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.

• Shah Fakhar Zaman vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 576 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
• Shah Ali Jan And 6 Other vs Messrs Abdul Haq Silk Factory1987 PLC 66 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-07Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Mahmood vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 98 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain Shah vs Sakina Begum and others1987 CLC 664 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-26
  constitutional petitionlimitation periodexclusion of timeevacuee propertyresidual properties schemerevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged orders passed by settlement authorities regarding the transfer of urban evacuee properties. The core legal question concerned the computation of the period of limitation for filing a revision petition, specifically whether time requisite for obtaining copies should be excluded under the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the revisional authority erred in dismissing the revision petition as time-barred without properly excluding the days spent on obtaining copies pursuant to Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908. The court established that the day on which a copy application is made and the day on which the copy is delivered must be excluded when computing limitation, rendering the impugned revisional order without lawful authority and necessitating a remand of the matter for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the days spent on applying for and receiving a certified copy of an order must be excluded when computing the period of limitation for filing a revision?
  • Can a revisional authority dismiss a petition as time-barred without correctly calculating the limitation period under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is an order passed without proper computation of limitation liable to be set aside as without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain and another vs United Bank Ltd.1987 MLD 3070 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Bari vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 818 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah vs The State1987 MLD 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shafique and others vs The State1987 MLD 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-28Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed vs Abdul Rehman1987 MLD 3265 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs The State-1987PCr.LJ 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Abdul Rehman1987 MLD 2243 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-20Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad Qazi vs Syed Ghous Ali Shah1987 MLD 2035(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sind And 6 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 813 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-06-04Read full judgment →
• Shafi Atam and another vs The State1987 MLD 3239 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-24Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat alias Tull vs The State1987 MLD 1990 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
• Shadkat Ali vs The State and others1987 MLD 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shadda Alias Shadoo vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
• Shada and others vs Sarfraz and others1987 MLD 818 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
• Shabir Hussain and others vs Muhammad Sharif and others1987 MLD 73 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
• Shabih Ul Hassan vs Haji Abdul Jabbar And Other1987 SCMR 1455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-19
  Rehabilitation ActCivil Court JurisdictionOuster of JurisdictionAllotment CancellationDeclaratory DecreeEvacuee Property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit challenging an order by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, which cancelled an allotment of land subsequently gifted to the appellant. The appellant sought a declaratory decree, arguing the cancellation order was void for lack of notice. The trial court, upheld by the High Court, dismissed the suit, ruling that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenge. The core legal question was whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge an order passed by a Rehabilitation Authority, given the statutory bar on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was not maintainable. The Court affirmed that the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner could only be challenged through the appellate hierarchy provided under the relevant statute. The key principle laid down is that Section 17 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits against actions taken in good faith by Rehabilitation Authorities, mandating that such grievances be addressed through the prescribed departmental appellate forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 17 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a suit challenging an order of a Rehabilitation Authority?
  • Is a civil suit maintainable to challenge an order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the cancellation of land allotment?
  • Must an aggrieved party challenge an order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner through the appellate hierarchy of the Rehabilitation Authorities rather than a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Shah And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Habib Mustafa And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1987 CLC 1806 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir and 2 others vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1987 CLC 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14
  rent appealdefault in payment of rentrecording of evidenceprinciples of natural justiceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from five first rent appeals filed by tenants against the orders of the XIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller decreeing the landlord's rent cases on the ground of default in payment of rent. The core legal question is whether recording evidence in one rent case and copying or placing verbatim copies of depositions onto the record of other connected cases is legally sustainable and compliant with principles of natural justice. The court held that such a procedure is illegal and contrary to law, even if consented to by the parties, as it vitiates the evidentiary value of the proceedings. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the Rent Controller for fresh recording of evidence and decision on merits within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legal for a Rent Controller to record evidence in one case and copy the depositions into other connected cases?
  • Does the consent of parties validate the practice of using depositions from one case in multiple other cases?
  • What is the consequence on the evidentiary value of witness testimony when cross-examination is not properly conducted and signed in separate cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs Vice-President and Zonal Chief, U.B.L., Hyderabad1987 PLC 336 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2010 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-29Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 3093 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-31Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State-1987 MLD 3114 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs Abdul G H a Foor and others1987 CLC 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shabaz Khan vs The State and Others1987 PLD Lahore 28 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
• Shabaz Khan vs The State and Other1987 PLD Lahore 28 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
• Shaban vs The State--Opponent1987 P Cr. L J 1371 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• Shababuddin vs The State1987 MLD 1551 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
• Sha Keel alias Mithoo and another vs The State1987 MLD 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• Sh.Muhammad Matin vs Mrs.Sughra Bai and others1987 MLD 3249 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sh. Sardar Ali vs The State And Another1987 PLD Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Sardar Ali vs The State and another1987 PLD Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• SH. Salahuddin vs Shaukat Umar And 2 Other1987 SCMR 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sh. Mushtaq Ahmad vs Shaukat Soap Factory and others1987 CLC 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06
  rectification of register of memberssummary jurisdictionshare certificatesCompanies Ordinance 1984disputed questions of factlocus standishare transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two petitions filed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking the issuance of share certificates, rectification of the Register of Members, and the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondents were liable for penalties regarding the non-issuance of share certificates and whether the Court should exercise its summary jurisdiction to rectify the Register of Members amidst disputed facts regarding share ownership and transfers. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the request for penalties was untenable as the alleged default occurred under the repealed Companies Act, 1913, and the petitioners themselves were directors at the relevant time. Furthermore, the Court held that its summary jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is not intended for resolving complex, disputed questions of fact or law, such as the validity of share transfers and limitation issues. The key principle laid down is that where a dispute necessitates a detailed inquiry into facts, the parties must be relegated to a regular civil suit rather than invoking summary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Company Judge exercise summary jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, to resolve complex, disputed questions of fact regarding share transfers?
  • Is a director of a company liable for penalties for the non-issuance of share certificates if the default occurred during their own tenure?
  • Does a person who has not established their status as a member of a company have locus standi to seek directions under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Umar vs Additional Directorgeneral, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1987 CLC 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Sharif vs 1Nayatullah and others1987 CLC 2176 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
• SH. Jaffar Hussain vs Amir Ali And Another1987 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25
  criminal appealwithdrawal of petitioncompromiseacquittalconviction alterationspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant and the State, respectively, challenging a High Court judgment that acquitted one accused and altered the conviction of another from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Regarding the complainant's petition, the petitioner sought to withdraw the appeal on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the complainant's petition accordingly. Regarding the State's petition, the Court examined the impugned High Court judgment to determine if any legal error existed. Upon hearing the State counsel and reviewing the record, the Court found no flaw in the High Court's reasoning or decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's petition for leave to appeal. The judgment affirms the finality of the High Court's decision in the absence of demonstrated legal error and acknowledges the right of a petitioner to withdraw a petition following a compromise between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner withdraw a petition for special leave to appeal if a compromise is reached between the parties?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment where no legal flaw is demonstrated by the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ikram-Ul-Haq vs Shafaqat Ali Piracha and others1987 MLD 211 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sh. Hafiz Ur Rahim And Another vs Dr. Shafiq Ahmad And Another1987 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20
  civil revisionleave to appealpermanent transfer deedfraud and misrepresentationlocus standisettlement operationsrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from concurrent orders of the lower courts and the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision and affirming the rejection of their plaint. The core legal question concerns the availability of a remedy for challenging a property transfer deed alleged to have been secured through fraud and misrepresentation before the settlement authorities, after those authorities and the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction held they lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter post-issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed, while civil courts subsequently rejected the suit on locus standi grounds. The Supreme Court held that leaving the petitioners without access to any forum to investigate their plea of fraud and misrepresentation creates an anomalous position requiring examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the question and ordered the continuation of the status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities have jurisdiction to reopen a property transfer matter after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Does a party have locus standi to file a civil suit challenging a property transfer allegedly secured through fraud and misrepresentation before the settlement authorities?
  • Can a litigant be denied access to both constitutional and civil forums for redress regarding a fraudulent property transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Fazal Ur Rehman vs Pakistan Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Works And Rehabilitation, Islamabad And Other1987 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-11
  Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958Civil Court jurisdictionCompensation poolProperty transferEarmarking schemeOuster of jurisdictionPleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court judgment concerning the ownership of Bungalow No. 34, Haider Road, Rawalpindi, claimed by both the Cantonment Board and a private transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute or if such jurisdiction was barred by Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, given the property's status within the compensation pool. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the property remained part of the compensation pool and the transfer to the appellant was valid under the Act. The Court established that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 when the dispute involves determining entitlement to properties within the compensation pool, which must be resolved by authorities under the Act. Additionally, the Court held that when determining jurisdiction, courts must consider the pleadings of all parties rather than relying solely on the averments in the plaint, particularly when material facts are concealed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in disputes regarding properties within the compensation pool?
  • Should a court determine the question of its own jurisdiction based solely on the averments in the plaint or on the pleadings of all parties?
  • Can a property be considered outside the compensation pool if its sale approval was conditional upon it not being transferable under the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Arshad Hussain vs The Province of the Punjab Through The Secretary, Excise And Taxation Department1987 PLC (C.S.) 14 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Sh. Akbar Hussain And Other vs Punjab Government And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 21 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• SH a U Ka T Ali vs The District Magistrate/Collector, G Ujr a Nwa La1987 CLC 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
• Seven Up Company vs Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and another1987 MLD 91 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26
  trade mark registrationhonest concurrent userpublic interestdeception and confusiontrade mark oppositionreputation and goodwill
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment of the Sindh High Court arises from appeals filed against the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks' decision allowing the registration of the trade mark '7-UP' to respondent No. 2 for sweet scented supari in Class 30. The appellant, the renowned international manufacturer of soft drinks under the trade mark 'SEVEN-UP' and '7-UP', opposed the applications under sections 8 and 10 of the Trade Marks Act. The core legal questions involved whether the registration of an identical trade mark for different goods is likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public, and whether the respondent established honest concurrent user. The court held that Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act primarily protects public interest against deception and confusion, and is not restricted to identical goods or established trade connections. Finding that '7-UP' is an invented expression with universal reputation and that the respondent failed to prove honest adoption or user, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, laying down that registration must be refused where there is a real tangible danger of public deception or exploitation of another's goodwill.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act are designed to protect public interest against deception and confusion regardless of whether the competing goods belong to the same description?
  • Does an applicant seeking to register a trade mark identical or similar to a well-known registered mark bear the burden of proving honesty of adoption and user?
  • Can a trade mark be registered where the use of an invented expression by a subsequent party is likely to lead the public to believe that the goods originate from a common source?
  Read full judgment →
• Seth Muhammad Jahangir And 2 Others vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
• Sepoy Nasrullah Aziz vs Subedar Ali Haider and others1987 CLC 905 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• Seigfried Beacon (Pak.) Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1987 PLC 650 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
• Seerat Hussain Shah vs The State1987 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16
  criminal appealdeath sentencemitigating circumstancessentence reductionmurder convictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Seerat Hussain Shah, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Abdul Shakoor under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner's appeal against the conviction and sentence was previously dismissed by the High Court, which confirmed the death penalty. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel did not challenge the conviction on its merits but specifically sought a reduction in the sentence. The core legal question before the Court was whether there existed any mitigating circumstances that would justify a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid mitigating factors that would warrant a lesser sentence under the law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the sentence imposed for the offence of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remains undisturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of mitigating circumstances justify the maintenance of a death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a death sentence be reduced when the petitioner does not challenge the conviction on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health Department And Other vs Kalsoom Bibi And 8 Others1987 PLC 272 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
• Searle (Pak.) Ltd. Employees' Union vs Messrs Searle (Pak.) Ltd.1987 PLC 774 · Labour Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
• Sawan and others vs Majeed U LL a H1987 CLC 815 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
• Sattu Khan And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14
  leave to appealright of self-defencedefence of propertymurderappreciation of evidencepossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioners for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in rejecting the accused's plea of self-defence of person and property, particularly in light of the significant injuries sustained by the accused during the incident and the underlying dispute regarding land possession. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, motive, and medical evidence, while the defence contended that the complainant party initiated the aggression, creating a genuine apprehension of danger. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's reasoning for rejecting the plea of self-defence requires further examination, especially regarding the ambiguity in evidence concerning which party held possession of the disputed land at the time of the occurrence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve whether the benefit of the doubt regarding the right of self-defence and the possession of property should have been extended to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defence of person and property?
  • Should ambiguity in evidence regarding the possession of disputed land be resolved in favour of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sattar And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
• Sarwar vs The State1987 MLD 1997 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Ram vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 595 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan and others vs Mst. Khadija1987 MLD 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan And Another vs Muhammad Iqbal And Other1987 SCMR 1330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20
  ocular testimonyforensic corroborationbenefit of doubtacquittalmurderinterested witnessesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the death sentence of the petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz, for murder, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the ocular testimony, which was challenged as interested, was sufficiently corroborated by forensic evidence to sustain the petitioner's conviction, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused was justified due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the petitioner was sound, as the ocular testimony was consistent and corroborated by forensic evidence—specifically, the matching of the recovered gun with the crime empty found at the scene. The Court dismissed the challenge to the acquittal of the co-accused, finding that the lower courts correctly applied the principle of benefit of doubt due to material inconsistencies in the testimony regarding the specific roles and actions of those co-accused. The judgment reaffirms that forensic corroboration can validate ocular testimony even when witnesses are related to the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon to sustain a conviction when the witnesses are related to the deceased?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from a petitioner's possession provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Is an acquittal justified when there are material inconsistencies in the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding the roles of co-accused?
  • Does the fact that a weapon is licensed in the name of another person invalidate its recovery from the accused for evidentiary purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Din and anothers vs Zikri Khan and another1987 CLC 2476 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Bano vs Muhammad Anwar1987 CLC 650 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sarwar And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  criminal appealocular evidenceindependent corroborationforensic evidencerecovery of weaponsinterested witnessesdouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a double murder case where the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence, provided by interested witnesses, required independent corroboration, and if such corroboration existed given that the trial and appellate courts had rejected the recovery evidence due to procedural delays. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in rejecting the recovery evidence; a delay of a few days in dispatching recovered items to the Forensic Science Laboratory, absent evidence of tampering or lack of safe custody, does not invalidate the recoveries. The Court found that the matching of a recovered empty shell with the firearm seized from appellant Sarwar provided the necessary independent corroboration for his conviction. However, regarding the other appellants, the Court found insufficient evidence to sustain their convictions. The key principle laid down is that mere delay in the dispatch of recovered crime scene items to a forensic laboratory does not automatically render the recovery evidence inadmissible or worthless, provided the integrity and safe custody of the evidence remain unchallenged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in dispatching recovered crime scene items to a forensic laboratory automatically invalidate the recovery evidence?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of interested witnesses in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence corroborated by forensic matching of a recovered firearm?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Engineering Co. Ltd. and others vs National Bank of Pakistan1987 CLC 631 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Agricultural Industries, Faisalabad vs Sartaj Industries, Faisalabad1987 MLD 2482 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan Jadoon vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad1987 PLC (C.S.) 194 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz And Others vs The State-1987P Cr. L J 2015 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz And 5 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Teddi and Another vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 110 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Kalu and others vs The State1987 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Casas 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali Shah vs Chief Secretary, Punjab And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 906 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 431 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 3094 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 713 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-19Read full judgment →
• Sardaran Bibi and others vs Muhammad Ameen and others1987 CLC 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Sardara vs Muhammad Abid1987 MLD 2426 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
• Sardara and others vs Ghulam Qadir and others1987 MLD 419 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sakhawatuddin And 3 Others Muhammad Aslam Farooq And Others vs Muhammad Iqbal And 4 Other Mst. Ijaz Munawar1987 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20
  Civil ProcedureWritten StatementPenal ProvisionNon-prosecutionRestoration of RevisionSpecific PerformanceJudicial Discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  These two civil appeals concern the interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the consequences of a defendant's failure to file a written statement, alongside the restoration of a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question is whether a court may automatically pronounce judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 upon such failure, and what constitutes a valid "requirement" for a written statement. The Supreme Court held that the penal consequences of Order VIII, Rule 10 are not automatic or mandatory. The provision is discretionary and must be strictly construed. A court may only invoke this rule if it has explicitly "required" the written statement through a speaking order, demonstrating an application of mind. Furthermore, the court must ensure the judgment is just and based on merits. Regarding the civil revision, the Court ordered its restoration, finding that the counsel’s absence due to professional obligations in an adjacent courtroom justified the delay. The principle established is that penal procedural rules require strict compliance and judicial discretion, preventing the routine imposition of judgment without substantive justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court automatically pronounce judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely due to a failure to file a written statement?
  • Does the penal provision of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a specific speaking order from the court to be enforceable?
  • Is the pronouncement of judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or discretionary upon a party's failure to file a written statement?
  • Should a civil revision be restored when the counsel's absence was due to professional obligations in an adjacent courtroom?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Pir Muhammad vs Abdul Wahid And Another1987 PLD Quetta 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Pir Muhammad vs Abdul Wahid and another1987 PLD Quetta 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 688 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The State1987 SCMR 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-29
  death sentencecompromisemitigating circumstancecoercionmurderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentences of the petitioners for the murder of six individuals and a murderous assault on a minor child, Mst. Haleema, under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a compromise between the accused and the sole survivor of the incident, who is the niece of one of the accused, should be accepted as a mitigating circumstance to commute the death sentence. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of this compromise. The Court held that while it has previously considered compromises in murder cases as mitigating factors, it must exercise extreme caution to ensure such agreements are genuine and not coerced, particularly when made as a 'last resort' by death-row convicts. The principle laid down is that the Court must proactively investigate whether a compromise is voluntary or the result of coercion, and whether it serves the interests of justice, especially when the accused have killed the victim's entire family.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise in a murder case be accepted as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence?
  • What factors must the Court consider when evaluating the genuineness of a compromise in a criminal case?
  • Does the Court have a duty to investigate potential coercion in compromises offered by death-row convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Hussain vs The State1987 MLD 2662 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Hussain (Advocate) vs The State1987 MLD 2663 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Asim vs Sheikh Allah Dad1987 SCMR 1778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  bona fide requirementrent restrictionejectmentlocal commissionerlandlord and tenantappellate inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a rent dispute where the appellant-landlord sought the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from a portion of a bungalow, claiming the premises were required in good faith for his personal use and his family's occupation. The Rent Controller initially allowed the ejectment application, but the High Court reversed this decision, finding the landlord failed to prove the bona fide requirement or the unsuitability of his current accommodation. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established the necessity of the disputed premises given his existing accommodation and family size. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the landlord's claim regarding the insufficiency of his current housing was factually incorrect. The Court affirmed that the appointment of a local commissioner by consent to inspect the premises was a valid mode of inquiry at the appellate stage. Ultimately, the Court held that the landlord failed to satisfy the burden of proof regarding bona fide personal need, and the appellate findings were based on a proper evaluation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court appoint a local commissioner to inspect premises during an appeal in a rent case?
  • Does the appointment of a local commissioner by consent of parties preclude a party from challenging the report?
  • Is the burden of proof on the landlord to establish that existing accommodation is unsuitable when seeking eviction for personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Arif Khan, Advocate vs Noor Alam and others1987 CLC 1353 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs Fazaldin and others1987 MLD 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khalid Omer vs The State1987 MLD 3192 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khalid Nawaz vs Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo1987 CLC 1167 · Election Tribunal · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Sardar and others vs Ghulam Qadir and others1987 CLC 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs Alkarim Printers1987 CLC 770 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 149 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ally vs Abdul Ghani and 5 Others1987 PLD Karachi 58 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ally vs Abdul Gani and 5 Other1987 PLD Karachi 58 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
• Sanjeda Bano vs Muhammad Saeed Jehangir1987 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →