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 SULTAN vs ARSHAD ALI and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs ARSHAD ALI And 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULTAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs HABIB BANK LTD.1987 MLD 2757 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs ABDUL RASHID and 13 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs ABDUL RASHID And 13 Other1987 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and others vs AHMAN and others1987 MLD 1102 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN And Others vs AHMA And Another1987 SCMR 1077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  leave to appealconcurrent findingscivil revisionrecovery suitpossession of agricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed their civil revisions arising out of concurrent findings by the lower courts. The litigation involved two cross-suits: one filed by the petitioners for the recovery of money and the other by the respondents for the possession of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the petitioners' suit and decreed the respondents' suit, a decision subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether any interference was warranted in concurrent factual findings of the lower courts where the petitioners' own witness damaged their case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent judgments were unexceptionable as the petitioners' case was destroyed by their own witness, and no question of law of general importance was raised. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when a party's own witness destroys their case?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against concurrent judgments that raise no question of law of general importance?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SUHAIL vs Mst.FATIMA BEGUM1987 MLD 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SOOMAR And Other vs N.I.R.C. And Others1987 PLC 782 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SOHAIL QAISER vs Mst. FATIMA SHAFI1987 MLD 735 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIRAJ vs MUHAMMAD AYUB and another1987 MLD 1425 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 118 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1987 CLC 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs SHAMIM MAIK. L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 16 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs SHAMIM MAI-1987 P Cr. L J 978 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1987 CLC 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AZAD1987 PLC (C.S.) 315 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE QAZI vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHOKBAR and another1987 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1987 PLC (C.S.) 604 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Etc. vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD MASOOD AKHTAR1987 MLD 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And 28 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2051 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUB Etc. vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS DEPUTYK.L.R. 1987 Labour & Service 243 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq. vs The State.PTCL 1987 CL. 328 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ- vs IKRAMUDDIN1987 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs The STATE1987 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-12
  murder convictionreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealconcurrent findingsleave to appealfactual findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, Muhammad Siddiq, for the murder of Arshad Mahmood. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The prosecution's case rested on eye-witness testimony, the recovery of a blood-stained weapon (Chhuri), medical evidence, and established motive regarding a financial dispute between the two students. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence warranted a reappraisal of the factual findings made by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel merely amounted to a request for a reappraisal of evidence on questions of fact. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, affirming that it is not a fit case for such an exercise, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a request for the reappraisal of evidence on questions of fact constitute sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to re-examine factual evidence in a criminal appeal where the lower courts have already established guilt based on eye-witness and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1340 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs IKRAMUDDIN1987 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs GHULAM RASOOL1987 CLC 1439 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs GHULAM HAIDER And Other1987 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-22
  last-seen evidencemurderadmissibility of FIRappreciation of evidencerecovery of blood-stained clothescriminal appealimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondents under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and instead convicted them under Section 201/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of last-seen evidence, the admissibility and use of an F.I.R. lodged by an accused, and the recovery of blood-stained incriminating articles. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court had properly appraised the evidence—including consistent last-seen testimonies and matching blood-stained clothing recovered from the spot—and that the High Court erred in excluding the F.I.R. statement since it was owned by the accused at trial and did not constitute a confession. The ratio laid down is that an appellate court should not interfere with a well-reasoned trial court judgment based on sound judicial principles unless the findings are speculative or misinterpret evidence, and an F.I.R. lodged by an accused containing an exculpatory version and owned at trial is admissible to explain conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with findings of a trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Can an F.I.R. lodged by an accused containing an exculpatory statement be used or referred to when owned by the accused at trial?
  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by recoveries and medical evidence?
  • Whether the High Court can alter a conviction to an offence for which the accused was neither charged nor tried?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs ANJUMANE TAHEIRI SADDAR JAMAAT COMMITTEE1987 CLC 352 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ And Others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencereappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findings of factmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 19-3-1986. The accused persons were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302/34 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault, receiving death sentences and rigorous imprisonment. The High Court dismissed their appeal against conviction but reduced the death sentences to imprisonment for life. The accused filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against their conviction and sentence, while the complainants filed a separate petition seeking enhancement of the sentences imposed on the accused. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and the arguments presented by counsel. Regarding the accused's petition, the Court found that it merely sought a reappraisal of evidence and a reversal of concurrent findings of fact, raising no substantial question of law. Regarding the enhancement petition, the Court held that the High Court's reasoning for reducing the sentences was tenable. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, declining to interfere with the High Court's findings or sentencing discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition for leave to appeal that merely seeks a reappraisal of evidence and reversal of concurrent findings of fact raise a question of law requiring Supreme Court intervention?
  • Is the High Court's reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment subject to interference by the Supreme Court if the reasons for such reduction are found to be tenable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHOAIB vs MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN1987 CLC 655 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHIREEN vs THE MANAGER/ OCCUPIER GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD.,1987 PLC 296 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHERIN SAHIBZADA vs LAL BADSHAH AND 5 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHERIN SAH1BZADA vs LAL BADSHAH AND 5 OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHER vs FATEH KHAN And 4 Other1987 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-12
  criminal appealenhancement of sentenceacquittalocular testimonycorroborationmurdercommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent, Fateh Khan, and challenging the acquittal of his co-accused, Nawaz, Murid, and Ahmad Sher, in a murder case. The trial court had convicted Fateh Khan and two others for the murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the complainant, while acquitting one co-accused. The High Court subsequently acquitted two additional co-accused, maintaining only the conviction of Fateh Khan. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of the co-accused was justified and whether the sentence of the primary accused warranted enhancement given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence of Fateh Khan were proper, noting that his participation was corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of a blood-stained weapon, and the motive. Regarding the acquitted co-accused, the Court held that the ocular testimony lacked necessary corroboration for their specific roles. The principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is uncorroborated regarding the specific parts ascribed to co-accused, acquittal is justified.

  Questions settled

  • Is the acquittal of co-accused justified when ocular testimony lacks corroboration regarding their specific roles?
  • Can a conviction be maintained against a primary accused when there is corroborating evidence such as medical reports, weapon recovery, and motive?
  • Does the presence of a motive and prior history between parties justify the enhancement of a sentence for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHER and anothers vs Mian KAMAL SHAH and 11 others1987 CLC 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF- vs THE STATEPLD 1987 Lahore 3.12 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ZULFIQAR And Other1987 SCMR 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  leave to appealocular testimonyinterested witnessacquittalre-appraisal of evidencemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted three individuals—Zulfiqar, Nasar Khan, and Niaz Ahmad—of the murder of a local councillor. The trial court had initially convicted the accused based on ocular testimony, sentencing one to death and two to life imprisonment. The High Court, however, overturned these convictions, ruling that the prosecution's ocular evidence was deeply interested and inimical, lacking necessary independent corroboration. Furthermore, the High Court relied on defense testimony from a police official regarding the investigation and the potential presence of other witnesses, which contradicted the FIR. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court improperly admitted inadmissible investigative material and failed to correctly assess the quality of the evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the evidence required a thorough re-appraisal to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the three acquitted individuals to examine the propriety of their acquittal, while refusing leave regarding the fourth accused who had been acquitted by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reliance on inadmissible investigative material by a High Court in an acquittal judgment warrant a re-appraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a High Court acquit accused persons solely on the basis of the absence of independent corroboration for interested ocular testimony?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal order passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2014(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 270 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THAL DEVELOPMENT through Administrator, Thal and others1987 MLD 411 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs RANA TRACTORS Ltd.1987 CLC 940 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD HASHIM PARACHA AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02
  promissory noteadhesive stampsstamp dutycollateral securityconsiderationbreach of agreementrecovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 arising out of a share sale agreement and a corresponding promissory note executed as security. The core legal questions involved whether the promissory note was insufficiently stamped because it used adhesive stamps rather than embossed ones, whether it was rendered multiple documents due to joint and several liability, and whether it was without consideration. The court held that under Rule 13(f) of the Pakistan Stamp Rules 1925 read with the Stamp Act 1899 and relevant amendments, a promissory note exceeding Rs. 2,50,000 can be properly stamped with adhesive stamps. Furthermore, the court held that joint and several liability by multiple makers does not multiply the document into separate promissory notes for stamp duty purposes, and that a promissory note executed as collateral security for a valid existing debt is supported by consideration. Finally, the defendants failed to prove any breach of agreement by the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a promissory note exceeding two hundred fifty thousand rupees can be validly stamped with adhesive stamps under the Pakistan Stamp Rules 1925?
  • Does a promissory note executed jointly and severally by multiple persons constitute multiple instruments requiring separate stamp duty for each liability?
  • Is a promissory note executed as a collateral security for an amount due under an agreement considered to be without consideration?
  • Can a party withhold payment admitted under a contract on the unproven allegation of subsequent misconduct or breach by the other party?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Mst. FATEH BIBI1987 CLC 1788 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1987 MLD 3344 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21
  right of pre-emptionrepugnancy to IslamShariat Appellate Benchconstitutional petitiontenant pre-emptionObjectives Resolution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by an unsuccessful pre-emptor seeking possession of agricultural land through pre-emption based on his tenancy. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit pending or decided under a law declared repugnant to the injunctions of Islam by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court can be enforced after the expiration of the date fixed by the court, notwithstanding that the legislature failed to amend the statute. The Lahore High Court held that a declaration of repugnancy by the Shariat Court does not repeal a law through judicial function, but rather the law ceases to have effect pursuant to Article 203-D(3)(b) of the Constitution once the specified deadline expires, overriding general saving provisions like section 6 of the General Clauses Act or Article 264 of the Constitution due to the non-obstante effect of Article 203-A. The court laid down the principle that a writ petition cannot be issued to enforce a right under a law that has ceased to be effective due to a binding decision of the Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a declaration of repugnancy by the Shariat Court under Article 203-D of the Constitution operate as a repeal of the statute?
  • Do the saving provisions of Article 264 of the Constitution or section 6 of the General Clauses Act save pending proceedings after a law has ceased to have effect under Article 203-D?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ under Article 199 to enforce a right of pre-emption under a law that has ceased to be effective pursuant to Article 203-D(3)(b)?
  • What is the legal effect of the expression 'if possible' regarding the time limit specified by the Shariat Appellate Bench for amending a law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 Other1987 PLD Labors 58 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs M. B. R. Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 171 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY1987 MLD 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs BASHIR AHMAD1987 CLC 2006 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10
  pre-emptionsale priceconcurrent findingsrevision petitiondecision on oathQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a revision petition against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing his pre-emption suit regarding the sale price of the disputed land. The core legal questions involved the proof of the sale price and whether an adverse presumption could be drawn against the respondent for refusing to decide the case on oath. The court held that the respondent successfully discharged the onus of proving the payment of Rs. 25,000 through reliable oral and documentary evidence, including the sale-deed and the Registrar's endorsement, which the petitioner failed to rebut. The court further held that no adverse presumption can be drawn from a party's refusal to decide a case on oath when evidence is already available, and Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not apply when parties have led evidence. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding sale price supported by documentary evidence will not be interfered with in revision, and decision on oath under Article 163 is contingent upon the absence of other available evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the sale price in a pre-emption suit can be interfered with in revision?
  • Can an adverse presumption be drawn against a respondent who refuses to agree to a decision of the case on oath when both parties have led evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can a case be decided on oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRAT And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, PUNJAB, LAHORE And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 120 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ABDUL LATIF1987 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-22
  misreading of evidenceservice of summonsex parte proceedingsrestoration of suitcivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition regarding the dismissal of a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on a finding that the petitioner had been served with notice, despite evidence suggesting misreading of the bailiff's report. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misread the bailiff's report, which actually indicated that the notice was returned unserved because the petitioner's counsel had died and the respondent was not present, rather than confirming service as the lower court had concluded. The Court held that a judicial decision based on a material misreading of the record is unsustainable. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, noting the substance in the petitioner's contention regarding the misreading of evidence, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final disposal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court's decision be sustained if it is based on a material misreading of the bailiff's report regarding the service of summons?
  • Does the dismissal of an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a correct assessment of whether the party was duly served?
  • Is a finding of fact by a High Court revisional bench open to challenge if it relies on a misinterpretation of the trial court's record?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF SHADY and others vs Syed ABDUL MAJID and others1987 MLD 385 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN And Others vs GHULAM ABBAS1987 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02
  leave to appealdeclaratory suitshamilat landthal development authorityfeeding the estoppeltransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of a declaratory suit based on a claim of ownership by purchase. The core legal question concerns whether the vendor, who sold village Shamilat land that was subsequently acquired and returned by the Thal Development Authority, is bound under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to satisfy the vendees' claim out of the subsequently acquired or returned land on the principle of feeding the estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised require examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down relates to the application of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act when a vendor subsequently acquires an interest in property they previously purported to transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vendor is bound under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to satisfy a vendee's claim when land is subsequently returned following acquisition by the Thal Development Authority?
  • Does the principle of feeding the estoppel apply to the sale of Shamilat land in excess of the vendor's actual share when the vendor subsequently acquires title to replacement land?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF KAMYANA vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN REGION1987 PLC (C.S.) 105 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF JANJUA vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Ministry Of Commerce, Islamabad1987 PLC (C.S.) 867 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-06
  leave to appealmurdermurderous assaultinterested witnessesenmityparity of evidenceabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by two brothers who were convicted under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and a murderous assault, which convictions and modified sentences were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involves evaluating the sustainability of the conviction in the presence of long-standing enmity, interested witnesses, and identical evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the lack of distinguishing features between convicted and acquitted co-accused, the close-range firing on a deceased with whom there was no enmity, and the interested nature of the ocular testimony require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners, laying down principles regarding the scrutiny of ocular evidence and parity of treatment in criminal cases involving multiple accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when the evidence against the convicted persons is identical to that against co-accused who were acquitted?
  • How does long-standing enmity and the interested nature of ocular witnesses affect the reliability of prosecution evidence in a murder trial?
  • Does the presence of blackening indicating close-range fire on a deceased with whom there was no prior enmity create a doubt in the prosecution's narrative?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others1987 MLD 1783 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and others1987 CLC 625 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 2035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24
  leave to appealmurderre-appraisal of evidenceeye-witness testimonycriminal appealcommon intentionblunt weapon injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case alleged that the petitioners, along with an acquitted co-accused, attacked the deceased with Sotas following a dispute over the turn of water, resulting in fatal injuries. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in relying upon the testimony of an eye-witness who allegedly witnessed the occurrence from a considerable distance. The Supreme Court held that given the open field setting during daylight, the distance of six kanals did not preclude the eye-witness from observing the assault. Consequently, the Court found no justification for a re-appraisal of the evidence and dismissed the petition, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on credible ocular testimony will not be disturbed absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness observing an assault from a distance of six kanals in an open field during daylight is reliable?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter without strong grounds?
  • Whether a case for re-appraisal of evidence is made out when ocular accounts are supported by recoveries and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another vs HIDAYAT ALI1987 CLC 927 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 8 others vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR and 2 others1987 CLC 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF And 2 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08
  leave to appealprivate defenceright of private defence of propertyright of private defence of personcriminal appealpossession of landinjuries to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the petitioners were convicted for murder and causing injuries under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners challenged their conviction, primarily arguing that the trial court and the High Court failed to properly consider the plea of private defence raised by one of the petitioners, Abdul Majid. The petitioner contended that he sustained multiple injuries during the incident, including stab wounds, and that evidence from the Revenue Patwari and a defence witness established that the land in dispute was in his possession, suggesting the complainant party were the aggressors. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the plea of private defence of person and property in light of the injuries sustained by the accused and the evidence regarding possession of the disputed land. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record and the arguments, found that the points raised regarding the right of private defence required further examination and consequently granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of injuries on the person of an accused in a murder case necessitate a deeper examination of a plea of private defence?
  • Can a claim of possession of disputed land support a plea of private defence of property in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 2 others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1987 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAREEF and another vs ZAFAR SAEED1987 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAMIM and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1212 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 753 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ vs MUHAMMAD HAMAISH1987 P Cr. L J 483 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and another vs GlIULAM RASOOL1987 CLC 1512 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02
  special oathQanun-e-Shahadatremand orderlimitationcertified copiesbreach of agreementcivil revisionevidence recording
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an Additional District Judge's order remanding a suit for recovery to the Civil Judge for decision on merits. The original suit, based on a breach of agreement, was dismissed by the Civil Judge after both the plaintiff and defendants took special oaths on the Holy Quran under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, each supporting their respective claims. The High Court upheld the remand order, clarifying that Article 163 does not contemplate the dismissal or decree of a suit when both parties support their claims on oath; instead, the trial court must frame issues and record evidence. The Court also rejected the argument that the appeal before the Additional District Judge was time-barred, holding that the time spent in obtaining certified copies, including delays due to the copying agency's failure to inform the applicant, is excludable under Section 12 of the Limitation Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 allow for the dismissal or decree of a suit when both parties take a special oath supporting their respective claims?
  • What is the proper procedure for a trial court to follow when both parties in a civil suit take a special oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Can the time taken for obtaining certified copies for an appeal be extended if the copying agency fails to inform the applicant about the copies' readiness?
  • What constitutes 'time requisite' for obtaining copies under Section 12 of the Limitation Act when there is a delay by the copying agency?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ AHMAD vs SHER MUHAMMAD and another1987 CLC 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15
  habeas corpusmubaratdivorcemuslim family lawssui jurismarriage dissolutioncustody
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed for the recovery of the petitioner's wife from alleged illegal custody. The core legal question was whether the detenue's previous marriage had been effectively dissolved by mutual agreement (Mubarat), thereby validating her subsequent marriage to the petitioner. The Court held that a divorce by mutual agreement constitutes Mubarat, which is irrevocable upon execution and falls under the ambit of Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, rather than Section 7. Consequently, the revocation provisions applicable to unilateral Talaq under Section 7 do not apply to Mubarat. The Court found that the Union Council proceedings were misdirected as the previous husband had not initiated them, and the wife's application effectively served as notice under Section 8. The Court declared the previous marriage dissolved and, noting the detenue was sui juris, set her at liberty. The key principle established is that divorce by mutual agreement is irrevocable upon execution and governed by Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961.

  Questions settled

  • Is a divorce by mutual agreement (Mubarat) irrevocable upon execution?
  • Does the revocation provision under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 apply to a divorce by Mubarat?
  • Can a wife initiate proceedings under Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 to declare a Mubarat divorce effective?
  • What is the scope of a court's power under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the detenue is sui juris?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM And 2 Others1987PCr.LJ 2179 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIULLAH and 7 others vs PORT QASIM AUTHORITY and 21987 MLD 3305 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1487 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE And Others vs ABDUL HAYEE And Other1987 SCMR 1371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  Section 145 CrPCrestoration of possessioninherent powersSection 561-A CrPClimitation periodpreliminary orderforcible dispossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns proceedings initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the restoration of possession of a shop. The core legal questions were whether an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is competent after the exhaustion of revisional jurisdiction under Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the two-month limitation period for restoration of possession under Section 145(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is calculated from the date of the application or the date of the Magistrate's preliminary order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court may invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A to correct patent legal errors even after revisional powers are exhausted. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the two-month limitation period for restoration of possession is strictly calculated from the date of the Magistrate's preliminary order. The Court established that equitable doctrines such as 'nunc pro tunc' cannot be applied to extend statutory limitation periods in criminal procedure, emphasizing that the Magistrate's jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent after the exhaustion of revisional jurisdiction under Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the two-month limitation period for restoration of possession under Section 145(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 commence from the date of the application or the date of the preliminary order?
  • Can equitable doctrines such as 'nunc pro tunc' be applied to extend the statutory limitation period for restoration of possession under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Alias BILLA And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29
  dying declarationcriminal petitionmurdercorroborationbenefit of doubtpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners were tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge under sections 302/34 and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences of imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment, following an incident on 14-10-1972 that resulted in the death of the victim. Their subsequent appeals to the High Court were dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the petition for leave to appeal, which argued that multiple police investigations had been conducted and that a certified copy of a statement contained discrepancies. The Supreme Court noted that the conviction was securely based on the dying declaration of the deceased, which was believed by the courts below and found to require no further corroboration as the deceased was disinterested. Holding that no point of law arose from the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration from a disinterested deceased person is sufficient to sustain a conviction without requiring further corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration requires corroboration when the deceased is an absolutely disinterested witness?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a document containing discrepancies that was never put to any witnesses or tested for genuineness?
  • Does the conduct of multiple police investigations vitiate a trial where the conviction is based on a reliable dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1463 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1987 MLD 469 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs DISTRICT MANAGER, P.U.T.C.1987 PLC 472 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and 2 others vs MERAJUDDIN and another1987 MLD 1518 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 2243 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND and 3 others1987 MLD 2390 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Another1987 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14
  settlement departmentauction proceedingspermanent transfer deedconstitutional jurisdictionlacheswrit petitionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had directed the Settlement Commissioner to examine the entitlement of respondent No. 2 to a portion of an auctioned plot permanently transferred to the appellant's predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question involved the propriety of invoking constitutional jurisdiction to reopen a long-settled property transfer dispute where the respondent's prior appeals had been dismissed in default and through prolonged delay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in issuing a writ based on worthless, unattested documents and ignored crucial facts, including the absence of proof that the respondent had ever applied for transfer under the relevant scheme or diligently pursued his remedies over a span of six years. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the High Court's writ was set aside, laying down the principle that unexplained laches, absence of primary evidence of entitlement, and finality of administrative auction proceedings preclude the grant of relief under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge settlement auction proceedings after an unexplained delay of over six years?
  • Is an unattested copy of a departmental report sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to the transfer of evacuee property?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable where the aggrieved party fails to place foundational orders of the lower settlement authorities on record?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD AZIM and 7 others1987 CLC 1693 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Mst. RAZIA GHAFOOR and others1987 MLD 2445 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Messrs HIDAYATULLAH TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1987 PLC 108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Messrs A .C.E ENTERPRISES and others1987 CLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1987 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06
  Settlement Scheme No. VIIIlocus standisub-tenantconstructive possessionPermanent Transfer Deedevacuee propertyDeputy Settlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals against the High Court judgment dismissing constitutional petitions against settlement orders transferring property units. The dispute concerned two shops transferred to the respondents' predecessor under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The appellants, who were occupying the shops as sub-tenants, challenged the transfer on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, fraud, transferee's lack of actual physical possession, and transfer of multiple units to a single person. The Supreme Court held that under Settlement Scheme No. VIII read with Settlement Scheme No. I, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had the authority to ascertain entitlement for transfer. Furthermore, the Court held that possession through sub-lessees, recognized by the Deputy Custodian, constituted valid constructive possession establishing entitlement to transfer. Persons claiming no independent title or interest, and occupying property merely as sub-tenants under the transferee, have no locus standi to challenge the transfer after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sub-tenant in occupation of evacuee property through a main tenant has locus standi to challenge the transfer of property made in favour of such main tenant?
  • Whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner is competent under Settlement Scheme No. VIII to determine entitlement and order transfer of available property?
  • Whether constructive possession through sub-lessees satisfies the requirement of possession for determining entitlement to transfer under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Another1987 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09
  criminal petitiondying declarationocular testimonyleave to appealsafe dispensation of justicemurder convictionappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal petitions: one challenging the acquittal of Muhammad Aslam and the other challenging the conviction and sentence of Zia-ud-Din for the murder of Munawar Hayat. The prosecution case relied on an oral dying declaration incorporated into the F.I.R., ocular testimony, and forensic evidence matching a recovered gun to crime-empties. The trial court and the High Court disbelieved the alleged motive and, while rejecting the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, relied on the oral dying declaration. The petitioner argued that the absence of exact words in the dying declaration, combined with the High Court's rejection of the presence of the co-accused (Muhammad Aslam) and other discrepancies in ocular evidence, rendered the conviction unsafe. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the arguments regarding the reliability of the evidence and the implications of the co-accused's acquittal, determined that the evidence required a deeper appraisal to ensure the safe dispensation of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions and issued bailable warrants for the acquitted accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of the exact words spoken by a deceased person in an oral dying declaration necessarily render it unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the ocular testimony and dying declaration are challenged due to the acquittal of a co-accused and the failure to establish the alleged motive?
  • When is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal in criminal cases involving the appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs Haji GHULAM SABIR1987 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHABAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1562 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 735 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →