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. 232594 judgments in total.

• MUHAMMAD ZAHEER KHAN And Another vs MUHAMMAD ZAMIR KHAN1987 SCMR 1144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26
  special leave to appealconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictioncivil matterquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil matter where the core legal question was whether respondent No. 1 was the son of Muhammad Nazir Khan, who died in 1943. Both the trial Court and the Additional District Judge examined the evidence led by the parties and decided the question in the affirmative in favor of respondent No. 1. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower forums. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in revisional jurisdiction unless a material infirmity is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact affirmed in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Can a petition for special leave to appeal succeed without showing a material infirmity in the lower courts' findings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs YOUSAF AHSAN1987 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZADA Alias DILDAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1607 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1645 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 697 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1987 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01
  abatementlimitation periodlegal representativesLetters Patent Appealwrit petitionprocedural lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal and a writ petition due to abatement. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the proceedings after the death of a respondent, Haider Bakhsh, where the petitioners failed to implead his legal representatives within the prescribed period of limitation and did not seek condonation of delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no infirmity in the conclusion that the proceedings had abated. The High Court had observed that because the parties resided in the same premises, the petitioners could not have been unaware of the respondent's death, thus negating any justification for the delay. The Supreme Court affirmed that failure to bring legal representatives on record within the statutory limitation period, without a valid application for condonation of delay, results in the abatement of the proceedings. Consequently, the petitions for special leave to appeal were dismissed, maintaining the finality of the High Court's order regarding the procedural lapse.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent within the limitation period result in the abatement of a writ petition?
  • Can a court dismiss a proceeding as abated when the applicant fails to seek condonation of delay for impleading legal representatives?
  • Is the knowledge of a respondent's death by the petitioner a relevant factor in determining whether to condone a delay in impleading legal representatives?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs MUHAMMAD SAGHIRUDDIN QURESHI1987 CLC 76 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-04
  statutory tenancyejectmentdefault in rentrent restrictioncontractual tenancygrace period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The core legal question concerns whether the terms of a contractual tenancy, specifically the requirement to pay rent in advance, persist into a statutory tenancy after the contractual period expires, or if the statutory period of sixty days for payment applies. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the terms of a statutory tenancy are regulated by the relevant rent restriction law rather than the expired contract. Consequently, the Court found that the ejectment application was filed prematurely, as the sixty-day grace period for the rent in question had not expired at the time of filing. The Court ruled that no wilful default was established, set aside the ejectment order, and allowed the appeal, noting that the parties must bear their own costs due to the legal nature of the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of a lease agreement remain bound by the original terms regarding the date of rent payment?
  • When does a statutory tenancy come into existence following the expiry of a contractual tenancy?
  • Is an ejectment application filed before the expiry of the statutory period for rent payment maintainable?
  • Does the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 govern the terms of a statutory tenancy regarding the time for payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs ASGHAR ALI and 5 others1987 CLC 2516 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN vs MOOSA and another1987 CLC 981 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01
  ejectmentdefault in rentsublettinghanding over possessionstatutory tenantburden of proofrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlord's ejectment application filed against the tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized subletting. The core legal questions involved whether the technical default in rent payment warranted eviction and whether handing over possession of the premises to another person amounted to subletting under the relevant rent laws. The Sindh High Court held that the default in rent was technical and not wilful, thus not warranting interference, but found that the tenant had indeed handed over possession of the premises to a third party without the landlord's written consent, establishing subletting. The Court laid down the principle that under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the mere handing over of possession of the demised premises to another person without the landlord's written consent makes the tenant liable for eviction, and that once the possession of a third party is admitted, the burden shifts to the tenant to explain the capacity of such occupation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a technical and non-wilful default in the payment of rent by a statutory tenant justifies eviction?
  • Does the mere handing over of possession of rented premises to a third person without the landlord's written consent constitute subletting under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Where a tenant admits the possession of a third party in the tenement, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to explain the capacity of such occupation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF Etc. vs PAKISTAN STEEL1987 PLC 935 · Labour Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2013 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUNIS vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3290 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUNIS vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT1987 PLC 294 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUNAS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs Mst. IQBAL BIBI Alias BALO And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA1987 PLC 430 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHAUHAN And Others vs SARFRAZ KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and another vs ABDULLA TEEF KHAN1987 MLD 2800 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1029 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26
  suspension of sentenceleave to appealcriminal appealdiscretionary orderappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine, sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the rejection of his application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of his appeal by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of interfering with the High Court's discretionary order refusing to suspend the petitioner's sentence. The Supreme Court held that no justification existed to interfere with the discretion properly exercised by the High Court in refusing the suspension of sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not lightly interfere with the discretionary orders of lower courts regarding the suspension of sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to suspend a sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Whether the refusal of the High Court to suspend a sentence under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrants interference without strong justification?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 529 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs SULEMAN and others1987 MLD 2595 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs SAIF-UR-REHMAN and another1987 MLD 1627 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYSK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service* Cases 121 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD ALI And 15 Others1987 P Cr. L J 983 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT1987 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs Captain (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM And Another1987 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationanti-corruptionmisappropriation of fundstampering with record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the High Court. The respondent, an Executive Engineer, faced allegations of misappropriation of funds, tender irregularities, and record tampering, leading to a case registered under sections 468, 471, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following an inquiry, the Assistant Director of Anti-Corruption found substance in only three allegations regarding tender document tampering, but concluded no bribery was established and recommended departmental action. The High Court consequently granted pre-arrest bail. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court based on such findings. The Supreme Court held that no case for interfering with the High Court's order was made out, noting also that the State did not challenge the order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled when an anti-corruption inquiry recommends only departmental action?
  • Does the absence of an appeal by the State against a pre-arrest bail order affect a private petitioner's application for bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs ASIF SIDDIQUE And Another1987 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs ASIF SIDDIQUE and another1987 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs ALLAH YAR1987 PLD Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-05
  summary suitleave to defendCode of Civil Procedure 1908judicial discretionevidence tamperingprocedural irregularityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court decree passed in a summary suit under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial judge refused the defendant's application for leave to defend, citing the defendant's alleged attempt to defraud the court regarding his ability to sign, and subsequently decreed the suit. The High Court held that the trial judge failed to exercise judicial discretion, acting with undue haste and legal error. The Court ruled that the refusal of leave to defend does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a decree; the plaintiff remains under a legal obligation to prove their claim. Furthermore, the Court found the trial judge’s order for a criminal investigation into alleged evidence tampering was procedurally flawed, as it ignored the mandatory requirements of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the National Registration Act 1973. Consequently, the decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for trial. The judgment establishes that summary judgment cannot bypass the necessity of proving a claim, nor can courts ignore statutory procedures when addressing alleged offenses committed during proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree?
  • Can a trial court order a criminal investigation for alleged evidence tampering without complying with the provisions of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court required to prove the plaintiff's claim even after refusing the defendant's leave to defend?
  • Does the absence of prima facie evidence in a leave to defend application justify the immediate decreeing of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 722 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others vs Mst. ASMAT JAN and others1987 MLD 2121 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 5 otherss vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 2199 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 2 others vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 1945 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs SHIFA UR REHMAN1987 MLD 2118 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs MESSRS CRESCENT PAKISTAN INDUSTRIES LTD.K.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 101 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs Messrs CRESCENT PAK INDUSTRIES LTD.1987 PLC 325 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs COLONY ASSISTANT/COLLECTOR, SAHIWAL-1987 MLD 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS SHAH KHAN vs Messrs TERRY TOWELLERS1987 MLD 2925 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS MALIK and others vs DRUG COURT OF SIND and another1987 MLD 1619 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS GIRACH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1504 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 527 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs THE CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1987 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15
  service appeallimitationFederal Service Tribunaldepartmental appealcause of actionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four petitions for special leave to appeal against orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' service appeals on the ground of limitation. The petitioners, formerly meter readers, were dismissed from service following allegations of electricity theft. After unsuccessful attempts to seek redress through the Labour Court and initial departmental appeals, they approached the Superintending Engineer, who eventually rejected their appeals on merits without addressing the issue of limitation. Subsequently, the Federal Service Tribunal dismissed their appeals, holding that the departmental appeals were time-barred, despite the departmental authority not having raised or decided the issue of limitation. The core legal question is whether the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the authority to independently invoke the bar of limitation when the departmental appellate authority has not based its decision on that ground. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals on limitation grounds, when the departmental authority had not done so, requires further judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss a service appeal on the ground of limitation if the departmental appellate authority did not base its decision on that ground?
  • Does an order by a departmental authority rejecting an appeal on merits provide a fresh cause of action for a service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD, and others1987 P Cr. L J 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN Alias SHINOO And Another1987 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08
  murdercommutation of sentenceculpable homicidecriminal appealenhancement of sentencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-petitions: a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking the restoration of a death sentence, and a jail petition filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence. The accused was originally convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment while increasing the fine. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the medical testimony indicated a struggle occurred between the parties, evidenced by abrasions and stab wounds, with only one injury being fatal. The Court held that the circumstances, specifically the existence of an altercation and fight prior to the attack, justified the High Court's decision to commute the sentence to life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the complainant's petition for enhancement of the sentence and the accused's jail petition, maintaining the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does evidence of a prior altercation and struggle between the accused and the deceased justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a court maintain a conviction under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the initial conviction was under Section 302?
  • Is a jail petition barred by time subject to condonation if it involves a sentence of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 935 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS Alias ZAFFAR IQBAL Alias Zafrl vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS alias ZAFFAR IQBAL alias ZAFRI vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3102 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2211 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs JALIL AHMAD SIDDIQUI1987 MLD 3207 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1987 PLC (C . S) 277 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs ABU BAKAR KHAN1987 MLD 3258 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN and anothers vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, D.I KHAN1987 CLC 41 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-01-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR vs THE STATE1987 KLR Shariat Cases 49 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 822 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2670 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2224 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1003 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB SHEIKH, DISTRICT ENGINEER, DISTRICT COUNCIL, TOBA TEK1987 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27
  disciplinary proceedingsmunicipal engineerservice tribunalleave to appealrecovery of loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Provincial Service Tribunal, which had maintained the penalty of recovery of financial loss imposed upon the petitioner following disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner, a municipal engineer, faced disciplinary action after a roof of a waiting hall constructed under his supervision collapsed due to rains. The core legal question concerned the competence of the Provincial Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and challenges to the merits of the penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the contention regarding the competence of the Provincial Government was not raised before the Service Tribunal and could not be entertained for the first time before the apex court. Furthermore, on the merits, the court noted that the petitioner had been punished after a regular inquiry providing ample opportunity of defense, and no substantial question of law of public importance arose. The key principle laid down is that fresh legal arguments not raised before the subordinate tribunal cannot be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court, particularly when factual inquiry is required.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new factual or legal contention for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not canvassed before the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings and recovery of loss can be imposed on a municipal engineer following structural failure after a regular inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB and others vs JAMIL MUHAMMAD KHAN and others1987 CLC 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB Alias PANJU vs The STATE1987 SCMR 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18
  murderdeath sentenceleave to appealcriminal convictioneyewitness testimonyappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Yaqub, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad Shakeel under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution's case rested on three eyewitnesses, the recovery of a weapon (Chhuri), medical evidence, and a motive. The petitioner admitted to the killing but provided a contrary version of events, which the trial court rejected in favor of the prosecution's evidence. The High Court subsequently upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to exclude the defense's version. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the impugned judgment and the relevant evidence, found no merit in these contentions. Consequently, the Court held that the case did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower courts' findings regarding the petitioner's guilt and the reliability of the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove an alleged motive automatically invalidate a conviction for murder?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to grant leave to appeal when the lower courts have concurrently relied on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to reject a defense version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1145 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs INDUS TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD1987 PLC 293 · Labour Court · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF1987 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-11
  constitutional petitionlachesurban settlementleave to appealauction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition in limine on the ground of laches regarding an urban settlement case where the property was auctioned in 1972. The core legal question is whether the constitutional petition should have been dismissed for laches when the petitioner was impleaded as a party in a Supreme Court appeal that was disposed of by compromise in February 1981, and the writ petition was filed shortly thereafter in March 1981. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the conduct of the petitioner warranted examination regarding the application of laches in light of the prior proceedings and compromise. The key principle laid down is that the timeline and active participation in related apex court proceedings are vital factors to be considered when evaluating the bar of laches against a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed in limine on the ground of laches when the petitioner was pursuing related litigation before the Supreme Court?
  • Does participation as a party in Supreme Court proceedings affect the computation of laches for filing a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMIN KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 338 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMEEN And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2239 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMEEN And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1576 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAKOOB And Others vs DARYA KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesmedical evidencecorroborationmurderpartisan witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from cross-appeals filed against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had acquitted two convicts and upheld the conviction of three others under sections 302, 325, 324, 323, 447, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable and independently corroborated ocular and medical evidence in the face of deep-seated enmity and partisan witness testimony. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution witnesses, including injured haris, were interested and partisan, and their testimonies suffered from material discrepancies when compared with the medical evidence. Consequently, the Court ruled that independent corroboration was lacking and set aside the convictions and sentences of the remaining convicts by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving severe antecedent animosity, the testimony of interested witnesses must be subjected to strict scrutiny, and where material contradictions exist between ocular accounts and medical evidence without proper explanation, convictions cannot be sustained under safe principles of criminal administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness who is also a tenant of the deceased can be treated as that of a disinterested and independent witness in the presence of prior land disputes?
  • Can a conviction for murder and hurt be sustained where material discrepancies exist between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained?
  • Is independent corroboration mandatory for sustaining a conviction when the prosecution witnesses are proved to be interested and partisan?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WALAYAT vs AMAN ULLAH and 2 others1987 MLD 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WALAYAT And Another vs LIAQAT HAYAT And Another1987 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-18
  pre-emption suitZar-e-punjumdeposit of pre-emption moneyextension of timetrial court discretionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the vendees-defendants in a pre-emption suit, challenging an order passed by the trial Court which extended the deadline for the deposit of Zar-e-punjum. The petitioners sought to contest the validity of this extension, a decision which the High Court had previously declined to interfere with under its revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the trial Court possessed the legal competence to extend the time for depositing the Zar-e-punjum. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial Court acted within its lawful authority in granting the extension. The Court affirmed that under the relevant statutory provisions, the trial Court is empowered to extend the time for making such deposits, provided sufficient cause is established. Finding that the trial Court had duly recorded a finding regarding the existence of sufficient cause and that this finding suffered from no legal infirmity, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the lower court's discretion in procedural matters of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Is the trial Court competent to extend the time for making the deposit of Zar-e-punjum in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the trial Court have the authority to grant an extension of time for deposit if sufficient cause is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WAKIL And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 360 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1987 MLD 2774 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD vs Mst. MARYAM BIBI And Another1987 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01
  habeas corpussui juriscustody of adultSection 491 Cr.P.C.judicial discretionvoluntary statementOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged orders passed by the Lahore High Court in a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of Mst. Nur Safia, an adult woman. The appellant, the woman's father, contended that the High Court erred in granting custody to the respondent, who was an accused in a pending abduction case registered by the appellant. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in allowing a sui juris woman to choose her custodian despite allegations of mala fides and pending criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in habeas corpus proceedings involving a sui juris adult, the court's primary duty is to ascertain the voluntary will of the person. Since the High Court had satisfied itself through a period of protective custody in Darul Amman that the woman’s statement was voluntary and free from coercion, it was justified in respecting her wishes to reside with her close female relatives, notwithstanding the pending criminal litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court in a habeas corpus petition grant custody of a sui juris woman to a person accused in a related criminal case?
  • Is the voluntary statement of a sui juris woman the paramount consideration in determining her custody in habeas corpus proceedings?
  • Does a habeas corpus petition filed by an accused person in a related abduction case necessarily constitute a mala fide act?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD vs DILAWAR KHAN DURRANI1987 MLD 2155 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMAR vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE1987 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10
  evacuee trust propertyleave to appealejectment proceedingssettlement departmentconstitutional petitionres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer of property. The petitioner, a tenant of premises in Hyderabad, contested the transfer of the property by the Settlement Department to the respondent, Haji Islamuddin, arguing that the property was evacuee trust property and thus ineligible for transfer. This issue had been previously litigated through ejectment proceedings, where the Rent Controller and subsequent appellate forums rejected the petitioner's claims. The petitioner initiated a second round of litigation by petitioning the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board, which was also rejected. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter and found no grounds for interference, affirming the reasoning of the High Court. The Court held that the petitioner's contentions had been correctly adjudicated and rejected by the lower courts based on sound legal principles. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the finality of the previous adjudications regarding the property's status and transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge the transfer of property by the Settlement Department after the property has been auctioned and a P.T.O. issued?
  • Does the status of property as evacuee trust property invalidate a transfer made by the Settlement Department if the issue has been previously litigated and rejected?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable to re-litigate issues regarding property status that have already been decided in rent control proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMAR MALIK AND Other vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22
  civil serviceseniority listcadre vs gradevested right in promotioneligibility for promotionretrospective seniorityEstablishment Division directives
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from decisions of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the determination of inter se seniority and promotion eligibility among Upper Division Clerks (Auditors) and Selection Grade Clerks (Audit Assistants). The core legal questions involved whether grade and cadre are synonymous, whether civil servants possess a vested right in rules governing promotion or eligibility for promotion, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in unsettling an established seniority list maintained as of 14-8-1973 under Establishment Division directives. The Supreme Court held that pay scale or grade alone does not constitute a separate cadre without express creation by a competent authority, and that before cadre separation, promotion was based on the combined seniority list. Reversing the Service Tribunal, the Court ruled that civil servants have no vested right in promotion or rules determining eligibility for promotion. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Service Tribunal's judgments and upholding the seniority directives issued by the Auditor-General in line with Establishment Division policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right in rules governing promotion or eligibility for promotion?
  • Does a difference in pay scale or grade automatically create a distinct civil service cadre without an express order from the competent authority?
  • Can the Service Tribunal indirectly set aside a general policy decision of the Establishment Division regarding seniority fixation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMAR and another vs THE STATE and another1987 PLD Karachi 378 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMAR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2065 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2076 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQ and 3 others1987 CLC 2151 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL TABSSUM vs UNITED SUGAR MILLS Ltd.1987 PLC 761 · Labour Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs Mst. MAJIDAN BIBI and others1987 MLD 770 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ and 2 others vs THE STATE and others1987 MLD 1242 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAQI vs Mst. Syeda MUSHAFIQA BEGUM and 8 others1987 MLD 2973 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TANVIR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3177 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TANVEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2648 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TALIB and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3232 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAJ vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAJ vs Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER C0.LTD.1987 PLC 304 · Labour Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES1987 PLC 137 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →