Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- MUHAMMAD KHAN and others vs KHAWAR NAHEED and others1987 MLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2184(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 802 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2266 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALIQ vs ABDULLAH KHAN and 4 others1987 CLC 1366 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a civil suit instituted by the plaintiff's attorney seeking a declaration and perpetual injunction regarding the second allotment of a disputed plot. The core legal questions involved the competence of the plaintiff's attorney to institute the suit without express authority in the power of attorney, the retrospective ratification of such act, the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under a special statute, and the validity of a second allotment after a prior valid allotment. The High Court held that while the initial power of attorney lacked express authority to file a suit, the subsequent ratification by the principal cured the defect. Furthermore, the Court held that civil courts retain inherent jurisdiction to examine the propriety and legality of orders passed by statutory authorities when such orders are mala fide or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court established that once a plot is validly allotted and full payment is accepted following condonation of delay, the allotment committee has no power to cancel it without notice and make a second allotment, rendering any subsequent allotment void and entitling the lawful allottee to restoration of possession.
Questions settled- Can a power of attorney that lacks explicit authority to institute a suit be validated by subsequent ratification by the principal?
- Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is completely ousted by a special statute when a statutory authority acts without jurisdiction or in a mala fide manner?
- Does an allotment committee retain the power to cancel a completed land allotment and make a second allotment without issuing a show-cause notice to the original allottee?
- Can a plaintiff be granted consequential relief like restoration of possession in a suit originally framed only for declaration and perpetual injunction?
- MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 975 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALID and 5 others vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE and 10 others1987 CLC 250 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KASIM vs KHAIR MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the inheritance of the estate of a deceased person, specifically whether a distant cousin (agnate) or the sister's sons (distant kindred) are entitled to the property. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied Islamic law principles regarding the classification of heirs and the order of succession. The Supreme Court held that under Hanafi law, heirs are categorized into sharers, agnates (residuaries), and uterine relations (distant kindred). Residuaries inherit the residue after sharers, and distant kindred only inherit in the absence of both sharers and residuaries. The Court ruled that the High Court erred in treating both parties as distant kindred; instead, the appellant, as a distant cousin related through a male ascendant, qualified as a residuary and thus excluded the respondents, who were distant kindred. The principle laid down is that in the presence of an heir belonging to the category of residuaries, no one falling in the class of distant kindred can inherit the property of the deceased.
Questions settled- Under Hanafi law, does an heir classified as a residuary exclude an heir classified as a distant kindred?
- Are the sons of a deceased's sister considered distant kindred under Islamic law?
- Does a distant cousin related through a male ascendant qualify as a residuary under Hanafi law of succession?
- MUHAMMAD KARIM vs DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES And Other1987 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal setting aside the appointment of the appellant, Muhammad Karim, to the post of Chief Laboratory Technician at Mardan. The appellant had originally opted for the Blood Bank Technicians cadre upon the reorganization of para-medical services. Later, seeking a posting at Mardan, he claimed a conditional option to be repatriated to the Laboratory Technicians cadre if it was upgraded, and the Minister of Health accordingly transferred him and appointed him as Chief Laboratory Technician. Respondent No. 3, a senior member of the Laboratory Technicians cadre, challenged this appointment before the Service Tribunal, which set it aside. The core legal questions involved whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge and whether a civil servant could change cadres retrospectively to claim a promotional post. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly exercised jurisdiction as the appointment violated the terms and conditions and cadre rules affecting respondent No. 3's seniority and promotion rights, and further held that a civil servant cannot become a member of a cadre without holding a post or lien therein. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by a civil servant whose promotion rights and cadre rules are violated by the appointment of an outsider?
- Can a civil servant become a member of a specific service cadre without holding a post or a lien in that cadre?
- Whether a conditional option exercised during the reorganization of service cadres permits a retrospective change of cadre to claim a promotional post?
- MUHAMMAD KALIM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD FAROUK KHAN AND ANOTHER s1987 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KALIM KHAN AND 2 Other vs MUHAMMAD FAROUK KHAN AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KAFAIT And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JUMAN vs ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SHAH MURAD SUGAR MILLS1987 PLC 806 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD Javeds vs The STATE1987 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard two connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed both the convict's appeal against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder, as well as the complainant's criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The prosecution case rested on motive, reliable ocular testimony of two eyewitnesses (a relative and an independent neighbor residing in the vicinity), medical evidence showing fatal incised wounds, and recoveries. The convict contended that the eyewitnesses were inactive spectators whose testimony was unreliable, while the complainant argued that the brutal nature of the murder warranted the capital sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned, the eyewitness testimony was trustworthy without any motive for false implication, and the punishment of life imprisonment met the ends of justice without warranting enhancement to death. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the mere failure of eyewitnesses to actively intervene or rescue a victim during a sudden knife attack renders their ocular testimony untrustworthy?
- Whether concurrent findings on conviction and sentence of life imprisonment should be interfered with when supported by credible ocular and medical evidence?
- Whether a sentence of life imprisonment for murder ought to be enhanced to death when the immediate circumstances preceding the occurrence remain uncertain?
- MUHAMMAD JAVED And Another vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal arising from the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the petitioner, Muhammad Javed, for the murder of an Advocate. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether a compromise reached between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased, involving the payment of compensation (Diyat), warrants the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Court observed that the legal heirs, including the widow and other family members, had voluntarily forgiven the petitioner and received a sum of Rs. 70,000 as compensation. Consequently, the Court held that the compromise was valid and sufficient grounds existed to alter the sentence. The Court maintained the conviction but commuted the capital sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the fine. The key principle laid down is that in cases of murder, a voluntary compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased, supported by the payment of compensation, constitutes a valid basis for the appellate court to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life based on a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Does the voluntary forgiveness of a convict by the legal heirs of the deceased constitute sufficient grounds for the appellate court to alter a capital sentence?
- MUHAMMAD JAVED AKHTAR vs PUBLICINLARGE1987 CLC 262 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses the legal questions regarding the court's power to dispense with sureties or security when granting Letters of Administration or Succession Certificates, and whether such certificates can be issued in favour of the Nazir of the court. The core legal questions involve the interpretation of the Succession Act 1925 regarding mandatory versus discretionary security requirements. The court held that under Section 291 of the Succession Act 1925, the court has no power to dispense with sureties when granting Letters of Administration. However, regarding Succession Certificates, under Section 375, security is mandatory if the case falls under subsections (3) or (4) of Section 373, but is discretionary in other cases. Furthermore, the court held that the Succession Act does not authorize the issuance of Succession Certificates or Letters of Administration in favour of the Nazir of the court, and subordinate rules like the Sind Chief Court Rules cannot override substantive statutory provisions. The key principles laid down include the mandatory nature of security for Letters of Administration and the conditional discretion available for Succession Certificates.
Questions settled- Does the court have the power to dispense with sureties when granting Letters of Administration?
- Is furnishing security discretionary when granting a Succession Certificate under the Succession Act 1925?
- Can a Succession Certificate or Letters of Administration be granted in favour of the Nazir of the court?
- Do subordinate rules such as the Sind Chief Court Rules override the substantive provisions of the Succession Act 1925 regarding security?
- MUHAMMAD JAVED AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Other1987 SCMR 1750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Lahore High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings against him under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involved the entrustment of money abroad for delivery in Pakistan, subsequent default, and an alleged agreement to pay in instalments. The petitioner contended that the acknowledgment of liability and agreement to pay converted the matter into a civil transaction, rendering the criminal prosecution untenable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that whether an act is criminal or civil depends primarily on intention, which must be gathered from attending circumstances and the conduct of the parties through evidence. The Court ruled that a simple acknowledgment of liability to pay does not as a matter of law convert an offence under sections 420 and 406 into a purely civil claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a simple acknowledgment of liability to pay convert what is otherwise an offence under section 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 into a claim of a civil nature?
- How is the intention of a person determined when assessing whether an act is criminal or civil?
- At what stage should the question of whether an agreement to pay money in instalments amounts to an admission of misappropriation be considered?
- MUHAMMAD JAVAID And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2037 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAN and others vs UNITED BANK LTD.1987 CLC 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs WAQAR AZIM and another1987 P Cr. L J 221 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 986 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs MUHAMMAD RAHIM1987 CLC 176 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This statutory appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 challenged the Rent Controller's order fixing fair rent of three shops at Rs.300 per month each under Section 8. The appellant/tenant contended that under Section 9(2), any increase in rent could not exceed 10% per annum on the existing rent, and that the Rent Controller erred by fixing identical fair rent for three shops that historically had different rental values. The Sindh High Court examined the relationship between Sections 8 and 9 of the Ordinance. The Court held that Section 9(2) applies only to cases where fair rent has already been previously fixed by the Controller and a landlord seeks a subsequent increase; it does not restrict initial fair rent determination under Section 8. However, on the factual merits, the Court found that the Rent Controller provided no rationale for fixing identical rent for all three shops when historical records established that two shops were consistently valued at half of the third shop. The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining Shop No. 11 at Rs.300 and reducing Shop Nos. 12 and 23 to Rs.150 each.
Questions settled- Does Section 9(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 limit the initial determination of fair rent under Section 8 to a maximum increase of ten per cent on the existing rent?
- Is the applicability of Section 9 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 restricted only to cases where fair rent has already been previously fixed?
- Can a Rent Controller fix uniform fair rent for multiple premises where undisputed evidence demonstrates historically distinct rental values?
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs MUHAMMAD AYUB and another1987 MLD 2722 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL KHAN vs GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1987 PLC (C . S .) 395 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-01-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMEEL Alias JEELA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2462 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAFFAR vs ZILL-E-HUSSAIN and another1987 MLD 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAFFAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, who was accused of murder in a direct complaint filed by the deceased's wife, despite having previously lodged an F.I.R. against other individuals for the same incident. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the existence of two diametrically opposed versions of the incident: the applicant's F.I.R. implicating third parties and the subsequent direct complaint implicating the applicant. The court held that where the prosecution's case is clouded by conflicting versions and the police investigation itself is under scrutiny for potential misconduct and interpolation, the case against the accused requires further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, holding that there were no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe the applicant committed the non-bailable offence. The key principle laid down is that the existence of conflicting versions of an incident, which necessitates a deeper examination of the evidence, entitles an accused person to the concession of bail under the principle of further inquiry.
Questions settled- Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident entitle an accused to bail?
- Is a case considered to be one of 'further inquiry' when the police investigation is challenged for misconduct and interpolation?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution relies on a direct complaint that contradicts the initial F.I.R.?
- MUHAMMAD IZHARUL AHSAN QURESHI vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1987 PLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IZHAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD MOBIN SIDDIQUI through his Legal1987 MLD 922 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISRAR And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs WAQF MUHAMMAD MEHER ELAHI1987 CLC 496 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs WAPDA And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 621 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Other1987 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the convictions of three accused persons involved in a murder case. The accused were initially convicted for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over drain water. The High Court had acquitted two co-accused and reduced the death sentence of the primary accused, Muhammad Iqbal, to life imprisonment, citing a sudden fight. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused, whether the primary accused was entitled to the right of private defence, and whether the sentence reduction was justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly assessed the evidence, finding that the accused exceeded the right of private defence by using a firearm without real apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The Court affirmed the acquittal of the co-accused, finding no common intention, and upheld the life sentence for the primary accused, ruling that the incident constituted a sudden fight. The principle established is that the right of private defence is not absolute and cannot be invoked when the accused uses disproportionate force without reasonable apprehension of danger.
Questions settled- Does the use of a firearm in a sudden fight where the accused faces no real apprehension of death or grievous hurt constitute a valid exercise of the right of private defence?
- Can an appellate court maintain a conviction for murder while acquitting co-accused of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment justified when the court finds the incident was a sudden fight?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED1987 PLC 131 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs FAIZ BAKHSH And Other1987 SCMR 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities regarding the auction of property in favour of the petitioner while earlier L.H. Forms filed by the respondents remained undisposed of. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly refused to interfere with the established finding of fact by the Settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that the superior courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by administrative settlement tribunals in constitutional jurisdiction unless a jurisdictional defect or illegality is shown.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is leave to appeal granted against the dismissal of a constitutional petition upholding a finding of fact by settlement authorities?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs ASGHARI KHANUM1987 CLC 315 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MEMON vs PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN And Another1987 PLC 98 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BALOUCH vs Mst. RABIA and another1987 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Others vs THE STATE-1987 PCr. L J 682(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Others vs CHAIRMAN, BORDER ALLOTMENT1987 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the allotment of land to respondent No.3 by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The petitioners claimed continuous cultivating possession of the disputed land for over 60 years, alleging they were granted proprietary rights by the Collector and had deposited the entire purchase price. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were condemned unheard when their land was allotted to a third party despite having deposited the sale price, and whether a subsequent writ petition was barred due to the withdrawal of an earlier petition. The Supreme Court examined the grievance and noted the statement of the Advocate-General based on instructions from the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, that the petitioners' application for alternate land would be considered on merits if applied for. The Court disposed of the matter accordingly, ensuring the protection of the petitioners' right to seek alternate land in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee of State land who has paid the purchase price can be deprived of land without being heard?
- Does the withdrawal of a prior writ petition bar the filing of a subsequent constitutional petition under the circumstances?
- Are eligible tenants entitled to consideration for alternate land when their allotted state land is re-allotted?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Another vs Mst. SABRAN And Another1987 SCMR 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents, Mst. Sabran and Muhammad A.I, of charges related to the murder of the deceased, Muhammad Saeed. The respondents were initially convicted by the Sessions Judge under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on ocular testimony and recovery evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appellate appraisal of evidence by disbelieving the prosecution witnesses and rejecting the recovery evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the High Court correctly applied established principles of evidence appraisal. The appellate court had reasonably concluded that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was not credible, and that the recovery of incriminating items was inconsistent with the conduct of the accused. The Supreme Court affirmed that where the High Court has appraised evidence in accordance with settled legal principles, there is no ground for interference in an acquittal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has appraised the evidence in accordance with established principles?
- Is the testimony of chance witnesses who lack a plausible reason for their presence at the scene of the crime sufficient to sustain a conviction?
- Does the recovery of incriminating evidence from an accused become unreliable if the accused's conduct in destroying other evidence suggests a higher level of caution?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 3 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1987 MLD 721 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1987 MLD 935 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE And Others vs Mst. KHATOON And Other1987 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal. The appeal arose from a decree originally passed in favour of the respondents. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the consent decree passed against the respondents was based on a genuine compromise and, therefore, should not have been set aside on the grounds of fraud and collusion. The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel but found no legal infirmity or error in the concurrent findings of the appellate courts below. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any justification for the re-appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, thereby affirming the lower court's decision to set aside the consent decree. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a clear legal infirmity or misappreciation of evidence is demonstrated by the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a consent decree be set aside on the grounds of fraud and collusion?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a second appeal?
- Is a consent decree immune from challenge if it is alleged to be based on fraud?
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ YAQOOB vs UMRAO CHARLI and another1987 CLC 410 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1987 SCMR 1952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was filed against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. After pursuing a departmental remedy, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which rejected it on the ground of limitation. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to consider the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over WAPDA service matters in light of Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, which ousted the jurisdiction of courts. The Supreme Court noted that the question of jurisdiction had already been resolved in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18). Examining the limitation aspect, the Court observed that the appeal before the Tribunal was filed beyond the prescribed period and the explanation offered for the delay was not plausible. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against removal orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 despite Section 17(1-C)?
- Can a service appeal filed beyond the period of limitation be dismissed where no plausible explanation for delay is provided?
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 989 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1987 CLC 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ through his 8 Legal Heirs vs S. KHURSHEED ALAM1987 CLC 1716 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN KUNDI and 2 others vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1987 CLC 2134 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises out of competing pre-emption suits over agricultural land in District D.I. Khan. The core legal questions involved whether land purchased for construction purposes disqualifies a vendee from asserting pre-emption rights, the effect of splitting up joint khatas during the pendency of a pre-emption suit on the pre-emptor's co-sharer status, and the competency of a pre-emption suit instituted through a general power of attorney lacking explicit authorization. The High Court held that purchasing land for construction does not bar future pre-emption claims if legally acquired, that a pre-emptor must maintain a subsisting right of co-sharership at the time of the decree, and that a general power of attorney not expressly empowering the agent to pre-empt renders the suit incompetent if ratified only after the period of limitation has expired. The revision petitions were dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Does purchasing land for construction purposes disentitle a vendee from acquiring more land or enforcing a superior right of pre-emption?
- Does the splitting up of a joint khata into separate khatas during the pendency of a pre-emption suit affect the pre-emptor's co-sharer status?
- Can a general power of attorney without express authorization enable an attorney to institute a valid pre-emption suit?
- Does subsequent execution of a special power of attorney after the expiry of the period of limitation cure an initially incompetent pre-emption suit?
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 105 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs GUL MUHAMMAD And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses connected criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder case. The complainant filed a petition seeking enhancement of sentences and challenging the complete acquittal of one respondent, while the main accused filed petitions against his conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was that the accused persons, in furtherance of a common intention and motivated by an election dispute, attacked the deceased with sharp weapons, resulting in his death nine days later. The trial court had acquitted one accused, convicted another under section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced the main accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to death, which the High Court subsequently altered to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the proper appraisal of ocular and recovery evidence and the justification for altering the death sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the generally acknowledged principles of appraisal of evidence were properly followed by the High Court, and issued warrants for the arrest of one of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether the generally acknowledged principles of appraisal of evidence were properly followed by the High Court?
- Can the sentence of death be altered to imprisonment for life when the motive is considered shrouded in mystery and specific blows were attributed to the accused?
- Whether the ocular testimony supported by recovery evidence warrants the maintenance of conviction in a murder trial?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 207 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN vs NATIONAL PETROCARBON Ltd.19871 PLC 73 · Labour Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2659 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 621 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs Mst. SULTANA BEGUM and others1987 CLC 582 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Anthers vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 260 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1178 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias LADDU Alias BILLU, And Other vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias LADDU Alias BILLU And Others vs THE STATE1987 P Cr. L J 506 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias CHIKNA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias BALA AND 2 OTHER vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2186 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs GHULAM MURTAZA1987 PLD Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges concurrent orders of the lower courts directing the delivery of actual physical possession of agricultural land in execution of a pre-emption decree. The core legal questions concern whether an executing court can construe a decree to ascertain its true intent, whether a vendee whose claim as tenant or co-sharer has been negated holds possession as a trespasser, and whether a subsequent application for physical possession is maintainable after symbolic possession was mistakenly delivered. The Lahore High Court held that the executing court has the power and duty to construe the decree and examine the record to ensure proper execution, that a vendee continues to hold possession as a judgment-debtor until physical possession is delivered, and that an application seeking correct execution after an inchoate or mistaken delivery of symbolic possession is competent and constitutes a continuation of the original proceedings. The revision was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether according to the decree physical possession of the suit property was required to be given to the decree holder?
- Whether the petitioner-vendee's claim as co-sharer or tenant is tenable in execution proceedings and can operate as a bar against delivery of physical possession in execution?
- Whether an executing court can entertain an application aimed at securing execution of a decree according to its true intent by delivery of physical possession when symbolic possession had been erroneously delivered?
- Whether there is any legal bar against the executing court taking proceedings to construe and determine the real intent of the decree for the purpose of proper execution on the basis of material already on record or by allowing corroborative fresh material to be produced?
- MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs ABDUL LATIF1987 MLD 2889 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAYAT and others vs NASIRUDDIN1987 MLD 140 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 6 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways and Communications, Islamabad and 2 others1987 MLD 634 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 868 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS And Another vs THE STATE and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 554 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS And 4 Others vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM (Deceased), And Other1987 SCMR 1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the vacation of an interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 6-11-1983. The original order had suspended the execution of the impugned judgment, conditional upon the petitioners depositing a monthly sum of Rs. 500 with the Assistant Registrar as compensation for the use and occupation of the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings. The applicants/respondents contended that the petitioners failed to comply with this condition precedent by neglecting to deposit the required funds. The petitioners did not deny this failure to comply. Consequently, the core legal question was whether the interim suspension order should remain in force despite the petitioners' non-compliance with the court's conditional directive. The Court held that since the condition precedent for the suspension of execution was not fulfilled, the interim order could no longer be sustained. Accordingly, the Court vacated the interim order of suspension, thereby allowing the execution proceedings to proceed.
Questions settled- Can an interim order suspending the execution of a judgment be vacated if the condition precedent for such suspension is not met?
- Does the failure to deposit compensation for the use and occupation of disputed property, as ordered by the court, justify the vacation of a stay order?
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS alias LABHA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3154 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILHAMUL BARI SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAMULLAH and another vs Messrs ASIAN PACKERS1987 MLD 3241 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 827 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS) And 2 Others1987 PLC (C. S.) 765 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1987-06-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM and 22 others vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM and 45 others1987 MLD 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDRIS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Others1987 PLC 397 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDRIS vs ABDUL SATTAR1987 MLD 274 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MUSHTAQ1987 MLD 501 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Other1987 SCMR 1607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner, alleged to be a partner in a firm occupying the disputed premises, on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the rent case was not maintainable as he was sued in his personal capacity while the tenancy vested in the firm of which he was a partner, and that rent receipts established the tenancy in favor of the firm. The Supreme Court examined the record, noted that rent receipts were indeed issued in the name of the firm by the respondents, and held that the question of non-impleadment of the other partners of the firm required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment application filed against one partner in his personal capacity is maintainable when the tenancy vests in the partnership firm?
- Do rent receipts issued in the name of a firm establish the existence of tenancy in favor of the firm?
- Whether the non-impleadment of other partners of a tenant firm affects the maintainability of ejectment proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst. NAZEER BEGUM and others1987 MLD 255 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst. MEHMOODA1987 CLC 1994 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application to set aside an ex parte preliminary decree passed in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The core legal question concerned the effect of an unappealed intermediate remand order regarding limitation and whether the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the specific decree to time-bar his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a party failing to appeal an intermediate remand order is precluded from subsequently disputing its correctness, which in this case had already concluded that the application was within limitation. The Court laid down the principle that due service of summons requires clear communication of the pending litigation, and a vague or indirect knowledge of proceedings is insufficient to start the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree; specific knowledge of the particular decree, court, and relief is required. The revision was allowed, the ex parte decree was set aside, and the trial court was directed to try the suit afresh on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a party failing to appeal an intermediate remand order is precluded from subsequently disputing its correctness under Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does indirect or vague knowledge of a pending suit constitute sufficient knowledge to trigger the limitation period for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What constitutes due service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the purpose of setting aside an ex parte decree?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Haji RAZA HUSSAIN1987 MLD 515 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant. The appellant sought ejectment on multiple grounds, but on appeal, confined his arguments to subletting and the bona fide personal requirement of his jobless son to start a photography business. The respondent had filed a written statement but failed to submit an affidavit of evidence or produce any witnesses. The High Court observed that the appellant's testimony regarding his son being jobless remained unchallenged and unrebutted during cross-examination, and the respondent failed to prove that the appellant possessed alternative suitable commercial accommodation. The Court held that the non-production of the son as a witness is not fatal to the case where the landlord's testimony is otherwise unchallenged and reliable. Finding the ground of personal bona fide requirement fully established, the Court set aside the Controller's order and allowed the ejectment application, while rejecting the subletting claim due to weak and unspecific evidence.
Questions settled- Is the non-production of the beneficiary son fatal to a landlord's claim for ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide requirement?
- Can a landlord establish a bona fide personal requirement if the tenant fails to cross-examine the landlord on key assertions and fails to lead any evidence in rebuttal?
- Does the residential use of a shop by a landlord constitute possession of alternative commercial accommodation sufficient to defeat a claim for personal business requirement?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another1987 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a long-standing property dispute over an evacuee house in Lahore, involving conflicting Provisional Transfer Orders (P.T.Os) issued to the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Following multiple rounds of litigation and remands, the Settlement Commissioner determined that neither party was entitled to the transfer of the house and declared it divisible. Respondent No. 1 challenged this order in the High Court via a writ petition, omitting the petitioner as a party. The High Court accepted the petition and declared the Settlement Commissioner's order null and void regarding the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D) issued to respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily addressing whether the High Court erred in deciding the writ petition without impleading the petitioner, who had been a party to all previous proceedings and was in possession of the property. The Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the necessity of being heard and the divisibility of the property warranted further examination, thereby granting leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a High Court decide a writ petition affecting property rights without impleading a party who was involved in all previous administrative and judicial proceedings regarding that property?
- Does the failure to implead a necessary party in a writ petition constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
- Is a party who was a contestant in all prior settlement proceedings entitled to notice in a subsequent writ petition challenging the final settlement order?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM And Another vs GROUP CAPTAIN SALEHUDDIN And Another1987 SCMR 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition against a Settlement Commissioner's decision regarding the transfer of urban agricultural land in Rawalpindi Cantonment. The core legal questions were whether the appellants could bypass the statutory appellate process by filing revision petitions and whether land already transferred as a building site in 1963-64 remained available for subsequent transfer as urban agricultural land. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' revision petitions were incompetent because they failed to exhaust the substantive remedy of appeal, regardless of limitation issues. Furthermore, the Court determined that because the land had already been validly transferred and Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.Ds) issued to the respondents, the land was no longer available for disposal. Consequently, the subsequent transfer of the same land to the appellants' predecessor-in-interest was legally void. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass the statutory hierarchy of remedies by filing a revision when a right of appeal exists, and land already disposed of by a competent authority is not available for subsequent transfer.
Questions settled- Can a party file a revision petition when a statutory right of appeal is available but time-barred?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D) render land unavailable for subsequent disposal by settlement authorities?
- Is a transfer of land valid if the land was previously disposed of by a competent authority?
- MUHAMMAD HYDER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L. J 2188 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for the murder of three individuals, including an infant, in a triple homicide case. The petitioner, having been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court and sentenced to death on three counts, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment, which maintained the conviction but commuted two death sentences to life imprisonment while upholding the death sentence for the murder of the infant. The core legal question was whether the sentence of death for the infant's murder should be reduced to life imprisonment based on the petitioner's claim of grave provocation and accidental killing. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's version was contradicted by credible eye-witness testimony and medical evidence, which demonstrated a merciless killing. Finding no extenuating circumstances to justify the murder of the child, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appraisal of evidence was correct and dismissing the petition, thereby maintaining the death sentence.
Questions settled- Does the accidental killing of an infant during a triple murder constitute an extenuating circumstance sufficient to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can a court maintain a death sentence for one count of murder while commuting others to life imprisonment if the evidence supports a finding of a merciless killing?
- Is the version of an accused regarding the accidental nature of a killing credible when it is directly contradicted by eye-witness testimony and medical evidence?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 547 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Another1987 SCMR 1649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the disposal of a shop property comprising two distinct portions. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with the Settlement authorities' determination that the property consisted of two separate, independent units for disposal purposes, and whether the appellant was estopped from claiming the property due to the withdrawal of a prior writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement authorities' findings. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the discretion of Settlement authorities regarding the division of property or its classification as a separate unit is not subject to judicial interference unless the order is arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant’s previous withdrawal of a writ petition did not estop him from seeking transfer of the property under a subsequent revised settlement scheme for which he had become eligible. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order transferring the portion to the appellant.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with the discretion of Settlement authorities regarding the division of property in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous writ petition operate as an estoppel against a claim under a subsequent revised settlement scheme?
- Is the classification of property portions as independent units by Settlement authorities subject to judicial review?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Another1987 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a case involving charges under sections 302, 324, and 326 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the ground that the dying statement, which formed the first information report, failed to explain the serious injuries sustained by the respondent—including a skull fracture—thus lending support to the plea of self-defence and attracting the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further inquiry. The Supreme Court considered the arguments that a plea of self-defence should not be evaluated at the bail stage and that the absence of an explanation for the accused's injuries warranted further inquiry. The Court held that no justification existed to interfere with the High Court's order, noting that the unexplained serious injuries sustained by the accused justified the conclusion that the case required further inquiry. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that unexplained injuries on the accused can support a case for further inquiry under section 497(2).
Questions settled- Whether the presence of unexplained injuries on the person of an accused can bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a plea of self-defence be considered by the High Court while deciding a post-arrest bail application in a capital case?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an order granting bail when the High Court has reasonably based its finding on unexplained injuries sustained by the accused during the incident?