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 Altaf vs The State1989 MLD 2802 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf And Others vs Painda Khan Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 4227 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Allauddin Babri vs Pakistan Railway and others1989 PLC 720 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Yousuf and another1989 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-26
  quashing of proceedingsleave to appealcondonation of delaycriminal procedureSection 145 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had allowed a criminal miscellaneous application to quash proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the respondents. The petitioner initially faced a delay of 36 days in filing the petition, which the Supreme Court condoned after hearing counsel. Upon reviewing the merits of the case, the Supreme Court examined the impugned High Court judgment to determine if any legal error or substantial question of law existed that would warrant interference. Finding no defects in the High Court's reasoning and noting that the petitioner failed to raise any significant question of law requiring adjudication by the apex court, the Supreme Court concluded that the case was not a fit matter for the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to quash proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2754 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 264 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 734 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Sikandar Hayat and others1989 SCMR 1945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencealteration of convictioncriminal petitionappellate jurisdictionsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9-3-1987. The first petition sought the enhancement of a sentence, while the second challenged the acquittal of a respondent. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition regarding the acquittal, which was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court. Regarding the petition for enhancement of sentence, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question identified by the Court concerns the High Court's decision to alter the conviction of the respondents from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II, of the same Code. The Supreme Court held that this alteration and the subsequent reduction of the sentence required a detailed examination to determine if there was any legal justification for such a modification, particularly where the reduction might not be warranted by law. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to further scrutinize the legality of the High Court's findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to examine the legal justification for altering a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a reduction of sentence by the High Court subject to detailed examination by the Supreme Court if the legal basis for such reduction is questionable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 592 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs S.H.O., Police Station Civil Lines, Bahawalpur1989 P Cr. L J 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Nabi Bakhsh And 5 Other1989 CLC 2026 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Mumtaz Hussain Lali, Additional District Judge, Sialkot and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-08
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide neednon-residential premisesfactory and shop distinctionconstitutional petitionrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of bona fide personal use to establish a business. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition, but the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) reversed this decision and ordered eviction. The core legal question centered on whether a landlord owning a factory or industrial premises is barred from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a commercial shop for personal business needs under the law, and whether the appellate authority properly appreciated the evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a factory and a shop constitute different categories of non-residential buildings, and ownership of a factory does not disqualify a landlord from seeking a shop for personal business under the statute, provided the statutory conditions are met. The key principle laid down is that the expression 'such building' in the rent restriction statute distinguishes between different types of premises (such as factories and shops), and a landlord's occupation of an industrial or non-shop building does not bar them from seeking a commercial shop for their business needs.

  Questions settled

  • Does ownership and operation of a factory disentitle a landlord from seeking the ejectment of a tenant from a commercial shop for personal use?
  • Are a factory and a shop considered the same category of building under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can the High Court re-appraise evidence in constitutional jurisdiction against an appellate rent judgment?
  • What are the essential factors a landlord must prove when seeking eviction from a non-residential building for personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Sharif1989 SCMR 796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23
  pre-emptionco-sharertenancy rightsjoint holdingleave to appealappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions arising from a pre-emption suit where the pre-emptor claimed a right based on being a co-sharer, while the vendee-defendant resisted the suit claiming tenancy rights. The High Court had granted a pre-emption decree to the pre-emptor for a 2/3 share of the land, while allowing the vendee to retain 1/3 share based on his tenancy. The vendee challenged this, arguing the entire suit should have been dismissed because he held tenancy rights over the whole land. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that since the vendee purchased only a 1/3 share of the total joint holding, he was only entitled to retain that specific proportion under his tenancy. The pre-emptor also sought leave to appeal, alleging a lack of opportunity for a hearing before the appellate court. The Supreme Court dismissed this petition as well, ruling that it would not grant leave to appeal on mere technicalities when the petitioner could not demonstrate that a remand would alter the outcome of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a vendee entitled to retain tenancy rights over the entire land when they have only purchased a fractional share of a joint holding?
  • Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based solely on procedural technicalities where the outcome of the case would remain unchanged?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Farooq and 5 others1989 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08
  acquittalfree fightaggressorcriminal revisionpetition for leave to appealinterested witnessescorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition filed against the acquittal of the respondents for offences under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the courts below erred in acquitting the respondents and failing to determine the aggressor in what was argued to be a free fight, despite disbelieving the interested prosecution witnesses and finding no corroborative value in the recoveries. The Supreme Court held that once the prosecution evidence is disbelieved and the prosecution fails to establish who the aggressor was, the argument that the court must determine the aggressor in a free fight carries no force. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that no interference was warranted against concurrent findings of acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court is bound to determine the aggressor in a free fight when the primary prosecution evidence has been disbelieved?
  • Does an appellate or revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal when the evidence does not inspire confidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries when there are no matching reports from the forensic science laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Maqsood Mai1989 P Cr. L J 2153 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Major Muhammad Aslam and others1989 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  leave to appealspecific performanceoath on Holy Quranoffer and retractionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The core legal question concerns whether a party who made an offer in court to be bound by the oath of the opposing party on the Holy Qur'an can unilaterally retract or modify that offer before the oath is actually taken. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised regarding the binding nature of the conditional offer and trial proceedings require detailed examination. The Court also ordered that status quo be maintained regarding the proceedings pending the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party bound by an offer to have the suit decided on the oath of the opposing party before the oath is actually taken?
  • Can a party unilaterally withdraw or modify an evidentiary offer made in court before the opposing party acts upon it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Director, Punjab Employees' Social Security1989 PLC 602 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Ali Sher And Other1989 CLC 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue) And 7 Other1989 MLD 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Abdul Qayyum and 2 others1989 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27
  petition for leave to appealreduction of sentencedeath sentencelife imprisonmentunproved motivecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reducing their sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of death to life imprisonment on the ground that the prosecution motive remained unproved. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that if the motive set up by the prosecution is not established, the prosecution must bear the consequences regarding the question of sentence. The key principle laid down is that the failure to establish an alleged motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to establish its motive can serve as a ground for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the reduction of sentence by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when cogent reasons are provided based on unproved motives?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf1989 SCMR 1415 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07
  declaratory suitgiftconcurrent findingssecond appealleave to appealre-examination of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendant in a declaratory suit concerning the validity of a gift, challenging the High Court's dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal. The High Court had upheld the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts, which determined that the gift in question was valid and genuine. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner's counsel sought to challenge these concurrent findings of fact by presenting various arguments. The Supreme Court found no merit in these arguments and held that no justification was established to warrant an interference with the concurrent findings or to conduct a re-examination of the evidence. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the courts below.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift in the absence of any justification to re-examine the evidence?
  • Can a petitioner successfully challenge concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal before the Supreme Court without showing exceptional circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Johar vs Government of Sind and others1989 P Cr. L J 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Others vs Sher Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs Ghulam Sarwar and others1989 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-11
  pre-emptionexecution of decreejoint holdingphysical possessionsymbolic possessionexecuting court cannot go behind the decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents filed a pre-emption suit which was decreed in their favor, leading to execution proceedings where they claimed possession. The petitioners objected before the Civil Judge that the land was part of a joint holding and incapable of physical delivery, which the Civil Judge accepted. However, the Lahore High Court set aside that decision upon revision, prompting the petitioners to seek leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether physical possession or symbolic possession under Order XXI Rule 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied to the pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court held that the decree was for specific pre-empted property rather than joint possession, making Order XXI Rule 35(1) applicable, and reaffirmed that an executing court cannot go behind a valid decree. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an executing court can go behind a decree passed by a civil court?
  • Does Order XXI Rule 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a decree for possession of specific pre-empted property?
  • How is possession delivered in execution of a pre-emption decree under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and Other vs MRS. KhalidaK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 6 others vs The State1989 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26
  leave to appealappellate practicewaiver of argumentsquantum of sentencecriminal convictionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Ali and six others against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their appeal against conviction and sentence under sections 307, 326, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners could re-argue the merits of their case after having restricted their arguments before the High Court solely to the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners' counsel had not pressed the appeal on merits before the High Court, but instead sought and obtained a reduction in the sentence awarded by the Magistrate, they were precluded from reopening the merits of the case at the appellate stage. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the relief regarding the reduction of sentence had already been granted. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek to re-argue the merits of a conviction in a higher appellate forum if they had expressly abandoned those arguments in the lower appellate court to focus exclusively on sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner re-argue the merits of a conviction in the Supreme Court if they restricted their appeal in the High Court solely to the quantum of sentence?
  • Is an appellate court required to hear arguments on merits if the appellant previously abandoned those arguments in the lower appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And 5 Others vs The State1989 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 2 others vs Sajjad Asghar and another1989 P Cr. L J 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State and 8 others1989 PLD Quetta 64 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1989 MLD 3247 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State (Copy)[1]1989 PLD Supreme Court 742 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 142 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Nawab Din and others1989 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05
  ejectmentrefereeconsent of partiesconstitutional petitiondiscretionary jurisdictionRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute wherein respondent No. 1 filed an ejectment application against the petitioner. During the ejectment proceedings, the parties agreed to refer the matter to a named referee and to be bound by his decision without objection. The referee made a detailed report in favor of respondent No. 1, on the basis of which the Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's ejectment. After a remand by the District Judge for a fresh report, the referee again reported in favor of respondent No. 1, resulting in a second ejectment order which was upheld on first appeal. The petitioner then challenged these orders in the High Court via a Constitutional petition. The High Court refused to exercise its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner had repeatedly agreed to be bound by the referee's findings. Dismissing the petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction where parties voluntarily bound themselves to a referee's decision and a fair disposal was effected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party who agreed to be bound by the decision of a referee can subsequently challenge the order passed on the basis of that referee's report?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction when a party acts contrary to its undertaking to accept a referee's decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mst. Farman Bi1989 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17
  malicious prosecutiondamages for malicious prosecutionrestitution of conjugal rightsmalicious abuse of civil proceedingscompensatory costsdamage to reputationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Jhelum, awarding Rs. 20,000 as damages for malicious prosecution to the respondent. The petitioner had earlier instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights falsely alleging a consummated marriage with the respondent, a war widow, amid severe family enmity. The Family Court had dismissed the suit with nominal costs of Rs. 2, which became final as no appeal was preferred. The respondent then instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The legal issue before the High Court was whether a suit for damages for malicious prosecution lies in respect of civil proceedings, particularly where costs were awarded in the original suit. The High Court held that the term 'prosecution' extends to civil actions that cause scandal or odium to reputation. The nominal costs awarded did not bar an independent action for damages. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for damages for malicious prosecution arise out of the institution of a false and malicious civil action?
  • Does the award of nominal or ordinary costs in a civil proceeding bar the aggrieved defendant from filing a separate suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Whether the non-registration of an alleged Muslim marriage under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 creates doubt about its existence when the factum of marriage is disputed?
  • Can the court assess and award general damages for injury to reputation and mental agony under the rule of thumb without a specific mathematical breakup of damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Aurangzeb And Another1989 CLC 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08
  pre-emptionjurisdictionreturn of plaintlimitationwrong forumcivil revisionco-ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of competing pre-emption suits filed over agricultural land. The core legal questions concern whether a suit filed in a wrong forum can be transferred rather than having its plaint returned, whether the time spent in the wrong forum can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, and whether a plea of limitation can be raised for the first time in revision. The Lahore High Court held that the Collector lacked jurisdiction over pre-emption suits based on co-ownership, that the proper course was to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than transferring the case, and that a pure question of law regarding limitation can be raised at any stage including in revision. The Court laid down that an initial valid presentation of a plaint to a court of competent jurisdiction is mandatory for a valid institution, and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court to determine the applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act and the effect of default in depositing pre-emption money.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint filed in a court lacking jurisdiction be transferred to a competent court instead of being returned?
  • Whether a plea of limitation can be raised for the first time in revision proceedings?
  • Does the time consumed in prosecuting a suit bona fide before a wrong forum qualify for exclusion under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • When is a civil suit considered to be validly instituted for the purposes of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Amtul Nasir1989 CLC 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18
  clarification of judgmentdissolution of assembliesconstitutional crisisexecutive interpretationlocus standiSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose upon an unusual application filed by an advocate seeking clarification of a detailed judgment of the Supreme Court, initiation of contempt proceedings against those allegedly misinterpreting it, and intervention to end constitutional chaos. The core legal question concerned the correct implications and legal effect of the Court's previous judgment upholding the High Court's findings that the dissolution of the National and Provincial Assemblies by the President and Governors was without lawful authority, while simultaneously refusing certain consequential reliefs regarding the restoration of assemblies and cabinets. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had locus standi, but clarified that its previous judgment did not render all subsequent executive actions, orders, or appointments illegal or in need of regularization as claimed in a government press release, because the Court had explicitly refused those specific reliefs. The key principle laid down is that a judgment of affirmance which refuses specific consequential reliefs cannot be interpreted by the executive to imply the legal nullification or required regularization of actions for which relief was expressly denied by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner have locus standi to seek clarification of a judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Does a judgment affirming the illegality of the dissolution of assemblies automatically render all subsequent executive appointments and actions illegal when specific relief seeking their nullification was refused?
  • Can a government press release interpret a Supreme Court judgment to require the suspension and regularization of executive actions that the Court refused to set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan and 25 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 873 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Others vs The State1989 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs Fazal Karim and others1989 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-02
  partition suitjoint ownershipconcurrent findings of factpermanent transfer deedexclusive ownership plealeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a civil suit for partition and separate possession of a property, filed by three brothers against their fourth brother, Mushtaq Ahmad. The plaintiffs claimed a three-fourths share in the house based on a joint Permanent Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed issued in 1960 and 1963, respectively. The defendant contended that he was the exclusive owner of the property. The Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, rejected the defendant's plea and passed a preliminary decree for partition, a decision subsequently upheld by the appellate court and the Peshawar High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the joint ownership and possession of the property were sustainable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the findings of fact regarding title and joint ownership were well-supported by evidence, including the payment of the property price from the compensation books of the plaintiffs. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact, absent any significant question of law, do not warrant interference in its revisional or appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding joint ownership of property are subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a plea of exclusive ownership be sustained when the property was transferred via a joint Permanent Transfer Order?
  • Is the payment of property price from the compensation books of specific parties relevant to determining joint ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 26 others vs Noor Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-18
  inheritancewill under customMuslim Personal Lawretrospective operationcustomary lawshares in inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' revision in an inheritance case. The core legal question involved the effect of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) on a will executed under custom prior to its enactment, specifically regarding whether a bequest in excess of one-third can take effect in its entirety. The Supreme Court held that the 1983 enactment applies retrospectively to the succession of the last male holder who died under customary law, thereby restricting the operation of the will to one-third of the property, with the remaining two-thirds to be distributed among the legal heirs according to Islamic law of inheritance. The key principle laid down is that wills made under custom are subject to the retrospective operation of subsequent statutory amendments enforcing Muslim personal law, limiting testamentary disposition to one-third without the consent of heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) applies retrospectively to a succession that opened under customary law?
  • What is the extent of a bequest under a will executed during the prevalence of customary law when subjected to subsequent statutory application of Muslim Personal Law?
  • How is the remaining estate distributed when a will exceeds the permissible one-third share under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akmal Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1989 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12
  illegal gratificationpublic servantincome tax departmentcorruptioncriminal breachleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while setting aside his conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner, a record-keeper in the Income-tax Department, was caught red-handed accepting illegal gratification from a timber merchant to hush up an income tax matter. The core legal question was whether an employee who lacks the direct official capacity to personally grant a favour can be convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for accepting illegal gratification as a motive for rendering or attempting to render service with another public servant. The Supreme Court held that it is immaterial whether the public servant was personally in a position to show favour, as the statute penalizes accepting illegal remuneration as a motive for rendering or attempting to render service with any public servant. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require that the public servant accused of accepting illegal gratification be personally in a position to show favour to the complainant?
  • Is it an offence for a public servant to accept illegal remuneration as a motive for rendering or attempting to render service with any other public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Judge Family Court and others1989 SCMR 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15
  Khuladissolution of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsfamily courtappreciation of evidencesupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which upheld the dissolution of a marriage on the basis of Khula. The core legal question concerns the propriety of dissolving a marriage on the ground of Khula due to incompatibility of temperament and failure of conciliation efforts. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the wife's aversion and inability to live within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah involved the appreciation of evidence, which the High Court had correctly examined and found free of jurisdictional defects or legal infirmities. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that factual determinations based on evidence in family suits regarding Khula will not be re-examined by the apex court unless a substantial legal or jurisdictional error is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a marriage can be dissolved on the basis of Khula due to incompatibility of temperament?
  • Can the Supreme Court re-examine evidence concurrently appreciated by the lower courts and the High Court in a family matter?
  • Whether a writ petition against the judgment of a Family Court can be maintained without showing a legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Iqbal vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Sheikhupura And Other1989 MLD 4298 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Bajwa vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 793 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Bajwa vs Federal Government of Pakistan and 41989 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-22
  service tribunal jurisdictionrailways policeleave to appealdeputationseniority disputemaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority and appointment in the Pakistan Railways Police on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner remained an employee of the Provincial Government. The core legal question is whether provincial police personnel transferred to the Pakistan Railways Police under the Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977 become federal employees or remain provincial employees on deputation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal's view requires detailed examination by the Court as it affects a large number of cases and raises substantial questions regarding service status under the Act. The key principle laid down is that the interpretation of transfer and reversion provisions concerning former provincial personnel absorbed into federal forces warrants authoritative review by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether personnel transferred to the Pakistan Railways Police under the Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977 become employees of the Federal Government or remain provincial employees?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear service appeals regarding seniority from police personnel transferred from the provincial government to the Pakistan Railways Police?
  • What is the legal effect of the power of the Federal Government to revert transferred personnel back to the provincial police under the Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The State1989 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines1989 PLC (C.S.) 819 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Qureshi vs Government of Pakistan and 2 others1989 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02
  leave to appealservice tribunalright of audiencenatural justicedepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal, Government of Pakistan, dated 13-11-1980, filed by an ex-Assistant Central Intelligence Officer. The core legal question concerns whether the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed without holding a proper inquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing, thereby condemning the petitioner unheard. The Court held that the contentions raised were not devoid of force and granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that an adverse service order passed without a proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing warrants a grant of leave to appeal for a fuller examination of the legality of condemning a person unheard.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Service Tribunal without holding a proper inquiry is contrary to law?
  • Does failure to afford an opportunity of hearing violate the principles of natural justice amounting to condemning a person unheard?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Others vs The State1989 MLD 3975 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Others vs Additional Commissioner And Other1989 CLC 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs The State1989 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencecontradictory testimonyacquittal of co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and house trespass under Sections 302 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence, and the reliability of eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case suffered from material inconsistencies, particularly regarding the presence of witnesses and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court held that the prosecution failed to present a clear, unimpeachable account of the occurrence. Crucially, the Court determined that the evidence against the appellant was indistinguishable from the evidence against his co-accused, who had already been acquitted. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that where prosecution evidence is inherently doubtful and inconsistent, and where the case against a convicted individual mirrors that of acquitted co-accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the nature of injuries cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is an appellant entitled to acquittal if the evidence against them is indistinguishable from the evidence against co-accused who have been acquitted?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the testimony of key eye-witnesses is found to be unreliable and contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajaib and 2 others vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima through Leal Heirs1989 SCMR 1709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23
  declaratory suitgift mutationagricultural landsecond appealburden of proofvalidity of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a declaratory suit challenging a gift mutation of agricultural land. The respondents (original plaintiffs) contested a gift of 13 kanals 16 marlas of land allegedly made in favour of the petitioner, Muhammad Ajaib. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, the District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, finding the respondents to be in continuous possession of the land and declaring the gift invalid. The petitioners subsequently filed a regular second appeal before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court examined the record and found a complete absence of evidence to substantiate the transaction of the gift or to prove the essential ingredients required for a valid gift. Consequently, the Court held that there were no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a gift of land valid where the essential ingredients of the transaction are not proven by evidence?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere in a regular second appeal where the lower courts have concurrently found the evidence lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Shaffi vs S.E. Irrigation (Headquarter), Lahore and others1989 SCMR 947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15
  departmental inquiryservice tribunalstore shortageefficiency and discipline rulesleave to appealgovernment loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Service Tribunal, which had partially accepted the petitioner's appeal regarding a departmental inquiry. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner alleging a government loss of Rs. 30,840 due to store shortages resulting from negligence. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner responsible for shortages totaling Rs. 8,461, leading to the imposition of a major penalty for recovery under Rule 7-A of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975. The Service Tribunal set aside the liability regarding diesel oil but maintained the recovery of Rs. 7,625 for the shortage of fixtures. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal or the departmental authority committed any error of law or procedure in imposing the penalty and sustaining the partial recovery. The Supreme Court held that no error of law or procedure was pointed out, noting that the Tribunal had already taken a sympathetic view granting partial relief, and consequently dismissed the petition. The key principle established is that factual findings of administrative authorities and service tribunals regarding departmental inquiries and store shortages, free from legal or procedural defects, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of a Service Tribunal in a departmental inquiry absent any error of law or procedure?
  • Can a major penalty for recovery of loss be sustained when the Service Tribunal has already granted partial relief by setting aside a portion of the shortage liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Muhammad Bin Hashim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 800 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Ali Khan vs President of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08
  service petitiontermination of servicemartial law regulation 114jurisdiction of service tribunalmala fidesouster clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a service petition filed under Article 212 of the Constitution against the order of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of his service under Martial Law Regulation 114. The Service Tribunal had taken the view that such an order could only be challenged if mala fides was specifically alleged and proved, and since no mala fides was alleged, it declined to examine the merits. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to examine the termination order on merits solely due to the absence of an allegation of mala fides, despite other recognized grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or coram non judice. The Supreme Court held that mala fides is not the only ground for interference, and that the Tribunal had the power and obligation to examine such cases on merits to determine if the action fell within the statutory grounds. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can examine an order passed under Martial Law Regulation 114 on merits in the absence of an allegation of mala fides?
  • What is the extent to which the jurisdiction of superior courts and tribunals has been ousted in relation to orders passed under Martial Law Regulations?
  • Whether an order passed without jurisdiction or coram non judice is open to scrutiny notwithstanding an ouster clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 44 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The District Education Officer (Female), Rahimyar1989 PLC (C.S.) 677 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Tariq Majeed and 2 others1989 SCMR 1494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05
  murdersudden brawlcommon intentionsentence enhancementacquittalmitigating circumstancescriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal petitions arise out of a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a criminal altercation resulting in the death of Arshad Mahmood. The complainant sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of certain respondents under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and for enhancement of sentences, while one of the convicts challenged his conviction and sentence for murder. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting the existence of previous enmity and a chance encounter without premeditation where individual injuries were inflicted during a sudden brawl. The Court held that common intention could not be established, making the accused individually liable for their respective acts. Furthermore, the High Court's reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment for the primary assailant was justified based on mitigating factors including youth, prior injuries, and the absence of repeated blows. The key principles laid down are that individual criminal liability attaches in sudden brawls lacking common intention, and mitigating circumstances such as youth and lack of repetition can warrant the commutation of a death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether individual criminal liability applies in a chance encounter where common intention among the accused is not proved?
  • Does the youth of the offender and the absence of repeated blows constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to alter a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when an injury is inflicted on a non-vital part but results in fatal bleeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Saeed and another1989 P Cr. L J 2349 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Saeed and Alias BilloK.L.R.1989 Shariat Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Messrs Abbasin International Garments1989 PLC 40 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Banqu E Inposuez And Other1989 MLD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Mst. Surraya Begum and others1989 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05
  constitutional jurisdictionalternate remedymutation of giftcivil court decreeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the Commissioner's order directing the sanctioning of a land mutation based on a gift. The original owner, Sultan, had gifted land to respondents whom he described as his wife and son. After Sultan confessed judgment in a civil suit filed by the donees, a declaration was granted in their favor. Following Sultan's death, the local Revenue Officer attested a mutation of succession in favor of the petitioners who were collaterals, ignoring the gift. Litigation ensued through revenue forums up to the Board of Revenue and the High Court. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of invoking constitutional jurisdiction when an alternate remedy was available and the validity of a gift already decreed by a civil court. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was misconceived because the validity of the gift was a matter for the Civil Court and the petitioners had an adequate alternate remedy. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked when an alternate adequate remedy is available?
  • Can the validity of a gift decreed by a civil court be challenged through revenue proceedings and writ petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Chairman, Punjab Board of Technical1989 PLD Lahore 149 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and anothers vs The State1989 SCMR 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-05
  murderdeath sentencecommon intentionocular testimonybenefit of doubtcriminal appealcircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences of Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Khan for the murders of Shah Nawaz and Muhammad Yaqub. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, motivated by a property dispute over a pathway, attacked the victims. Muhammad Khan shot Shah Nawaz, while Muhammad Afzal, along with two female co-accused who were later acquitted, allegedly set fire to a room where Muhammad Yaqub had taken refuge, causing his death by suffocation and burns. The core legal question was whether the conviction of the appellants was sustainable given the acquittal of the female co-accused and the contention that the appellants' roles were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony was consistent and credible, and the appellants' roles were sufficiently established by circumstantial and medical evidence, independent of the acquitted co-accused. The Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, rejecting the plea that the incident was a sudden flare-up. The principle laid down is that the acquittal of some co-accused does not necessarily invalidate the conviction of others if their specific roles are independently supported by credible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically render the conviction of the remaining accused unsustainable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be maintained based on ocular testimony when the motive is established and the witnesses are credible?
  • Is the death sentence appropriate for a murder committed by setting a room on fire?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aftab Mahmud vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 129 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 609 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Sakhi Muhammad and 22 others1989 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Muhammad Sharif And 8 Other1989 CLC 1850 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 389 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar Khan vs Hukam Dad and another1989 P Cr. L J 1564 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adil vs The State1989 MLD 4677 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Achar vs Conservator of Forests and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 723 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-12-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Sattar Qureshi vs The Chief Secretary to Government of Sind and 10 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 313 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Noor Jehan Begum1989 MLD 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1989 MLD 4916 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas Khan And 3 Others vs Abdur Rahim Khan And 41 Other1989 CLC 124 · Board of Revenue · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad a Slam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muh Ammad Arshad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 750 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muh a Mma D Boot a vs Station House Officer, P.S. Ichhra, Lahore and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mughal And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4964 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mufti Aman Ullah and 64 others vs Settlement Commissioner1989 PLD Peshawar 250 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mueenud Din Ahmad Shahzad For Niamat Cotton Ginning And Pressing1989 CLC 173 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mubin Ahmed vs The State And 5 Other1989 MLD 2841 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mubarak vs Abdul Rashid1989 CLC 324 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs The State and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-01Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali Bashir vs Branch Manager, "Lipton" Pakistan Ltd.,1989 PLC 916 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali And Others vs Syed Ishaq Hussain Rizvi And Other1989 MLD 497 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mtiaz Hussain Anjum vs Muhammad Saleem and others1989 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst.Sughran Bibi vs Husmat BibiK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mst.Roshan vs The StateK.L.R 1989-Criminal Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
• Mst.Raj Bibi vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 271 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mst.Parveen vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 32 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mst.Noor Jahan vs Jan Muhammad Etc.K.L.R. 1989 Shariat Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst.Majidan Bibi vs Shabir Ahmad EtcK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 108 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →