural in character under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Mst. Sardaran1989 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-03
  petition for leave to appealgiftdelivery of possessionmutationconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of the lower appellate court regarding the validity of a gift of land. The core legal question concerns the validity of the gift made by the deceased father of the petitioners in favor of their aunt, specifically regarding the factum of the making of the gift and the delivery of possession. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court and the High Court regarding the valid execution of the gift and the delivery of possession based on revenue records and admissions of the parties were unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that findings of fact concurrently arrived at by lower forums, supported by evidence on record, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction when no substantial question of law is raised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift and delivery of possession can be interfered with when no point of law is raised?
  • Does an admission of the making of a gift and delivery of possession before a Revenue Officer suffice to prove the validity of a gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and anothers vs Mst. Niamat Bibi1989 PLD Supreme Court 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15
  leave to appealdismissal for defaultprocedural compliancecontumacious conductSupreme Court Rulesdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed in 1981, which remained pending for nearly eight years due to the petitioners' persistent failure to comply with mandatory filing requirements. The core legal question was whether the petition should be dismissed for default given the petitioners' failure to provide necessary documentation despite multiple adjournments and specific court directions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' conduct was contumacious and that the default was not condonable. The Court emphasized that while the Advocates-on-Record were not at fault, the petitioners themselves were responsible for the failure to supply the requisite documents, which rendered the petition incomplete and unready for adjudication. Consequently, the Court refused the request for further adjournment and dismissed the petition for default. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking discretionary relief from the Supreme Court must strictly adhere to procedural rules regarding documentation; persistent failure to do so, especially over an extended period, constitutes contumacious conduct that disentitles the petitioner to further leniency or consideration on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the persistent failure of a petitioner to file necessary documents as required by the Supreme Court Rules warrant the dismissal of a leave to appeal petition?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed for default when the delay is attributable to the client rather than the legal counsel?
  • Is a party who fails to comply with procedural documentation requirements entitled to discretionary relief from the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 5 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1803 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And 5 Others vs Alam Din And 7 Other1989 CLC 211 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17
  public viewstripping of clotheshouse trespasspenal interpretationcriminal force to womanalteration of convictionminor discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Attock, convicting the appellants under section 354-A and section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and lesser terms. The core legal question was whether the essential ingredients of the offence under section 354-A, particularly the requirement that the victim be 'exposed to the public view' after being stripped of her clothes, were satisfied when the acts occurred in the rear courtyard of a private house witnessed only by family members. The Lahore High Court held that the penal provisions must be construed strictly and that 'public view' requires the victim to be seen by members of the public or in a public place, which was lacking since only the accused and family inmates witnessed the occurrence. Consequently, the court altered the conviction under section 354-A to one under section 354, Pakistan Penal Code, while maintaining the conviction under section 452, and laid down the principle that penal statutes are to be construed strictly, requiring strict proof of all statutory ingredients for a conviction under aggravated penal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes exposure to the public view under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the victim is seen only by family members in a private house?
  • How are penal provisions required to be construed under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  • What are the legal consequences when an essential statutory ingredient of an offence is lacking in the prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 20 others vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways,1989 PLC 655 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 3457 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1989 MLD 3766 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1989 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-24
  leave to appealpublic servanthurtcommon intentionappraisal of evidencecriminal liabilitydischarge of duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a convict challenging his conviction under Section 332 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which had been upheld by the High Court. The petitioner raised two primary contentions: first, that the complainant, a public servant, was not performing his official duties at the time of the occurrence, thereby rendering Section 332 inapplicable; and second, that the petitioner did not directly cause injury, challenging the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the arguments regarding the complainant's status were essentially questions of fact rather than law. The Court examined the evidence and determined that the complainant was indeed in the act of discharging his duties as a public servant while taking cattle to the pound. Furthermore, the Court held that the arguments regarding the appraisal of evidence and the application of Section 34 did not reveal any legal infirmity or error of principle. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of a Forest Guard taking cattle to a pound constitute the discharge of duty as a public servant under Section 332 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a challenge to the factual findings regarding the discharge of official duty by a public servant be entertained as a question of law in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of shared criminal liability a question of fact or law when it pertains to the appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs Mst. Hedayat Bibi and others1989 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-12
  inheritance mutationwrit jurisdictionquestion of factsettlement authorityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over the inheritance property left by one Jhandoo, who died in 1947. Mst. Hedayat Bibi filed an appeal in 1972 claiming to be a daughter of Jhandoo omitted from the mutation of inheritance. After her appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, she filed a writ petition in the High Court, which allowed the petition and directed the revision of the mutation to give her a share. The appellant, a grandson of Jhandoo, challenged this order on the ground that the High Court improperly recorded a finding of fact regarding paternity in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in determining a question of fact in writ jurisdiction without affording an opportunity to contest the relationship. The Court accordingly set aside the High Court's writ, remanded the case to the Notified Officer for a fresh factual determination on whether Mst. Hedayat Bibi is the daughter of Jhandoo, and directed a speedy disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can record a finding on a disputed question of fact regarding paternity in writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a writ petition be used to bypass factual inquiry into inheritance claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar And Another vs The State1989 MLD 843 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar And Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1893(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asar Hussain vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad as Lam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1989 MLD 2826 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1989 MLD 739 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Nida Millate Ltd.1989 PLC 581 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Saeed vs Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment1989 SCMR 808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-18
  terms and conditions of servicecivil servantspromotion policystatutory rulescentral selection boarddepartmental promotion committeeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition questioning whether the terms and conditions of service of persons in the service of Pakistan can be regulated by executive policy guidelines alongside or in contravention of the Acts of the Legislature and statutory rules. The petitioner contended that administrative promotion policies issued by the Establishment Division unlawfully superseded the requirements of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, by eroding the statutory jurisdiction of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Central Selection Board and introducing unreliable quantification mechanisms. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised substantial legal questions regarding the validity of regulating service conditions through policy guidelines rather than statutory rules and the limitation of the selection authorities' powers. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal for a detailed hearing on whether such promotion policies can lawfully override statutory rules framed under the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can the terms and conditions of service of persons in the service of Pakistan be regulated by policy guidelines instead of Acts of the Legislature and statutory rules?
  • Does an administrative promotion policy unlawfully limit the jurisdiction and statutory functions of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Central Selection Board?
  • Are promotions of civil servants required to be governed strictly by the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder rather than executive memoranda?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and others vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 843 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And Others vs Addl. S.C.(L), And Other1989 MLD 4814 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 22 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 626 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Alias Achu And Another vs The State1989 MLD 702(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif, Regional President, Pakistan Telecommunication1989 PLC 135 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Goraya vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan1989 PLC (C.S.) 828 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Chaudhry vs Election Tribunal, Okara and others1989 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05
  election petitionrecount of votesrecriminationcommencement of trialreturned candidateelection tribunallocal government electionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Election Tribunal refusing to recount the ballot papers of a respondent in a local body election dispute. The petitioner, who had been declared the returned candidate, argued that the Tribunal's earlier general order for recounting encompassed all votes and that the penalty of rule 11 regarding recrimination could only be invoked at the stage of evidence on merits. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of the term 'commencement of the trial' under the relevant election rules, the power of the tribunal to review its orders, and the necessity of filing a timely notice of recrimination to challenge an opposing candidate's votes. The Lahore High Court held that the trial of an election petition commences from the institution or appearance stage rather than strictly at the hearing of evidence, making the petitioner's notice of recrimination time-barred. The Court affirmed that a returned candidate cannot challenge the validity of votes cast for an opponent without proper and timely recrimination. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • When does the trial of an election petition commence for the purpose of filing a notice of recrimination under rule 11 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules 1979?
  • Can a returned candidate challenge the validity of votes cast in favour of an election petitioner without filing a timely notice of recrimination?
  • Does an Election Tribunal possess an inherent power of review under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a preliminary recount order capable of being construed as covering all ballot papers when the initial pleadings and applications only sought the scrutiny of specific disputed votes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4929 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif alias Dana and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2279 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs S.P. City Division, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23
  reinstatementextraordinary leaveservice tribunaldiscretionary powerpolice constabledismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Service Tribunal's order concerning the reinstatement of a police constable who had been dismissed from service following a criminal case registered under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Although the Service Tribunal set aside the dismissal and ordered the petitioner's reinstatement, it directed that the period during which he remained out of service be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner challenged this specific condition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal's discretionary power to treat the out-of-service period as extraordinary leave without pay was exercised lawfully. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretionary powers. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory rules or provisions of law, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the exercise of such discretion and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the discretionary power to treat the period a civil servant remained out of service as extraordinary leave without pay upon reinstatement?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary powers exercised by the Service Tribunal in the absence of any violation of law or statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs M/s Associated Trading Co. Ltd. And Other1989 MLD 4750 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-20
  res judicataarbitration agreementspecific performancerejection of plaintcivil procedurefinality of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and damages, alleging a breach of a contract dated 5-7-1983 for the supply of textile machinery. Previously, the plaintiff had initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to enforce an arbitration clause in the same contract. In those prior proceedings, the defendants successfully challenged the existence of the arbitration agreement under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940, with the court holding that no valid contract existed. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata barred the subsequent suit when the prior adjudication occurred in proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1940 rather than a formal civil suit. The Court held that the suit was barred by res judicata. It established that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not exhaustive; the general principle of res judicata applies to prevent re-litigation of issues already decided by a competent court, even if the prior proceedings were not technically a suit, provided the parties and the subject matter are the same.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to proceedings other than a formal civil suit?
  • Is Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive regarding the application of res judicata?
  • Can a suit be barred by res judicata if the prior adjudication occurred in proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Zuneeran Bibi1989 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10
  leave to appealconcurrent findingsinheritanceburden of prooforal giftpossession and permanent injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the respondent sister's suit for possession and permanent injunction regarding her share in their father's inheritance. The petitioner had claimed exclusive ownership through an oral gift, which was rejected by the courts below. The core legal question revolved around the challenge to concurrent findings of fact and the technical objection regarding the improper placement of the burden of proof. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact suffered from no infirmity and that the technicality regarding the burden of proof was of no significance as the petitioner suffered no prejudice and failed to produce necessary evidence. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact will not be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence, and technicalities concerning the burden of proof lose significance when no prejudice is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does a technical defect regarding the improper placement of the burden of proof warrant interference when no prejudice has been suffered by the party?
  • Can a party claim exclusive ownership of inheritance property based on an oral gift when concurrent findings of fact reject such a plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Nawab Bibi and 3 others1989 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10
  res judicatawrit jurisdictionsettlement lawconstitutional petitioncivil suitintra-court appealadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought to challenge an order by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which rejected his claim to a plot transferred to Mst. Nawab Bibi, despite his assertion of an agreement of association and payment of the purchase price. The petitioner initially challenged the Commissioner's order through a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on merits. Although the petitioner filed an Intra-Court Appeal, he withdrew it to pursue a civil suit. The trial court rejected the plaint on the grounds of res judicata, noting that the High Court had already adjudicated the legality of the Commissioner's order. This decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that once the High Court has examined and upheld the legality of an administrative order in writ jurisdiction, the same issue cannot be re-agitated in a civil court. The principle of res judicata effectively bars the petitioner from challenging the same order in subsequent civil proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party re-agitate the legality of an administrative order in a civil court after it has been adjudicated upon by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a civil suit challenging an order that was previously upheld by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Malik Fazal Ellahi1989 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-31
  pre-emptionco-sharerPattievacuee landjoint Khatapartitionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption claiming superior right as an owner in the Patti and a co-sharer in the Khata. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, which dismissal was upheld by the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish his claim of being an owner in the Patti, having deposed during trial that he was unaware of the Patti in question. Furthermore, the Court held that the allotment of specific field numbers by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities effectively partitioned the joint Khata under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, making the vendor the exclusive owner and terminating any joint ownership rights of the petitioner. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an admission by a pre-emptor in his testimony that he does not know the Patti defeat his claim of being an owner in the Patti?
  • Does the allotment of specific field numbers of evacuee land by Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities effect a partition of a joint Khata?
  • Can a co-sharer claim a right of pre-emption in evacuee land after specific field numbers have been allotted and transferred to a refugee vendor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Hoechst Pharmaceutical Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. And Other1989 MLD 171 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24
  leave to defendsummary suitconditional leavenegotiable instrumentspromissory noterevisional jurisdictiondiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  These two revision petitions challenge an order of the Additional District Judge directing the defendants to deposit the suit amount as a condition for granting leave to defend a recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involve the scope of the trial court's discretion to impose conditions when granting leave to appear and defend, and whether such an interlocutory order warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that where a defendant raises a vague or doubtful defence, the court exercises proper judicial discretion by granting conditional leave to defend—such as requiring a deposit or security—rather than granting unconditional leave or refusing it entirely. The key principle laid down is that under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the imposition of terms for leave to defend falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will not be interfered with in revision unless exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court has the discretion to impose conditions such as depositing the decretal amount when granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an interlocutory order imposing conditions for leave to defend amenable to revision under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • When should a court grant unconditional leave to defend versus conditional leave in a suit based on negotiable instruments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Government of the Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-14
  limitation periodservice appealmistaken legal advicecondonation of delayservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals on the grounds of limitation. The petitioners, formerly registration clerks, challenged a 1979 government notification abolishing their cadre and reverting them to the Deputy Commissioner's establishment. Initially, the petitioners sought relief through civil suits and writ petitions in the High Court, which were dismissed or rejected on the basis that their proper remedy lay with the Service Tribunal. Upon subsequently approaching the Service Tribunal, their appeals were dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing remedies in civil courts and the High Court under mistaken legal advice could be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the deduction of the period spent in pursuing incorrect forums. The Court affirmed that mistaken legal advice does not constitute a valid ground for condoning delay or extending the limitation period for service appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can the period spent pursuing a remedy in a civil court or High Court under mistaken legal advice be deducted when computing the limitation period for an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Does the dismissal of a writ petition on the ground that the remedy lies with the Service Tribunal entitle a petitioner to condonation of delay for the time spent in the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs General Manager, Shakarganj Mills Ltd., Jhang ,1989 PLC 619 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Hakim vs Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14
  service tribunalseniority listdepartmental representationmaintainability of appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal questioning the legality and propriety of a final seniority list circulated by the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal against the final seniority list, which was dismissed on merits. The core legal question is whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is maintainable against a seniority list without first filing a departmental representation before the next higher authority. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal, and remanded the case to determine the question of maintainability. The key principle laid down is that an appeal before the Service Tribunal is not maintainable without complying with the statutory obligation to file a representation against a seniority list before the next higher authority, namely the Governor of the Province.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is maintainable against a seniority list without filing a representation before the next higher authority?
  • Is a factual inquiry necessary to determine whether a representation was filed by a civil servant regarding a seniority list?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Durrani vs Province of Baluchistan through Chief Secretary and 10 others1989 PLD Quetta 25 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-01-30
  dissolution of assemblyvote of confidenceconstitutional interpretationjudicial reviewprovincial assemblychief ministerconstitutional supremacy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly of Balochistan by the Governor, acting on the advice of the Chief Minister. The core legal question was whether a Chief Minister who had not yet obtained a vote of confidence as mandated by Article 130(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 possessed the legal authority to advise the Governor to dissolve the Assembly under Article 112(1). The Court held that the dissolution was unconstitutional and without lawful authority. It reasoned that the power to advise dissolution is reserved for a Chief Minister who has validly obtained a vote of confidence. The Court emphasized that constitutional provisions must be interpreted harmoniously and that the Governor, before accepting such advice, has a duty to ensure the Chief Minister commands the confidence of the majority. Consequently, the Court declared the dissolution void and ordered the restoration of the Provincial Assembly, asserting that judicial review is permissible where constitutional limits are transgressed, regardless of political implications.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Chief Minister who has not obtained a vote of confidence under Article 130(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 advise the Governor to dissolve the Provincial Assembly?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly despite the immunity clauses in the Constitution?
  • Is the advice of a Chief Minister to dissolve the Provincial Assembly binding on the Governor if the Chief Minister has not yet secured a vote of confidence?
  • Can a dissolved Provincial Assembly be restored by a court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Durrani vs Province of Baluchistan and others1989 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-08
  locus standiconstitutional petitionremandexpedited hearingprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's Constitutional Petition No. 290 of 1988 on the ground of lack of locus standi. The core legal question concerned the propriety of dismissing the petition on this preliminary ground when a related Constitutional Petition No. 291 of 1988 was already pending before the same High Court. Upon agreement of the parties and the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the proceedings to the High Court with a direction to hear Constitutional Petition No. 290 of 1988 on its merits, alongside Constitutional Petition No. 291 of 1988. The Court emphasized the urgency of resolving the underlying constitutional dispute and directed the High Court to expedite the hearing within fifteen days. The key principle established is that where related constitutional matters are pending, procedural dismissals based on locus standi may be set aside to ensure a consolidated hearing on the merits when parties consent and urgency is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition dismissed on the ground of locus standi be remanded for hearing on merits if related petitions are pending?
  • Is the Supreme Court empowered to direct the High Court to expedite the hearing of a remanded constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Birlas vs Muhammad Ismail Bhatti1989 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12
  ex parte decreeleave to appealcivil revisionsufficiency of causelimitationfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed a Civil Revision petition filed by the defendant. The underlying matter originated from an application to set aside an ex parte money decree passed against the petitioner. The High Court had ruled against the petitioner on two primary grounds: the issue of limitation and the insufficiency of cause for the delay. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to contest these findings. The Supreme Court observed that even if the application were not time-barred, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the default, a finding of fact made by the High Court that remained unexceptionable. Furthermore, upon reviewing the petitioner's liability regarding the loan obtained via a promissory note, the Court determined the case was not a fit matter for examination on its merits. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to maintain the ex parte decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of cause for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  • Is a finding of fact by the High Court regarding the sufficiency of cause for delay subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs The State1989 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-14
  petition for leave to appealcondonation of delayacquittal set asidecriminal appealre-evaluation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10-4-1988, which convicted and sentenced the petitioners under sections 148 and 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, setting aside their acquittal by the trial court. The core legal questions involve the condonation of a fifty-four-day delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal and the justification for setting aside an acquittal by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and further found that on merits, the High Court had duly considered all relevant facts, evidence, and legal aspects when setting aside the trial court's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that a petition barred by time without sufficient cause merits dismissal, and an appellate court's reversal of an acquittal based on a proper re-evaluation of evidence and material facts warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal barred by time can be entertained without a satisfactory explanation for the delay?
  • Under what circumstances may the High Court set aside an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • Is interference warranted when the High Court has duly considered all relevant facts, weapons used, injuries, and the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs Sohne Khan and'others1989 PLD Revenue 4 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar alias Muhammad Nawaz and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 706(2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad And 2 Others vs Mst. Banuk Naz Khatoon1989 CLC 1819 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-27
  revisionregistrationacknowledgement of rightbona fide purchaserdowerimmovable propertyMajlis-e-ShooraSection 115 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition before the Balochistan High Court arose from a suit filed by the respondent claiming possession of a specific parcel of immovable property known as 'Kalandar Wala'. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial Court (Qazi Turbat) on grounds of limitation and merits, but was subsequently decreed by the appellate Court (Majlis-e-Shoora Mekran) in favour of the respondent. The petitioners challenged the appellate decree, contending that a letter acknowledging the respondent's right was inadmissible for non-registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were bona fide purchasers entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The High Court affirmed the appellate decision and dismissed the revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It held that a letter merely acknowledging or reaffirming an existing right does not require registration, and that protection under Section 41 cannot be claimed where the transferor lacked title to the property transferred.

  Questions settled

  • Does a document that merely acknowledges and reaffirms an existing right in immovable property require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act?
  • Can a transferee claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 if the transferor did not possess title to the land at the time of sale?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court decline to interfere with an appellate court's decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad Khan vs The State1989 MLD 734 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1989 MLD 4375 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1989 SCMR 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencereduction of sentenceextenuating circumstancesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed upon the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Attock. The petitioner was charged, tried, and convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on two counts of murder, resulting in death sentences, alongside convictions under Section 307 and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for related offenses. The core legal question involved whether there were sufficient extenuating circumstances to warrant a reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that upon considering the evidence, including the eye-witness account, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon of offence at the spot, and established motive, no extenuating circumstances existed to interfere with the concurrent findings and sentences of the lower courts. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence where no extenuating circumstances are established?
  • Does the recovery of the weapon of offence at the spot along with eye-witness and medical evidence sufficiently support a conviction for murder?
  • Whether appellate courts can reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment in the absence of mitigating factors?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1775 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Muhammad YunusK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 44 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Farzand Ali and 6 others1989 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderocular testimonyinterested witnessesappraisal of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the criminal revision of the petitioner was dismissed, the criminal appeal of the respondents was accepted, and the respondents were acquitted of murder charges. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on uncorroborated ocular testimony, unreliable recovery evidence, unconvincing motives, and disbelieved dying statements. The Supreme Court held that the appraisal of evidence by the High Court was properly made, finding that the presence of the eye-witnesses was doubtful and no interference was warranted. The court thereby dismissed the petition, reinforcing principles relating to the evaluation of ocular testimony, interested witnesses, and the standard of proof in criminal acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent on the basis of uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested witnesses?
  • Does the rejection of recovery evidence and motive warrant setting aside a conviction for murder?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appraisal of evidence in an acquittal matter when the presence of eye-witnesses is doubted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Divisional Forest Officer, Swari (Daggar) and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 775 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Khan And 10 Others vs Khan Muhammad And Another1989 CLC 1552 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4374 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2344 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And 4 Others vs The State1989 MLD 4163 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →