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. 232594 judgments in total.
- NOOK MUHAMMAD And 4 Other vs Syed WALAYAT ALI And Another1987 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- NIZAR ALI vs NOORABAD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD And Other1987 PLD Karachi 676 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN YAHYA AND Other vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the interpretation of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, specifically regarding land holdings of civil servants. The appellants, legal heirs of a deceased civil servant, challenged the retrospective application of a notification that reclassified their land as self-acquired, thereby reducing their permissible holding. The core legal questions were whether land allotted under Settlement Laws constitutes inherited land under the proviso to paragraph 10(1) of the Regulation, and whether a subsequent notification could divest rights already vested under an earlier notification. The Court held that land allotted under Settlement Laws does not constitute inherited land or land acquired in lieu thereof by exchange or sale. However, the Court ruled that the appellants had acquired a vested right under the earlier notification before its cancellation. The Court established the principle that a subordinate body exercising delegated legislative power cannot issue notifications that retrospectively take away or destroy rights already accrued under previous valid notifications. Consequently, the Court set aside the order applying the later notification to the appellants' case.
Questions settled- Does land allotted under Settlement Laws constitute land acquired in lieu of inherited land under the proviso to paragraph 10(1) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Can a subordinate authority, in exercise of delegated legislative power, issue a notification that retrospectively destroys rights already vested under a previous notification?
- Does the mere pendency of proceedings for determining land holdings prevent a party from claiming a vested right under a statutory notification?
- NIZAMUDDIN And 7 Other vs Messrs KURMAI Co.1987 PLC 883 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN and 13 others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED and 7 others1987 CLC 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale wherein the trial Court passed a decree directing the plaintiffs to deposit the purchase money by a specified date. Following an application by a defendant under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, the operation of the decree was suspended. Upon ultimately dismissing the defendant's application, the trial Court enlarged the time for the plaintiffs to deposit the purchase money. The defendants challenged the trial Court's jurisdiction to alter the decree. The High Court considered whether a court passing a decree for specific performance becomes functus officio or retains power to extend the time fixed for payment. Dismissing the revision, the High Court held that under Section 35(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, the court does not become functus officio upon passing a decree for specific performance and retains jurisdiction to alter the decree and extend the time for depositing purchase money. The Court further held the extension was justified under the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit.
Questions settled- Does a court passing a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale become functus officio after the decree is passed?
- Whether Section 35(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 empowers the court to extend the time fixed in a decree for the deposit of purchase money?
- Can a party be penalized by forfeiture of time fixed in a decree when prevented from timely compliance by an interim order of the court?
- NIZAM DIN And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased following a sudden altercation. The core legal question revolves around whether the circumstances of the case, arising from a heated exchange regarding family honor and a taunt about an illicit pregnancy, constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to bring the offense within Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding grave and sudden provocation required further consideration as the High Court had failed to advert to this aspect. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, establishing that appellate forums must duly consider pleas of grave and sudden provocation raised on the facts of the prosecution's own case.
Questions settled- Whether the facts alleged by the prosecution constitute a case of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an appellate court required to consider the plea of grave and sudden provocation when raised on the prosecution's own version of facts?
- NIZ AR ALI vs NOORABAD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD and OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 676 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
- NISAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a criminal trial where the petitioner, Nisar Hussain, and a co-accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Zafar Abbas and sentenced to death, which sentence was confirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a lesser penalty of imprisonment for life should be awarded instead of the death sentence on the ground of provocation, arising from the deceased having previously abused and slapped the petitioner in a public gathering. The Supreme Court held that the death sentence was justified and refused leave to appeal, observing that the provocation claimed was the result of the petitioner's own wrongful act of teasing female visitors at a religious gathering, and the deceased was fully justified in reprimanding him. The key principle laid down is that self-created provocation, arising from retaliation against lawful reprimand for an immoral act, does not constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting a lesser penalty in a murder case.
Questions settled- Whether self-created provocation resulting from a deceased's lawful reprimand for teasing women constitutes a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life when the motive for the murder is retaliation for a public insult lawfully inflicted upon the accused?
- Whether multiple fatal stab wounds inflicted on vital organs preclude the extension of leniency in sentencing under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- NISAR HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 591 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2246 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED vs DIRECTOR, CHILTAN GHEE MILLS And Another1987 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of Chiltan Ghee Mills, had his services terminated by the employer with three months' salary in lieu of notice. He challenged the termination through a constitutional petition before the High Court of Baluchistan, which was dismissed on the principle of master and servant following the Supreme Court precedent in Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. Upon seeking leave to appeal, the petitioner contended that his service was governed by statutory rules framed under the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industries (Control and Development) Act, 1973, which provided protection against arbitrary termination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the matter and held that the petitioner failed to establish that the rules relied upon were validly framed statutory rules backed by delegated power from the Federal Government. The Court concluded that the master and servant relationship applied, the termination was a valid termination simpliciter under the applicable service rules without casting any stigma of misconduct, and the constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the service rules of a corporation framed without a valid delegation of rule-making power from the Federal Government have statutory force?
- Does a constitutional petition lie against the termination of service of a corporate employee where no statutory rules regulate their employment conditions?
- Whether the termination of an employee's service on the ground of medical unfitness amounts to removal by way of punishment for misconduct attracting an inquiry?
- When does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment contracts of corporate bodies set up under statute?
- NISAR AHMAD vs TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA1987 CLC 856 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 269 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD SIDDIQUI And Another vs HOSTELLERIES De FRANCE, KARACHI1987 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD KIANI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 335 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD KHAWAJA vs EDOO BEGUM1987 MLD 3200 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- NIAZU vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3233 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- NIAZI And 3 Others vs GHULAM DASTIGIR And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1432 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 282 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through COLLECTOR, DISTRICT VEHARI and 11 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 675 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through COLLECTOR, DISTRICT VEHARI And 11 Other1987 PLD Lahore 675 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL QAYYUM and 2 others1987 CLC 2093 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- NIAZ HUSSAIN MEMON vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Another1987 PLC (.C.S.) 556 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- NIAZ ALI vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1987 CLC 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1780(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD QURESHI and others vs Messrs SADIQ TRADERS Ltd. and others1987 MLD 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
- NIAMATULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT MASIH And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-29Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT MASIH and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 793 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE and 5 others1987 CLC 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT KHAN And Another vs THE STATE Through Enforcement Staff, Evacuee Property, Lahore And Other1987 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition against orders passed by settlement authorities. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court rightly declined to entertain a second constitutional petition after the petitioners' earlier writ petition and subsequent restoration applications were dismissed for non-prosecution and gross negligence. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary in nature and that substantial reasons were provided by the High Court for refusing to entertain the second petition due to the petitioners' gross negligence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the High Court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised in favour of a party that has been grossly negligent in pursuing earlier remedies.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is of a discretionary nature?
- Can a second constitutional petition be entertained when an earlier writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and lack of diligence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction based on gross negligence?
- NIAMAT And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 521 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT ALI vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD and another through his Legal Heirs1987 MLD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- NIA Z AHMAD vs FIDA MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 659 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK & FISHERIES DEPARTMENT And 11 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 786 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR DISINVESTMENT OF AKMIDC UNITS, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others vs MOINUDDIN and 6 others1987 CLC 1322 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the District Judge, Mirpur, which granted an injunction restraining the appellants from transferring possession of the AKMIDC Textile Mills to the successful bidder (appellant No. 3) and maintaining the status quo. The core legal question was whether a bidder whose offer has not been formally accepted by the government has a prima facie case to obtain an injunction against the transfer of property to another party. The Court held that the respondent’s bid, which was conditional and not formally accepted by the government, did not create a binding agreement or a vested right. Consequently, the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court determined that the balance of convenience favored the appellants, as the respondent had no financial stake in the property, whereas the appellants faced significant ongoing interest liabilities. The Court reiterated the established principle that for an interim injunction to be granted, three conditions must co-exist: a prima facie case, the threat of irreparable loss, and the balance of convenience in favor of the applicant.
Questions settled- Does the mere submission of a bid for a government contract create a binding agreement or a legal right before formal acceptance?
- Must the three conditions of a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience co-exist to justify the grant of a temporary injunction?
- Can a court grant an injunction to a bidder whose offer was conditional and never formally accepted by the competent authority?
- NAZRA And Another vs DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA And Other1987 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioners' application for the abatement of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the death of one of the co-plaintiffs during the pendency of a pre-emption suit, whose legal representatives were not brought on record within time, results in the abatement of the entire suit on the ground of partial pre-emption or non-survival of the right to sue. The Supreme Court held that the suit did not abate as a whole, distinguishing prior case law where an appeal had abated, and applied the principle that the test for abatement is whether the suit could initially have been instituted and prosecuted without the deceased plaintiff. Since each plaintiff possessed an equal and independent right to pre-empt the sale, the death of one co-plaintiff did not render the suit non-maintainable as to the remaining plaintiffs. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emption suit abate entirely upon the death of one of the co-plaintiffs if his legal representatives are not brought on record?
- What is the test to determine whether a suit or appeal abates as a whole or only in part upon the death of a party?
- Does the death of a co-plaintiff having an equal and independent right to pre-empt render the suit non-maintainable for partial pre-emption?
- RASHID MASIH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2257(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- NAZMUDDIN vs THIRD SIND LABOUR COURT And Another1987 PLC 132 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- NAZIR RAFAT vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- NAZIR MUHAMMAD vs TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT Through Director-General1987 PLC (C.S.) 658 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN (Nazar Hussain) vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- NAZIR FATIMA vs GHULAM FATIMA and others1987 CLC 2073 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- NAZIR and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2693 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1987 MLD 628 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED JAGIRANI BALOUCH vs PROVINCE OF SIND and another1987 CLC 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose from a suit filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police challenging departmental tests required for his reinstatement. The trial court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The respondents appealed this interlocutory order to the District Judge, who suspended the trial court's injunction. However, the respondents failed to give notice of the appeal to the plaintiff prior to its presentation, as required by Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court of Sindh considered whether compliance with the pre-presentation notice requirement is mandatory for entertaining an appeal against an interlocutory order. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that the provision of Order XLIII Rule 3 is mandatory and serves as a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate court. Consequently, the appellate court's judgment was declared to suffer from an incurable illegality, and the revision application was allowed, setting aside the appellate court's decision.
Questions settled- Is the requirement of giving notice to the respondent before presenting an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory?
- Does the failure to comply with Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 divest the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal?
- Can an appellate order suspending a trial court's interim injunction be sustained if the appellant failed to provide notice of the appeal to the respondent prior to its presentation?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs The STATE1987 MLD 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ROSHAN DIN and others1987 MLD 2269 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs MEMBER, COLONIES, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1987 MLD 900 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs HIDAYAT ALI And Other1987 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld an ex parte decree passed against the petitioner. The petitioner sought to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but the trial court dismissed the application on grounds of limitation and merits, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in proceeding ex parte when the petitioner's counsel pleaded 'no instructions' on the date of the hearing. The Supreme Court held that when a counsel pleads no instructions, the party effectively remains unrepresented, justifying the court's decision to proceed ex parte. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner's contention that the suit was not fixed for hearing on the date of the decree to be factually incorrect. Consequently, the High Court correctly refused to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a counsel pleading 'no instructions' on the date of hearing justify the court in proceeding ex parte against the party?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact under its revisional jurisdiction?
- Is an application to set aside an ex parte decree liable to be dismissed if it is time-barred?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs GHULAMA And Another1987 SCMR 1704 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from the dismissal of a civil revision by the Lahore High Court concerning a pre-emption suit. The original suit was decreed in favor of the respondent, requiring the deposit of a balance amount by a specific date, failing which the suit was deemed dismissed. An appeal was filed, and during its pendency, the parties entered into a compromise upon which the appellate court passed a consent decree. The appellant subsequently filed a separate suit to set aside the compromise decree, arguing that because the initial pre-emption money was not deposited in time, the original suit stood dismissed, the appeal had abated, and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. The trial Court decreed in favor of the appellant, but the High Court dismissed the subsequent revision. The Supreme Court granted leave and held that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and the appellate court possesses the power to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money. The Court determined that the mere non-deposit of the balance amount before the decision of the appeal does not render the proceedings invalid or cause automatic abatement, and that the compromise decree was validly passed with full awareness of the parties.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an appeal automatically suspend the operation of a trial court decree requiring the deposit of pre-emption money?
- Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing the balance of pre-emption money during the pendency of an appeal?
- Does the mere non-deposit of the balance amount under a pre-emption decree during the pendency of an appeal cause the suit to stand dismissed and the appeal to abate?
- Is a consent decree passed on the basis of a compromise subject to being set aside on the grounds of fraud if the non-deposit of the pre-emption money was known to the parties and the court?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DR. M. A. REHMAN1987 MLD 3046 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-12Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs CIVIL JUDGE 1ST CLASS MAILSI, And 3 Other1987 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition, which arose from a dispute over a pre-emption decree. The petitioner sought to challenge the decree in favour of the respondent, alleging a post-decree compromise had been reached between the parties. The petitioner had previously litigated the issue of this alleged compromise through multiple tiers of courts, including a suit, an appeal, and a revision petition, all of which resulted in findings against him. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an objection petition under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was also dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-litigate the issue of the alleged compromise by leading further evidence. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner had already led evidence regarding the compromise in the initial round of litigation, there was no necessity to record further evidence. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact by lower courts would not be re-examined.
Questions settled- Can a party re-litigate the issue of a post-decree compromise after the matter has been adjudicated in previous rounds of litigation?
- Is it necessary for a court to record further evidence on a compromise if the party has already led evidence on the same issue in earlier proceedings?
- Will the Supreme Court re-examine findings of fact made by lower courts in a petition for leave to appeal?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others1987 CLC 2085 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD SHAH and another vs Agha Syed BASHIR AHMAD1987 CLC 430 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD MALAH vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION1987 PLC 910 · Labour Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs ZIAULHAQ AND 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs ZIA UL HAQ AND 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD and 6 others vs RAHIM BAKHSH and 10 others1987 MLD 142 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD and 3 others vs MUSHTAQ A HMAD and another1987 MLD 2291 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD alias SHERA and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMED vs HAJI MUHAMMAD1987 MLD 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD vs The STATE1987 SCMR 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal petitions for leave to appeal arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning allegations of irregularities, fraud, and embezzlement in a housing scheme allotment. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, acquitted the public servants involved but directed that private persons be tried by an ordinary criminal court, sending their files to the Sessions Court for entrustment to a Magistrate. The petitioner challenged this through quashment petitions before the High Court, which dismissed them while noting that it remained within the discretion of the State whether to prosecute or to withdraw the cases. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court erred in its approach and held that the discretion to prosecute or seek withdrawal of the case by the State remains unfettered, and dismissed the petitions on merits as well as noting that a petition was time-barred. The key principle established is that the State retains its inherent discretion regarding the prosecution or withdrawal of criminal proceedings against private individuals, which is not curtailed by court dismissals of quashment petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the Special Judge Anti-Corruption can transfer cases of private persons to an ordinary criminal court upon acquitting public servants?
- Does the dismissal of a quashment petition affect the State's discretion to prosecute or withdraw a criminal case?
- Can a criminal petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on merits when it is barred by time?
- NAZEER AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 PCr. L J 217(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
- NAZAZ ALI And 2 Others vs Brig. SHAHID AZIZ, DIRECTORGENERAL, PAKISTAN1987 P Cr. L J 1435 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS1987 PLC (C.S.) 799 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY COMMUNICATION AND WORKS And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 408 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY COMMUNICATION & WORKSK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 114 · Sindh Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others vs PHOOLA and others1987 MLD 33 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD and another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 141 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD And Another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR And 3 Other1987 PLD Quetta 141 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1754 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in two criminal cases involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The primary legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the delay in their trial, or whether they were excluded from this benefit under the fourth proviso as hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals. The Court held that the trial court's classification of the petitioners as hardened criminals based solely on a retracted confessional statement, without independent material or evidence, was insufficient. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to bail as a matter of right under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a court's opinion regarding an accused being a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' must be based on tangible, independent material rather than mere allegations or sub judice confessional statements.
Questions settled- Can a court classify an accused as a hardened or desperate criminal for the purpose of denying bail based solely on a retracted confessional statement?
- Does the mere existence of pending criminal cases against an accused, without previous convictions, justify classifying them as a hardened or habitual offender?
- Is the opinion of a court that an accused is a hardened or dangerous criminal required to be based on tangible and independent material?
- Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant bail as a matter of right upon the expiry of the specified statutory period?
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs Mst.AZIZA KHATOON1987 MLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-26Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs NOOR SHAH And 2 Other1987 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal concerning a land dispute. The core controversy involves conflicting claims over 24 Kanals 18 Marlas of land. Respondent No. 1 claimed ownership based on an unregistered sale, while the petitioner secured a pre-emption decree against a subsequent vendee who held a registered sale deed. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' decisions, arguing that the respondent's earlier suit for declaration, which was dismissed, operated as res judicata against the subsequent suit for possession. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the respondent's reliance on an unregistered sale document was legally insufficient under the Transfer of Property Act 1882, given the requirement for registration. The Supreme Court, finding that these contentions raised significant legal questions requiring examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the issues regarding the applicability of res judicata to successive suits for declaration and possession, and the legal validity of unregistered sale documents versus subsequent registered deeds, necessitated a formal review. The status quo was ordered to continue pending the final decision.
Questions settled- Does a previous suit for declaration of title that was dismissed operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent suit for possession?
- Is an unregistered sale document sufficient to enforce a claim of ownership when the Transfer of Property Act 1882 requires registration?
- Does a compulsorily registerable document of sale give way to a subsequent registered sale deed?
- NAZAR HUSSAIN GULL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. LJ 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN ALVI vs HABIB BANK LTD1987 PLC 257 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- NAZAR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
- NAZAR ALI And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the six petitioners for murder, murderous assault, and rioting under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case was based on ocular testimony of injured eye-witnesses regarding an incident of violence arising from a dispute over cattle damaging crops. The petitioners contended that the trial court's acquittal of two co-accused on grounds of alibi and false implication of innocent persons rendered the eye-witness testimony unreliable without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the defence argued that the prosecution failed to explain seven injuries sustained by one of the accused petitioners, Muhammad Shafi, and improperly relied on unbloodstained weapon recoveries that were previously discredited. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were properly followed by the courts below.
Questions settled- Whether the false implication of some co-accused requires independent corroboration for the remaining accused before conviction?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by an accused during the occurrence affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Can unbloodstained weapons recovered from the accused serve as valid corroborative evidence in a criminal trial?
- NAZAR AHMED and 2 others vs ABDUL HAQ1987 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- NAWAE ALI KHAN vs Syed INAYAT ALI SHAH and others1987 CLC 535 · Election Tribunal · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada SALA HUDDIN vs Begum FAKHARUZ ZAMAN KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an order of an Election Tribunal which set aside the election of the appellant, Nawabzada Salahuddin, to the National Assembly of Pakistan from Constituency No. NA-16, Mansehra II. The Tribunal had declared the appellant disqualified on the basis that he was under the age of 25 years on the nomination day and further ruled that the respondent, having secured the next highest number of votes, should be declared the returned candidate under the doctrine of 'thrown away votes'. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal ignored crucial documentary evidence regarding his age and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the disqualification was notorious among the electorate. Upon preliminary review, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal faced difficulties regarding evidence on the notoriety of the disqualification and the determination of age. Consequently, the Court held that a prima facie case for interference existed and ordered the suspension of the impugned judgment pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of 'thrown away votes' require proof that a candidate's disqualification was notorious among the electorate?
- Can an appellate court suspend the operation of an Election Tribunal's judgment pending the final disposal of an election appeal?
- NAWAB vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
- NAWAB vs SHER BAHADUR And Another1987 SCMR 1349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land. The respondent (Sher Bahadur) filed a suit claiming a superior right of pre-emption against the appellant (Nawab) based on his status as a co-sharer, asserting that his own purchase of land occurred earlier than the sale in dispute. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the respondent failed to prove his superior right because both mutations were attested on the same date, and no evidence established that the respondent's purchase was completed prior to the disputed sale. The Peshawar High Court, in revision, reversed these concurrent findings, holding that the respondent's mutation entry was earlier. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the High Court could disturb concurrent findings of fact based on inconclusive evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interference, as the respondent failed to produce tangible evidence—such as the mutation copy or Khasra Girdawari—to prove his sale was completed before the disputed transaction. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in its revisional jurisdiction disturb concurrent findings of fact based on inconclusive evidence?
- Does the mere attestation of a mutation on an earlier date, without further proof of completion of sale, establish a superior right of pre-emption?
- Is a party claiming a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer required to produce tangible evidence to prove the completion of their own purchase prior to the disputed sale?
- NAWAB vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (SADAR), ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1987 CLC 818 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- NAWAB KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN1987 MLD 3271 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
- NAWAB KHAN Alias NABI And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by several petitioners seeking suspension of their sentences pending appeal against their convictions in a criminal case involving a capital charge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the accused persons were entitled to bail pending the final adjudication of their appeal, given the specific nature of the injuries attributed to them in the prosecution evidence. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court held that while the petitioners convicted of causing grievous injuries were not entitled to bail, those whose specific involvement in such injuries was not established or was limited to simple injuries were entitled to relief. The Court established the principle that in cases of multiple accused, the entitlement to bail pending appeal is contingent upon the specific role and the nature of the injuries attributed to each individual accused in the prosecution's case, rather than a blanket application of the conviction status. Consequently, the Court rejected bail for those attributed with grievous injuries and granted bail to the remaining petitioners subject to furnishing bail bonds.
Questions settled- Are all co-accused in a capital case equally disentitled to bail pending appeal regardless of their individual roles?
- Does the attribution of grievous injuries to specific accused persons preclude them from being granted bail pending appeal?
- Can an accused person be granted bail pending appeal if the prosecution evidence only attributes simple injuries to them?
- NAWAB KHAN Alias NABI And 12 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the convictions of the petitioners for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involve whether the lower courts erred in relying on ocular testimony that the trial court itself described as a "photographic" and "tutored" narration, and whether the courts failed to properly distinguish between the culpability of injured and non-injured accused regarding the formation of an unlawful assembly and the common object. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the arguments raised substantial questions requiring a reappraisal of the evidence. The Court emphasized that where eye-witnesses provide an implausibly precise account of events, the evidence must be scrutinized with extreme caution to determine if the prosecution has successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the defense raises a plea of self-defense and challenges the investigation's impartiality. The judgment underscores the necessity of judicial vigilance in distinguishing individual liability in cases involving multiple accused.
Questions settled- Does a photographic narration of injuries by eye-witnesses necessitate a more cautious evaluation of their testimony?
- Is a court required to distinguish between the roles of injured and non-injured accused when determining liability for a common object?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the trial court itself notes that the eye-witness testimony appears to be the result of tutoring?
- NAWAB DIN And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and murderous assault following a dispute between tenants and a landlord. The trial court convicted three accused under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting one. The High Court subsequently acquitted another co-accused, maintaining the convictions of the remaining two. The core legal question was whether the appellants were vicariously liable under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the High Court's finding that the incident was a sudden fight where the prosecution failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the landlord, Nawab Din, was unsustainable as no specific overt act was attributed to him, and the High Court's findings regarding the sudden nature of the fight precluded vicarious liability. However, the Court upheld the conviction of the son, Zafar Iqbal, noting his admitted participation and the brutality of the assault, while granting him the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside Nawab Din's conviction.
Questions settled- Can an accused be held vicariously liable under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution fails to attribute a specific overt act to them during a sudden fight?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt automatically entitle other similarly situated co-accused to acquittal?
- Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences for murder and murderous assault?
- NAWAB DIN and 2 others vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD represented by Legal1987 CLC 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the vendee-defendants over land in Khata No.11. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed the plaintiff's suit, holding that he had become a co-sharer in the Khata by virtue of prior transfers of specific Khasra numbers from the sole owner, Mst. Jamil-un-Nisa Begum. The core legal question was whether a person who purchases specific field numbers from the sole owner of a joint Khata becomes a co-sharer in the Khata for the purposes of pre-emption. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, holding that where a sole proprietor of a Khata sells specific field numbers out of it to a pre-emptor, the pre-emptor does not become a co-sharer in the Khata with that sole owner. The court distinguished precedents, establishing that the rule in Ali Muhammad v. Shera applies when the Khata belongs to a single owner, whereas Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf Khan applies when the Khata is jointly owned by multiple co-sharers.
Questions settled- Whether a person who purchases specific field numbers from the sole owner of a Khata becomes a co-sharer in the Khata?
- Does the purchase of specific Khasra numbers from a sole proprietor confer a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer?
- How are the conflicting principles in Ali Muhammad v. Shera and Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf Khan reconciled based on the ownership structure of a Khata?
- NAWAB And Others vs THF STATE1987 SCMR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life respectively. The incident involved a daylight double-assault and murder within the District Courts premises in Mianwali, arising out of a previous murder enmity. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal based on discrepancies between the First Information Report and the injured witness's statement, and whether the ocular testimony of an injured and inimical witness required independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the injured witness was undisputable, minor discrepancies indicated an absence of prior consultation rather than fabrication, and the ocular account corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries, and matching crime empties was entirely reliable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies between an F.I.R. and a dying declaration or statement of an injured witness necessarily discredit their testimony?
- Can the testimony of an injured eye-witness who is inimical to the accused form the sole basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Whether an appellate court is justified in reversing an order of acquittal when the trial court's evaluation of evidence is found to be unreasonable?
- NAWAB alias NABU vs WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE and others1987 MLD 2867 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- NAWAB ALI LORALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a joint criminal appeal and murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following the conviction and death sentences awarded to two brothers under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of proceedings, one appellant was killed during a jail break, while the other escaped and became a fugitive from justice. The core legal questions pertained to the effect of an appellant's death on pending appeal and fine, and the procedural effect of a convict's abscondence on the pending appeal and death confirmation reference. The Sindh High Court held that the deceased appellant's appeal abated under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and set aside his fine. Regarding the absconding appellant, the Court dismissed his appeal, ruling that a fugitive from justice forfeits the right of audience. However, the murder reference remains independent, requiring scrutiny on merits, and the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 561-A to postpone the confirmation reference until the absconder's arrest, issuing non-bailable warrants.
Questions settled- Does a criminal appeal abate upon the death of the appellant under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an absconding convict who becomes a fugitive from justice forfeits the right of audience in a pending criminal appeal?
- Can the High Court hear or confirm a death reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding convict?
- Does the High Court have inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to postpone the hearing of a death reference until an absconding convict is arrested?
- Naveed Textile Milr Is Limited. Central Cotton Milr Is Limited. M/s. Firdaus Spininy Mills. Central Cotton Mills Limited. Shahyar Jute Mills Limited. Naveed Textile Mills Limited. Nishat Mills Ltd. M/s. Jamhoor Textile Mills Limited. M/s. M.F.M.Y. Industries Limited. M/s. Rashid Textile Mills Limited. vsPTCL 1987 CL. 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from ten petitions for leave to appeal filed by various textile mills against a consolidated judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing their constitutional petitions regarding customs duty on imported Auto Cone Winders. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of an explanation in a statutory notification (S.R.O. 702(I)/80) issued under the Customs Act, 1969, which excluded automatic cone winders from customs duty exemption on the premise that they are substitutes for locally manufactured cone winders. The Supreme Court held that the government's power to grant or revoke exemptions under the Customs Act is discretionary and wide in amplitude, and the explanatory statement regarding substitutability represented a policy decision and statement of fact rather than a conditional jurisdictional fact open to factual inquiry. Consequently, the court affirmed the High Court's interpretation, holding that the exclusion of auto cone winders from the exemption was lawful, and dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that where an exemption power is wide and discretionary, an explanatory clause stating a policy reason or fact does not require independent factual proof of accuracy in constitutional review.
Questions settled- Whether an explanation to a statutory notification under the Customs Act can be subjected to factual inquiry regarding the accuracy of the reasons stated therein?
- What is the scope of the Federal Government's power to grant or revoke exemptions from customs duties under the Customs Act?
- Does an explanation in a statutory instrument curtail the enacting provision or can it contain a statement of policy and fact?
- NAVEED ASIF vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- NAUKAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2302 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-22Read full judgment →
- NAUKAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- NAUBAT And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1877 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →