Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mehtab Shah and Other vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases. 371 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mehtab Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2447 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mehran Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 31989 PLD Karachi 627 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mehraj Din vs Muhammad Ashraf and another1989 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
- Mehraj Din vs Muhammad Ash Raf Etc.K.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 368 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
- Mehr Sakhi Muhammad vs Board of Arbitrators and another1989 SCMR 1411(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court in an Intra-Court Appeal, which had declared an arbitration award concerning a cotton sale contract to be without lawful authority and legal effect. The core legal questions involve whether the dispute fell within the proper jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Khanewal, and whether the contracting parties stood in the relationship of a dealer and a grower or two dealers, thereby affecting the validity of the arbitration reference. Additionally, a procedural question was raised regarding a judgment signed by only one of the two judges who heard the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding jurisdiction and the nature of the relationship between the parties required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed security for costs, and permitted the parties to complete the record.
Questions settled- Whether a dispute arising out of a cotton sale contract falls within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Khanewal?
- Whether the relationship between the parties was that of a dealer and a grower validating the reference to arbitration?
- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal judgment signed by only one of the two learned judges who heard the appeal is legally sustainable?
- Mehr Nazar Muhammad Fatiana vs The State1989 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which transferred two bail applications from an Additional Sessions Judge to the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, following criminal petitions filed under Sections 526 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, an advocate facing criminal charges, argued that the High Court acted against judicial norms by failing to issue notice to him and by making disparaging remarks against the Additional Sessions Judge without providing that judge an opportunity to respond. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order transferring the bail matters was appropriate and did not prejudice the petitioner. Regarding the disparaging remarks, the Court ruled that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge remarks directed at a judicial officer. The Court affirmed that only the affected judicial officer possesses the standing to seek redress for such remarks. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the petitioner failed to establish a valid legal grievance.
Questions settled- Does a petitioner have the locus standi to challenge disparaging remarks made by a High Court judge against a subordinate judicial officer?
- Can a High Court transfer bail matters from an Additional Sessions Judge to a Sessions Judge under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a judicial officer entitled to notice or an opportunity to comment before a High Court makes disparaging remarks against them in a judicial order?
- Mehr Muhammad Kabir Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1776 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mehr Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 660 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Mehr Din vs Farzand Ali And 3 Other1989 CLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mehr Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Amtul Aziz And Other1989 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Nasir Malik vs Messrs Holiday Inn, Karachi1989 PLC 790 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mehfooz Ahmad and 4 Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Khan vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This batch of appeals concerns whether employees of statutory corporations are civil servants eligible to file appeals before the Service Tribunal against departmental disciplinary actions. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, particularly whether section 5 grants general civil servant status and Service Tribunal access to all corporation employees or is restricted to those penalized under section 3 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the legal fiction declaring corporation service to be service of Pakistan and employees to be civil servants under section 5 applies exclusively to persons whose removal or reversion is ordered by the President under section 3 for appointments or promotions made between 1st January, 1972 and 5th July, 1977. Employees dealt with under ordinary departmental efficiency and discipline rules or their own statutory terms and conditions do not acquire general civil servant status and are not barred by Article 212 of the Constitution from invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the status of civil servants conferred upon corporation employees by special legislation is limited strictly to the purposes and contingencies specified therein and does not extend universally to all corporation personnel.
Questions settled- Does section 5 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 confer general civil servant status on all corporation employees for all purposes under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Are employees of statutory corporations who are penalized under ordinary efficiency and discipline rules rather than section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 entitled to approach the Service Tribunal?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar corporation employees not covered by section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 from seeking relief from the High Court?
- What is the scope and limitation of the legal fiction enacted under section 5 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978?
- Mehdi Khan and others vs The State1989 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by four convicts challenging their convictions under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of their appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge and their criminal revision by the Lahore High Court. The petitioners were convicted for causing injuries to the victim, Ata Muhammad, who sustained eighteen injuries, one of which was declared dangerous to life. The petitioners raised three primary arguments: first, that the F.I.R. was lodged with considerable delay; second, that the trial court erred in ignoring the petitioner's statement claiming only two of the four accused were involved; and third, that the trial court failed to comply with Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by not putting the accused on oath before asking if they wished to testify. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions, noting that the delay was adequately addressed by lower courts, the ocular testimony was consistent, and the requirement under Section 340(2) could not be forcibly applied when the accused refused to testify or take an oath. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an accused be forcibly administered an oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they refuse to testify?
- Does a delay in lodging an F.I.R. automatically invalidate a conviction if the ocular testimony is consistent and relied upon by lower courts?
- Is a trial court required to accept an accused's statement regarding the non-presence of co-accused when ocular evidence contradicts that claim?
- Mehboob Jewellers and others vs Nur Ahmad1989 SCMR 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arose from an eviction proceeding initiated on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellants, who were tenants of a commercial tenement, had been depositing rent in advance in the Court of the Rent Controller under the name of the previous owner. Upon receiving notice of transfer of ownership from the respondent's advocate, the appellants requested a copy of the registered sale deed to verify the title, which the respondent failed to provide. Consequently, the appellants continued depositing advance rent in the previous owner's name until the sale deed was produced in court, after which they began depositing advance rent in the respondent's name. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the appellants had committed wilful default or if it was a technical default liable to be condoned. The Court held that the appellants' conduct demonstrated a consistent intention to pay rent in advance. Since the delay in paying the new owner directly was due to the respondent's failure to provide proof of ownership, there was no wilful default, and any technical default was condoned. The appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Does a tenant commit wilful default by continuing to deposit rent in the name of the previous landlord after receiving a notice of transfer if the new landlord fails to provide requested proof of ownership?
- Can a technical default in the payment of rent arising from a bona fide dispute or lack of verification of a new landlord's title be condoned by the court?
- Whether the deposit of rent in advance in court under the name of a previous landlord negates an allegation of wilful default under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Mehar Muhammad Qasim and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Revenue 3 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- Mehar Hussain vs Allah Wasaya and others1989 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Criminal appeal by leave directed against the High Court's judgment acquitting respondents of murder and related charges. The trial court had convicted the principal accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to death, while co-accused were awarded life imprisonment, relying on ocular testimony and an injured witness. The High Court reversed the convictions, finding serious improbabilities in the presence of the eye-witnesses, plausible reasons to doubt the genesis of the injury on the alleged injured witness, and inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical evidence. The Supreme Court examined the record and affirmed the High Court's assessment, holding that where the presence of eye-witnesses is highly improbable, their statements lack plausibility, and no reliable corroborative evidence exists to establish participation, the acquittal of the accused is justified. The principle reiterated is that where two views of the evidence are possible and the High Court takes a plausible view favoring acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an acquittal order can be upheld when the reason given by an eye-witness for his presence at the spot is found to be unnatural and implausible?
- Whether ocular evidence can be relied upon when it directly conflicts with medical findings regarding the nature and distance of a firearm injury?
- Can a conviction be sustained on uncorroborated ocular testimony where the presence of the eye-witnesses is rendered doubtful by inherent improbabilities in the prosecution story?
- Mehar Din vs General Manager, Hye Sons Sugar Mills Ltd. and another1989 PLC 358 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mehar Ali vs Province of Sind through Secretary to Government of Sind, Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Department, Karachi and 6 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 489 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Meeran Bux vs The State and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an order of the High Court of Sind setting aside the pre-arrest bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the pre-arrest bail on the ground that the prerequisite of arrest for ulterior motives was not proved, without considering the merits of the case as found by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in invoking its revisional jurisdiction to cancel the bail without upsetting the finding of the Sessions Judge regarding ulterior motives and without considering the case on merits, particularly where the injury attributed to the appellant was on a non-vital part of the body and the appellant had not misused the concession of bail. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the grant or refusal of bail primarily depends on the facts of each case, and an appellate or revisional court must consider the merits and findings of the primary court before interfering with the grant of pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside pre-arrest bail without considering the merits of the case found by the Sessions Judge?
- Is apprehension of arrest for ulterior motives and unjustified harassment a valid consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can an appellate or revisional court interfere with an order granting pre-arrest bail without setting aside the primary findings of the trial court?
- Mechanized Construction of Pakistan Ltd., Islamabad vs Muhammad1989 PLC 46 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Ltd. vs Noor Akbar1989 PLC 803 · Labour Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Ltd. and another vs Muhammad1989 PLC 643 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mazhar Iqbal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Iqbal And Another vs The State1989 MLD 3239 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Iqbal and another vs Riazulhassan Alvi, Additional Sessions1989 P Cr. L J 419 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Industries (Private) Ltd. vs The Dem. 'Ty Registrar of Trade1989 M LD 1628 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mazhar Ilahi vs The Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar and 21989 PLC (C.S.) 465 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 198 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Hussain vs Settlement Commissioner1989 MLD 3042 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Hussain vs Malik Sher Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 4688 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Hussain Shah vs Superintendent of Police, Mansehra and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Hussain Shah vs Superintendent of Police and AnotherK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 81 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Ali Memon and others vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sind, Karachi and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 503 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mazdoor Ittehad Union Mahmood Textile Mills Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Dera Ghazi Khan Region and others1989 PLC 960 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Maymar Housing Societies (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Muha Mmad1989 PLC 564 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Ansar Ahmed Khan and Other vs Mst. Shahala Begum AliasK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Maulvi Akhtar Ali and others vs Muhammad Bashir Ahmed and others1989 SCMR 1639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a pre-emption suit over agricultural land. The appellants pre-empted the sale on the ground of being owners of the estate, while the respondents resisted the suit claiming superior preferential rights as collaterals of the vendors. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, disbelieving the oral testimony regarding the respondents' collateral status. However, the High Court accepted the respondents' appeal and dismissed the suit. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents successfully established their status as collaterals possessing a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the uncontradicted oral testimony of the vendors and the attorney for the vendees, coupled with a plausible explanation for the absence of a pedigree table in the revenue record and the failure of the appellants to rebut the evidence by entering the witness-box, sufficiently established the collateral relationship. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether uncontradicted oral testimony of vendors and vendees is sufficient to establish a collateral relationship in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the failure of pre-emptors to enter the witness-box to rebut claims of collateral status affect their case?
- Whether the absence of a pedigree table in the revenue record is fatal when a plausible explanation is provided by oral evidence?
- Maulana Abu Muhammad Qasmi vs Mrs. Benazir Bhutto And Another1989 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Maula Baksh vs Allah Ditta1989 MLD 4033 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Maula Bakhsh and 10 others vs Muhammad Sharif1989 PLD Supreme Court 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee-defendant against the dismissal of his Regular First Appeal by the High Court in a pre-emption suit decreed in favor of the respondent. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court is whether the doctrine of "sinker" remains applicable in the Punjab to a vendee who joins a stranger in a purchase, and whether a previous judgment had reversed this established principle. The Court held that the doctrine of "sinker" continues to apply to a vendee in the Punjab, affirming that a purchaser who associates a stranger in a transaction commits an act incapable of being undone during trial, unlike a plaintiff-pre-emptor who may remedy an error regarding co-plaintiffs. The key principle laid down is that long-standing precedent regarding the application of the sinker rule to vendees in the Punjab holds the field based on stare decisis and legislative acceptance through statutory re-enactment.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of sinker apply to a vendee in the Punjab who joins a stranger in a purchase?
- Can a vendee remedy the defect of associating a stranger in a pre-emption transaction during the trial?
- Is the law of pre-emption in the Punjab based on custom and statute rather than Muslim Law?
- Matloob Khan and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a batch of connected direct and leave-to-appeal cases concerning the determination of land compensation for villages Jora Pind, Daragri, and Phuldar acquired for the Tarbela Dam project. The core legal questions involved the reliability of tampered revenue records, the correct baseline villages to utilize for working out average compensation awards, the enforceability of out-of-court compromise offers regarding land valuation, and the extent to which relief could be extended to non-appealing parties through miscellaneous applications. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals by adopting an agreed mean value for Jora Pind, recalculating the average compensation for Daragri and Phuldar based on final judicial awards of six comparable villages, and issuing specific guidelines for the implementation of fruit tree evaluations. The Court laid down that once an agreed formula of averaging final awards of contiguous villages is accepted, subsequent higher final determinations must be factored into the calculation, and non-appealing co-sharers similarly situated to active appellants may be granted parallel relief under expansive procedural powers.
Questions settled- Can an average compensation award for land acquisition be recalculated based on final judicial determinations of neighboring villages?
- Whether parties can bind themselves to a compromised mean value of land compensation during appellate proceedings?
- Can relief granted to an appellant in land acquisition cases be extended to non-appealing co-sharers through miscellaneous applications?
- How should land compensation be determined when primary revenue records are found to be tampered with or unreliable?
- Masoodul Haq And Another vs Government of Sind Through Secretary1989 MLD 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Masooda Aziz and others vs Registrar,Cooperative Society and others1989 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest on the grounds of abatement following the appellant's death. The core legal question is whether an appeal filed by a civil servant before a Service Tribunal abates entirely upon the death of the appellant, or whether the legal representatives of the deceased appellant have a right to pursue the appeal to recover financial benefits such as arrears of salary, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and group insurance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal representatives are entitled to pursue the appeal to the extent of claiming these admissible financial benefits. The principle established is that an appeal involving claims to monetary benefits and entitlements of a deceased civil servant does not abate upon the appellant's death, as the cause of action survives in favor of the legal representatives to the extent of those financial claims.
Questions settled- Does an appeal filed by a civil servant before a Service Tribunal abate entirely upon the death of the appellant?
- Are the legal representatives of a deceased appellant entitled to pursue an appeal to recover arrears of salary, pension, and other financial benefits?
- Masood vs Abdul Jeelani And 2 Other1989 CLC 2324 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Masood Ahmad Khalil vs N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mashaikuddin Through His Legal Heirs vs Syed Ali Hyder1989 MLD 539 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Masha Allah Khan vs Khalid Mian And 3 Other1989 MLD 4667 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-23Read full judgment →
- Maseehuddin Siddiqui vs Sind Labour Court No. v and others1989 PLC 483 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Maroof Industries Ltd., Faisalabad vs Director, Punjab Employees and others1989 PLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mardan Khan vs Mst. Bushri and others1989 SCMR 452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondents, Mst. Bushri and Mst. Naziri, setting aside the cancellation of their land allotment. The appellant, Mardan Khan, had initially approached the Settlement Authorities alleging that the respondents' allotment as successors-in-interest of Mst. Chand Bibi was fraudulent, claiming the respondents were not her daughters and that she had died in India. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the allotment, but the High Court reversed this decision upon revision converted into a constitutional petition. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant sought to rely on an unauthenticated foreign document pertaining to mutation. The Supreme Court declined to examine the document due to its unverified authenticity and untraceable provenance, noting further that this was the appellant's second application under sections 10 and 11 of the relevant statute, a prior similar application having been dismissed in 1963. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was in accordance with law, dismissing the appeal without costs.
Questions settled- Whether an unauthenticated document from a foreign jurisdiction can be examined by the Supreme Court at the appellate stage without proof of its authenticity?
- Whether successive applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act are maintainable after a prior similar application has been rejected?
- Maqsood vs Municipal Corporation, Sargodha and 2 others1989 PLC 946 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Hussain Shah vs Noor Hussain Shah and 3 others1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 45 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ali vs Messrs Metal Containers (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 50 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-20Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ali and others vs Muhammad Sharif and others1989 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption dispute concerning whether a property transaction constituted a gift or a sale. The High Court had determined that the transaction was a gift regarding the alienee who was the son of the alienor, but a sale regarding the other alienees who were strangers. The petitioners challenged the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the High Court improperly interfered with findings of fact made by the District Appellate Court. The Supreme Court examined the arguments and held that the High Court's findings of fact were unexceptionable. Although the High Court did not explicitly detail the specific requirements of Section 115(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had effectively corrected a material irregularity in the appellate judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's intervention was justified under its revisional powers.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a transaction involving an alienor's son and strangers qualify as a gift or a sale for pre-emption purposes?
- Is the High Court's failure to explicitly cite the specific clause of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 fatal to its judgment if it corrected a material irregularity?
- Maqsood Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4086 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad Iqbal vs The Director Food, Punjab and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 275 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore And Other1989 MLD 3958 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs Commissioner, Multan Division and another1989 SCMR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a sub-accountant from service following a departmental inquiry into allegations of defalcation and gross irregularities. The petitioner's penalty was initially reduced from dismissal to removal from service by the appellate departmental authority, a decision subsequently upheld by the Provincial Service Tribunal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding the petitioner's misconduct were supported by the record and whether the disciplinary action was justified. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the evidence, noting the petitioner's admission of depositing money under the wrong head of account, making unauthorized payments, and the absence of required powers of attorney in the record. The Court held that these findings sufficiently established the petitioner's unauthorized actions and misconduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the petition, affirming that disciplinary findings based on established facts and admissions do not warrant appellate intervention.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the findings of a Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary action when the record supports the allegations of misconduct?
- Does an admission of depositing money in the wrong head of account and making unauthorized payments constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action?
- Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi vs The Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 89 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad And Others vs Mst. Zanab Bibi And Another1989 MLD 4584 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad and others vs Fazal Din1989 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a vendees' petition for leave to appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involve whether the pre-emptor established a superior right of pre-emption based on collateralship through the pedigree table, whether evidence of the petitioners was improperly closed, and whether the petitioners held a better qualification as prior pre-emptors in the capacity of tenants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the omission of names in the pedigree table was merely technical and adequately supplied by the pre-emptor's deposition, that the petitioners were granted sufficient adjournments justifying the closure of their evidence, and that the claim of tenancy was unsubstantiated since the documentary evidence indicated possession as a mortgagee rather than a tenant. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that technical omissions in a pedigree table can be cured by oral deposition establishing relationship, and multiple granted adjournments legally justify the closure of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an omission in a pedigree table can be cured by the oral deposition of a pre-emptor regarding his relationship?
- Does the granting of multiple adjournments justify the closure of a party's evidence?
- Can possession as a mortgagee establish a superior qualification as a tenant for pre-emption purposes?
- Maqbool Ahmad and others vs Abdul Ghafoor and others1989 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed by vendees in pre-emption cases, challenging the dismissal of their Civil Revision and Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The core legal questions addressed were whether the absence of a specific vendee's signature on a court agreement invalidated the proceedings, whether the nature of the land as mortgaged exempted the transaction from pre-emption, and whether the suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitions lacked merit and refused leave to appeal. Regarding the participation of the vendees in court agreements, the Court ruled that even if a technical defect existed, the party was effectively represented, and the absence of a written objection before the trial court precluded the argument. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the right of pre-emption in this context is one of substitution, not re-purchase, dismissing the argument regarding the nature of the land. Finally, the Court affirmed that proceedings signed by counsel on behalf of parties are valid, and the limitation argument was abandoned by the petitioner upon examination.
Questions settled- Does the mere fact that only counsel signed court proceedings invalidate the agreement for the parties involved?
- Is a transaction involving mortgaged land exempt from the right of pre-emption?
- Can a party challenge the participation of a co-vendee in a court agreement if no written objection was filed before the trial court?
- Maosood Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 2728 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Maosood Ahmad Masoomi vs Chief Engineer, WAPDA (Thermal) WAPDA1989 PLC 966 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Maobool Ahmad Khakwani vs Secretary, Ministry of Education and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 180 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
- Manzur And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2817 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Manzur Ahmad and 7 others vs Abdul Khaliq and 7 others1989 SCMR 1329(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court in a dispute regarding inheritance rights in Evacuee Land Settlement. The petitioners, claiming to be the children of a predeceased son of a displaced person right-holder, sought a share in the inheritance. The lower courts denied relief, reasoning that the predecessor-in-interest died in 1950, prior to the promulgation of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and that the Ordinance lacked retrospective effect, thereby excluding the petitioners from inheritance. The Supreme Court, upon hearing arguments regarding the applicability of the 1961 Ordinance and the nature of the property, granted leave to appeal. The Court identified the core legal questions as whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under the Rehabilitation Scheme given the evacuee nature of the property, and whether the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, read with connected laws, should be interpreted to allow the petitioners to inherit the estate. The Court determined that these issues, particularly the question of the Ordinance's retrospective application, required further examination.
Questions settled- Whether the property being Evacuee land precludes the petitioners from claiming inheritance relief under paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation Scheme?
- Whether the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 can be applied retrospectively to allow grandchildren to inherit the estate of a predecessor who died before the Ordinance's promulgation?
- Manzoor Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 42 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Pakistan Steel , .1989 PLC 980 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Hassan EtcK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 711 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Ch. Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others1989 SCMR 2034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a sub-tenant against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether an order of eviction or adverse proceedings can be passed against a sub-tenant when the main tenant remains absent from the proceedings, and whether an occupant maintaining an ambiguous status can seek discretionary relief. The Supreme Court held that accepting such an extraordinary plea would allow sub-tenants to benefit through the absence of the main tenant, which was never the intention of the law. Furthermore, the Court held that a dishonest occupant attempting to retain possession of property through illegal means loses the right to obtain discretionary relief in constitutional writ jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an order can be passed against a sub-tenant when the main tenant remains away from the proceedings?
- Does a dishonest occupant seeking to retain possession through illegal means lose the right to obtain discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Manzoor Hussain vs Anwar Khan and 2 others1989 SCMR 1715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over the possession of land through pre-emption measuring 15 kanals 18 marlas situated in village Kalu-joo. The core legal question involves the availability of pre-emption qualifications based on the ownership of agricultural land following authoritative judicial declarations regarding its repugnancy to Islamic law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the qualifications of pre-emption are no longer available to the pre-emptors after the target date of 31-7-1986, as the case was pending without a decree in light of the law declared in Sardar Ali's case (PLD 1988 SC 287). The key principle laid down is that pre-emption claims grounded on agricultural land ownership cannot be sustained after the specified target date where no decree had been passed.
Questions settled- Whether qualifications of pre-emption based on ownership of agricultural land are available after the target date of 31-7-1986?
- Can a pre-emption suit pending without a decree succeed after the declaration of ownership of agricultural land as repugnant to Islamic Law?
- Manzoor Hussain Usama vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1989 PLC 375 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain and 37 others vs Province of the Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, serving as Private Secretaries in the Lahore High Court, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Province of the Punjab to implement Federal Government Office Memorandum dated 18-3-1986 and upgrade their posts from BPS-16 to BPS-17 with effect from 1-7-1983. The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 and contended that the Federal Pay Scheme 1983 was not adopted in toto. The High Court held that officers and servants of the High Court, governed under Article 208 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, do not fall within the definition of civil servants under Section 2(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, so the Service Tribunal lacked exclusive jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court ruled that the Punjab Government had adopted the 1983 Pay Scheme and excluding one category of employees while implementing it for others was discriminatory and unjust. The Court allowed the petition and directed the implementation of the upgradation memorandum.
Questions settled- Are officers and servants of a High Court civil servants within the meaning of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the service grievances of High Court employees?
- Can the Provincial Government selectively exclude a specific category of employees from a adopted Federal Pay Scheme without violating non-discrimination principles?
- Manzoor Hussain and 2 others vs Muhammad Ali and another1989 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff pre-emptors against the dismissal of their regular first appeal by the High Court in a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to a lack of bona fide conduct and failure to satisfy the requirements of sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief regarding the deposit of pre-emption money. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning regarding the limitation issue was unexceptionable and that the petitioners' failure to deposit the remaining pre-emption money over a period of more than six years demonstrated a lack of bona fide conduct. Consequently, the Court laid down that appellate interference is unwarranted where the conduct of the party seeking equity and condonation of delay is not bona fide, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed in a wrong forum can be condoned under section 5 or excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the conduct of the party is not bona fide?
- Does the failure to deposit remaining pre-emption money within a reasonable time after the dismissal of an appeal result in the loss of the pre-emption decree?
- Manzoor Elahi and anothers vs The State and 2 others1989 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 307/34 and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court correctly evaluated the place of occurrence and whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused vitiated the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were correct, as the prosecution failed to establish the true place of occurrence, which was proven to be on the respondents' land where the complainants were trespassing, and the prosecution deliberately suppressed numerous injuries sustained by the accused party during the incident. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution misrepresents the venue of the crime and suppresses injuries sustained by the accused at the spot, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence of person and property.
Questions settled- Whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused on the spot by the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
- Does an accused party have the right of private defence of person and property when attacked on their own land by trespassers?
- Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles of appraisal of evidence in criminal cases when reversing a conviction?
- Manzoor and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
- Manzoor And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4403 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ali vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 343 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed vs The State1989 MLD 4890 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4979 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Mst. Zeban Bibi1989 MLD 985 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-12Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Khalid and another1989 SCMR 1710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that had commuted a death sentence to imprisonment for life for the murder of Muhammad Fazil. The complainant sought enhancement of the sentence, while the convict sought acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's reasoning, which had reduced the sentence on the grounds that the murder lacked premeditation, occurred on the spur of the moment, and involved a minor weapon (Chhuri) rather than a lethal one. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly exercised its judicial discretion in evaluating the circumstances of the case, including the absence of prior serious enmity. Finding no error of law or fact in the High Court's decision to commute the sentence, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the exercise of discretion. Furthermore, the convict's petition was dismissed on the merits, noting that the convict was fortunate to receive a lesser sentence. The key principle affirmed is that an appellate court's exercise of discretion in sentencing will not be disturbed absent a clear error of law or fact.
Questions settled- Does the absence of premeditation justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in sentencing absent an error of law or fact?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed if it is time-barred and lacks merit?
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) And Other1989 CLC 142 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-23Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs (Mst). Zeban BibiK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases - 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-12Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Patyvari vs The Assistant Commissioner, NarowalK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 30 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Patwari vs The Assistant Commissioner, Narowal1989 PLC (C.S.) 270 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Arif vs General Manager (Operation), WAPDA, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 459 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-04-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad And Others vs Abdul Haq1989 MLD 4792 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 724 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4672 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 817 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mansur Ali And 13 Others vs Habib Bank Ltd.1989 MLD 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ali Khan vs Board of Revenue And 4 Other1989 MLD 1435 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →