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 SARWAR vs THE STATE and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 1938 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs MUMTAZ ALI CHANDANI1987 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD1987 PLC (C.S.) 321 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1987 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-25
  writ petitionallotment of landmukhbari applicationdisplaced personslocus standiremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition on the ground of competency. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's writ petition challenging an administrative allotment order could be dismissed in limine merely because an earlier petition for leave to appeal arising from parallel proceedings had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, noting that the petitioner had a subsisting interest in protecting the land allotted to him following cancellation proceedings and was recognized as a necessary party by other litigants. The appeal was accordingly converted and allowed, setting aside the impugned order with directions to hear the petitioner's writ petition on merits alongside related pending petitions. The key principle laid down is that a party having a direct and acknowledged interest in land allotment proceedings cannot be barred from maintaining a writ petition solely due to the dismissal of an unrelated prior leave petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of competency solely because an earlier petition for leave to appeal in a collateral matter was dismissed?
  • Does a person who secured land from a cancelled allotment possess sufficient interest to maintain a writ petition challenging subsequent restoration orders?
  • Whether a writ petition should be heard on merits when other aggrieved parties have impleaded the petitioner as a necessary party?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR JAVED vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1168(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR And Others vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-09
  leave to appealre-appraisal of evidenceenhancement of sentencecriminal justicevicarious liabilitymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The first is a jail petition filed by two convicts, Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Nazir, challenging their conviction and life imprisonment sentence for murder. The second is a petition by the complainant, Ghulam Muhammad, seeking the enhancement of the convicts' sentences and the reversal of the acquittal of four co-accused persons who were originally charged under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but were convicted only under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the High Court. The core legal questions concern the propriety of the High Court's decision to acquit the four co-accused of the murder charge despite finding the eyewitness testimony credible, and the justification for commuting the death sentences of the main accused to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to conduct a re-appraisal of the evidence to ensure the safe dispensation of criminal justice. The Court issued bailable warrants for the arrest of the four co-accused to facilitate further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the finding that eyewitnesses are credible and present at the scene necessitate the conviction of all accused under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a sentence of death be commuted to life imprisonment solely on the ground that the immediate cause of the offence was not proved?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justified when the injuries caused by them were found to be simple in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 2039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26
  leave to appealmurderattempt to murderappraisal of evidencesudden fightprovocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question involves whether the courts below erred in appreciating evidence and whether the incident constituted a sudden fight arising from grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution established its case through reliable eyewitness testimony, including injured witnesses, and that the petitioners initiated the attack following a minor dispute over kite-flying rather than engaging in a sudden mutual fight. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that no case was made out for re-appraisal of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a criminal matter where the concurrent findings of the lower courts are based on reliable eyewitness testimony?
  • Does a minor dispute originating from kite-flying followed by verbal altercations constitute grave and sudden provocation to mitigate murder?
  • Can the testimony of injured witnesses be relied upon to maintain convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND Another vs FAZAL AHMAD AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11
  presumption of deathburden of proofoccupancy tenancysuccessionevidence acttenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over occupancy tenancy and subsequent ownership rights of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether section 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 raises a presumption as to the exact date of death of a person unheard of for seven years, or merely presumes death at the date of the suit, thereby affecting the applicability of the amended section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The Supreme Court held that sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 regulate the burden of proof and do not fix the date or time of death, which must be established independently through positive evidence. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's interpretation that the presumption under section 108 does not extend to the specific date of death.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 raise a presumption regarding the exact date of a person's death?
  • Is the date of death under section 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 required to be proved by positive evidence?
  • Does the presumption of death under section 108 extend to the end of the seven-year period or the date of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARDAR vs MUHAMMAD RAZIK1987 MLD 663 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARDAR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3181 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARDAR and 4 others vs ALI MUHAMMAD and 2 others1987 MLD 755 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAQLAIN and others vs ALI HUSNAIN QADIR and others1987 CLC 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SANAULLAH vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/FAMILY1987 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH vs MODERN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., TANDOJAM1987 PLC 961 · Labour Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALIM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALIM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 243 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALIM and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 832 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEH---Application vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEH vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1411 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEH And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29
  bail cancellationprejudice to trialad hoc observationscriminal theftleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to cancel the bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, in a criminal case registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the theft of Kinoo plants. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its refusal to cancel the bail and whether the observations made by the lower courts regarding the merits of the case would prejudice the trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds for interference were established. The Court clarified that observations made by superior courts during bail proceedings are merely ad hoc and limited to the context of the bail application. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must entirely disregard such observations and decide the case solely on the basis of evidence produced during the trial, ensuring that bail-related findings do not influence the final adjudication of the criminal matter.

  Questions settled

  • Do observations made by a court during bail proceedings bind the trial court in its final decision?
  • Should a trial court consider findings recorded during bail proceedings when evaluating evidence at trial?
  • Is an order refusing to cancel bail subject to interference by the Supreme Court if the lower court's observations are merely ad hoc?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN GILLANI, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS1987 CLC 1523 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Another1987 PCr. L.J 1633 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM And Other1987 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantconcurrent findings of factwrit jurisdictionrent defaultspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The respondent sought the petitioner's eviction from a house, alleging non-payment of rent. The petitioner contested the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting that the property had been acquired by the Government under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. The Rent Controller, after evaluating evidence, determined that a landlord-tenant relationship existed and ordered ejectment due to rent default. This finding was affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge and subsequently upheld by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a tenancy and the applicability of the land acquisition statute. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly relied on evidence, including the petitioner's own witness testimony, and that the petitioner failed to prove the specific property was acquired under the 1973 Act. Consequently, the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the appellate court in a rent matter?
  • Does the mere production of notifications regarding land acquisition by the government automatically prove that a specific property in dispute was included in such acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs Kazi MUHAMMAD HASNAIN1987 MLD 3267 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs GHULAM RASOOL1987 CLC 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs ASMAT ULLA H1987 CLC 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs ABDUL HABIB1987 CLC 682 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM RERAN, PRESIDENT JANBAZ WORKERS UNION And 2 Other1987 PLC 476 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-08-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Others vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB And Other1987 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26
  evacuee propertydisplaced personcompensation bookresumption of propertytransfer of shopsauctionclaimant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the resumption of evacuee shops transferred to a displaced person, Haji Muhammad Siddiq. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities could validly cancel the transfer of shops auctioned to the claimant on the ground of default in payment, when the claimant's Compensation Book—intended for adjusting the transfer price—was under dispute due to the cancellation of his verified claim. The Supreme Court held that the resumption was unjustified. The Court reasoned that because the claimant's verified claim was subsequently restored upon re-verification, the Compensation Book submitted to the authorities constituted a sufficient answer to the demand notices for payment. Consequently, the shops could not be resumed for default. The key principle laid down is that where a claimant has submitted a Compensation Book for the adjustment of transfer prices, the resumption of property for non-payment is improper if the underlying claim, though temporarily disputed, is ultimately found to be valid and restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Settlement Authorities resume shops transferred to a claimant for default in payment when the claimant's Compensation Book was submitted for adjustment?
  • Does the subsequent restoration of a cancelled verified claim invalidate the prior resumption of property based on the alleged invalidity of that claim?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 13 others vs COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY Ltd.1987 PLD Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM And 13 Other vs CO OPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY Ltd.1987 PLD Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM alias BHOOPA vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 3169 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR vs THE DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB LAHORE And Another1987 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-23
  major penaltyregular inquirydispensing with inquiryservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsreduction in rank
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order imposing a major penalty of reduction in rank. The petitioner, serving as a Foodgrain Inspector, faced disciplinary proceedings for purchasing sub-standard wheat and procuring it through commission agents instead of growers. The formal inquiry was dispensed with, and after a show-cause notice and personal hearing, the Deputy Director imposed a major penalty, which was partially modified on appeal by the Director regarding promotion, and subsequently upheld by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question is whether the imposition of a major penalty without holding a regular departmental inquiry is illegal under the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court held that the imposition of a major penalty without a regular inquiry is lawful where the authorised officer is competent to dispense with it under the rules, particularly when the evidence is documentary and no prejudice is shown. The key principle laid down is that an authorised officer may dispense with a formal inquiry under the relevant rules when the proof is documentary and the employee has not demanded an inquiry or shown prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authorised officer dispense with a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Whether the imposition of a major penalty without a formal inquiry is illegal when the evidence is of a documentary nature?
  • Does failure to request a regular inquiry or show prejudice in defense preclude a civil servant from challenging the absence of an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN vs Mst. RUKHSANA SAEED and 2 others1987 CLC 163 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAJID And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAJID Alias MUNA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAID vs JALIL AHMED1987 MLD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR BHATTI vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-06
  capital convictioneye-witness credibilitysafe administration of criminal justiceappreciation of evidencemurdertheftacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder and theft. The core legal question is whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness, whose claim to have witnessed the crime was not disclosed to the police officer encountered immediately after the incident, is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Supreme Court held that the witness's failure to identify the assailant or disclose his status as an eye-witness to the police officer he met while en route to report the crime casts significant doubt on his credibility. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery of the weapon was disbelieved by the lower courts and the recovery of the stolen property was procedurally doubtful. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, establishing the principle that where a witness's conduct is inconsistent with the natural reaction of an eye-witness, particularly regarding the prompt disclosure of the assailant's identity to authorities, it is unsafe to rely on such testimony to support a conviction in a capital case.

  Questions settled

  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of a sole eye-witness who fails to disclose their status as an eye-witness to the police officer they encounter shortly after the incident?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose conduct is inconsistent with that of a genuine eye-witness?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the recovery of stolen property and the weapon of offense undermine the reliability of the entire case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE and another1987 MLD 3101 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs S.H.O., P.S. SHAH BHORE, DISTRICT OKARA and 2 others1987 MLD 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs MUHAMMAD URFAN AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 63 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mst. KHALIDA SHAHEEN And Other1987 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  Khuladissolution of marriageprompt dowerconstitutional jurisdictionfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim a refund of the prompt dower for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction when no such plea was raised before the Family Court. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot raise a claim for the refund of prompt dower for the first time in constitutional proceedings if it was never pleaded in the written statement or stated before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that pleas not raised before the subordinate fora, particularly regarding financial adjustments in Khula' decrees, cannot be entertained for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a husband claim a refund of prompt dower in constitutional jurisdiction if the plea was not raised before the Family Court?
  • Whether an appellate court's decision on Khula can be interfered with when no foundational plea for dower refund existed in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs JAMALUDDIN SIDDIQUI1987 MLD 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs ABDUL GHAFFAR SHAH1987 CLC 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED MALIK vs WAPDA1987 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  service appeallimitation and condonation of delaydepartmental reviewremoval from serviceSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of WAPDA removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment dismissing his appeal as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a non-statutory departmental review or representation constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay under the limitation provisions governing service appeals. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay, noting that where a departmental remedy is statutorily provided, the limitation period is regulated by law, and the pendency of a non-statutory review cannot automatically serve as a basis for condonation. The key principle laid down is that each case of condonation of delay must be examined on its own merits, and the pursuit of extra-statutory departmental remedies does not furnish a universal legal ground for extending the statutory period of limitation for filing appeals before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a departmental review automatically warrant the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether an order passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is final and challengeable before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the exercise of discretion by the Service Tribunal in refusing to condone delay raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED BUTT vs WAPDA1987 PLC (C.S.) 650 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED and 5 others vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN1987 CLC 2362 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED alias PULLA vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR KHAN vs Mat. SURRAYYA BEGUM1987 CLC 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1987 PLC (C.S.) 454 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT1987 PLC (C.S.) 481 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others1987 CLC 2018 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ANVER MAJEED And Another1987 P Cr. L J 165 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHOKHAR vs ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, JOINT STAFF Hqs., RAWALPINIDI And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 398 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-01-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHAN, NAIB-TEHSILDAR vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE1987 PLC (C. S.) 302 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ CH. vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2197 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SABIR vs JEHANGIR1987 MLD 872 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SABBIR alias GHULAM SABBIR and 2 others vs SHER MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 910 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ROSHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 773 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE-,1987 P Cr. L J 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Mst. GHAZALA BEGUM and another1987 MLD 3045 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED and 41987 CLC 345 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-17
  agency coupled with interestinterim injunctiontermination of agencyirrevocable power of attorneybalance of conveniencearbitration clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating an agency agreement and cancelling an irrevocable general power of attorney, arguing the agency was coupled with interest. The defendant had invoked a clause allowing them to take over project control and terminate the agreement. The core legal question was whether an agency agreement coupled with interest could be unilaterally terminated and whether an interim injunction was appropriate to maintain the status quo. The Court held that while the agency was coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, the agreement itself provided mechanisms for termination and project takeover. The Court determined that because the plaintiff's primary concern was financial protection rather than active management, and because damages could be quantified, the balance of convenience did not favor an injunction. Instead of granting the injunction, the Court ordered the defendant to furnish security and provide periodic financial disclosures to protect the plaintiff's interests, while referring the underlying dispute to arbitration as per the agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal unilaterally terminate an agency agreement that is coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is an interim injunction mandatory in every case where an agency agreement is alleged to be coupled with interest?
  • Does the term 'property' in Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 include intangible interests in a contract?
  • Can a court grant interim financial protection to a party instead of a full injunction when the primary interest is monetary?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-28
  leave to appealcommon intentionmurdercriminal liabilitybenefit of section 382-B
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the High Court, which had upheld their conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Hassan. The core legal questions involve whether Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was rightly applied to a co-accused who allegedly had no knowledge that the principal offender was carrying a weapon or would commit a fatal stabbing, and whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the applicability of common intention under Section 34 regarding the younger petitioner, and also issued notice regarding the extension of the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, directing an early hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is applicable to an accused who allegedly did not know that his co-accused was carrying a knife or intended to stab the deceased?
  • Can youthful offenders be granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 288 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Alias RIASTI And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12
  common intentionyouthful offendersmurderbenefit of section 382-Bcriminal appealappellate decision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellants, Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Nawaz, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Ghulam Hassan, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied to Muhammad Nawaz, and whether both youthful appellants were entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that Muhammad Nawaz shared the common intention on the spot to murder the deceased, as he threw a brickbat at the deceased's face immediately after the fatal stab wound was inflicted by Muhammad Riaz, thereby attracting section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. On the second question, the Court held that given their youthful age at the time of the occurrence, both appellants were entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with the modification that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was granted in the computation of their sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted where an accused participates in an assault by throwing a brickbat at the victim after a fatal stab wound has already been inflicted by a co-accused?
  • Whether youthful convicts sentenced to life imprisonment are entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZA vs Mst. NAGHMA KHATOON and others1987 MLD 2424 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZA And Others vs Mst. AALIA And Other1987 SCMR 1819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15
  condonation of delaylimitation periodpetition for leave to appealsufficient causetime-barred petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Baluchistan High Court. The petition was presented with a delay of two days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, arguing that their failure to file on time was due to a bona fide mistake in computing the 60-day limitation period and the distance of their residence from the court. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the petition was prepared and the power of attorney signed two days before the actual filing date, with no explanation provided for this intervening delay. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, as the explanation offered did not account for the period between the preparation of the petition and its actual submission. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred, emphasizing that a lack of sufficient explanation for the delay precludes the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bona fide mistake in computing the limitation period constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to condonation of delay when the petition was prepared days before filing but submitted without explanation after the limitation period expired?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2665(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION And Other1987 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  evacuee propertysettlement schemepermanent buildingunauthorized possessionauction validitypermanent transfer deedlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the entitlement of an occupant to the transfer of an evacuee building site under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the transfer entitlement is governed exclusively by Paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Act, or if it must also satisfy the 1/4th built-up area condition prescribed in the Settlement Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the Schedule to the Act prevails over the Settlement Scheme. The Court affirmed the principle that the Scheme cannot impose additional limitations, such as the 1/4th area requirement, to restrict the statutory right of a person in unauthorized possession who has constructed a permanent building in the ordinary sense. Consequently, the Court ruled that the property was not available for auction while the appellant's entitlement was pending, rendering the subsequent auction and issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed invalid. The key principle established is that the Schedule to the Act is the primary determinant for transfer rights, and any restrictive definitions in the Scheme inconsistent with the Act are ultra vires.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, prevail over the Settlement Scheme regarding the transfer of building sites?
  • Can a condition in a Settlement Scheme, such as the 1/4th built-up area requirement, restrict the statutory entitlement provided under the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed validate an auction of property that was not legally available for auction at the time?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs ABDUL SALAM AND OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 268 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 536 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION Ltd.1987 PLC 570 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others1987 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Mst. MEHRAJ BIBI And Other1987 SCMR 1551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14
  evacuee propertysettlement lawsrepeal of statutesjurisdiction of settlement commissionertransfer of propertyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's claim regarding the transfer of an evacuee house. The dispute originated when the petitioner sought the transfer of a house in his favour in 1978, arguing that the compensation book used by the original transferee, Ghulam Rasool, had been declared bogus. The core legal question was whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner retained jurisdiction to entertain an application for the transfer of property after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not a fit case for interference. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, ruling that no application could be maintained before a Deputy Settlement Commissioner following the repeal of the evacuee laws. The Court further rejected the petitioner's contention that the transfer matter remained pending, establishing the principle that once evacuee laws are repealed, the jurisdiction of settlement authorities to adjudicate new claims or reopen past transfers ceases to exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner retain jurisdiction to entertain an application for property transfer after the repeal of evacuee laws?
  • Can a claim for the transfer of an evacuee house be treated as a pending matter after the repeal of the relevant settlement statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1987 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-17
  constitutional petitionleave to appealnew pleajurisdictionBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3-12-1983, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 29-5-1983. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to consider a contention regarding a departmental directive dated 13-7-1976 that was never raised before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to examine a plea not raised before the lower forum, while noting that the petitioner's remedy lay in agitating the matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in accordance with law. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a constitutional petition cannot be used to introduce new factual or legal contentions that were not raised before the subordinate forum whose order is being challenged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can entertain a new contention in constitutional jurisdiction that was not raised before the subordinate tribunal?
  • Does a petitioner have the right to agitate a matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in accordance with law after the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs AMIR HASAN and 5 others1987 CLC 1929 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Others vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23
  exhumationdisintermentsuspicious deathmedical jurisprudencepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court directing the exhumation of the dead body of Mst. Lalo Bibi to ascertain the cause of her death. The core legal question concerns the propriety of ordering the disinterment of a body for medical examination after multiple prior inquiries and the lapse of a significant period of time, specifically one year, following a suspicious death. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was legally sound, noting that the petitioner had initially expressed no objection to the exhumation and that medical authority supports disinterment even after one year. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the order for exhumation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dead body be exhumed to ascertain the cause of death after a period of one year?
  • Whether an order for the exhumation of a dead body is justified when prior inquiries yielded conflicting conclusions regarding the nature of death?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Others vs Mst. BALAN BIBI1987 SCMR 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12
  civil revisionallotment of landsuit for possessionrevenue departmentcolony act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, which modified a trial court decree regarding the recovery of possession of land. The core legal question concerns whether a suit for possession filed by an allottee is competent without taking possession through the Revenue Department under section 10(4) of the Colony Act, and whether a suit for partition was instead required. The Supreme Court held that since the allotment order was based on the report of the field staff and allotments were duly made by the Collector, the respondent was entitled to possess her share, rendering the suit for possession competent. The court thereby affirmed that an allottee given specific shares via a valid allotment order is entitled to seek possession of their allotted share through a suit for possession rather than strictly necessitating partition proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for possession competent when an allottee has not taken formal possession through the Revenue Department?
  • Whether an allottee holding a valid share under an allotment order must file a suit for partition instead of a suit for possession?
  • Does an allotment order based on the report of the field staff entitle an allottee to recover possession of their specific share?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Others vs KAMAL DIN And Other1987 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-16
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceagreement to sellprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable lossspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the refusal of the trial court to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners established a prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction pending the resolution of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case or demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable loss, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that discretionary orders of lower courts refusing temporary injunctions will not be interfered with by the apex court unless the petitioner successfully establishes a clear legal error or infirmity in finding a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court should interfere with the refusal of a trial court to grant a temporary injunction when no prima facie case is made out?
  • Does a purchaser under an agreement to sell executed by an attorney suffer irreparable loss if a temporary injunction is refused?
  • Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting a temporary injunction where possession is disputed and the limitation period is questionable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Another vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)1987 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-22
  land disputemisreading of recordremand orderconsent ordersettlement proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute concerning land measuring 93 kanals and 3 marlas in village Qila Harsukhrai, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands). The core legal question was whether the lower forums had misread the record in reaching their decisions. Upon perusal of the record, the Supreme Court found prima facie evidence of misreading of the record. With the mutual consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 28-5-1978, and remanded the case to the notified officer for fresh disposal on the merits after due notice and hearing to all parties in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment of the High Court and an order of the Settlement Commissioner can be set aside and remanded for fresh disposal on the ground of prima facie misreading of the record?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by the mutual consent of the parties' counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 2 OTHERS vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 2 Other vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 4 Other1987 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Alias RAMZOO vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 882(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias NANGO TALANI vs AHMED BUX and another1987 MLD 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →