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 HUSSAIN vs Mst.AMINA BAI1987 MLD 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MEHR DIN And Another1987 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27
  specific performancebona fide purchaserconstructive noticediscretionary reliefagreement to sellappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell a shop, where the appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, contesting a prior agreement between the respondent and the owner. The core legal questions were whether the appellant had notice of the prior agreement and whether the appellate court could interfere with the trial court’s discretionary refusal of specific performance. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellate court's decree. The Court held that evidence established the appellant had sufficient notice of the prior agreement. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the trial court's discretion under the Specific Relief Act is not absolute and is subject to correction by appellate courts, particularly where the plaintiff has performed substantial acts under the contract. The judgment reaffirms that appellate courts possess the authority to correct the discretionary exercise of power by trial courts regarding specific performance, especially when the plaintiff has suffered losses or performed substantial obligations under the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court correct the discretionary exercise of power by a trial court regarding specific performance?
  • Does the payment of a substantial portion of the sale consideration constitute a ground for granting specific performance?
  • Is a subsequent purchaser considered a bona fide purchaser if there is evidence of notice regarding a prior agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MANSHA And Another1987 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13
  sentence enhancementcriminal appealleave to appealmurder convictionmitigating circumstancesgenesis of incident
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions: a Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. PSLA) filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the accused's sentence from life imprisonment to death, and a Jail Petition filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence. The High Court had previously maintained the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment, citing that the "genesis of the incident is shrouded in mystery" due to a prior dispute involving the accused's dog. The complainant argued that the High Court's reasoning for sentence reduction was untenable, contending that the eye-witnesses observed the entire occurrence and no prior provocation existed. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the complainant regarding the appropriateness of the sentence reduction required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the complainant to examine the sentence enhancement and simultaneously granted leave to the accused to pursue his plea for acquittal, thereby setting the stage for a full hearing on the merits of both conviction and sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the finding that the genesis of the incident was shrouded in mystery?
  • Can a sentence be reduced on the ground of prior provocation when eye-witnesses claim to have observed the entire occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MAJID NIZAMI1987 PLC 418 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs HABIB AHMAD And Another1987 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  acquittalleave to appealocular testimonybenefit of doubtinterested witnesscorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent, Habib Ahmad, who had been convicted by the trial court for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court's reappraisal of the evidence, which led to the acquittal, was based on sound judicial principles or was unwarranted. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings, which included discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, the suspicious timing of the F.I.R., the failure to establish the presence of eye-witnesses, and the lack of independent corroboration for interested witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusions were realistic and flowed logically from the evidence on record. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal, affirming that where the prosecution's case relies on tainted evidence that lacks independent corroboration, and where significant doubts exist regarding the time and circumstances of the occurrence, an acquittal is justified. The petition was dismissed as no grounds were established to warrant a re-examination of the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an interested witness be accepted without independent corroboration?
  • Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired justify the rejection of prosecution evidence?
  • Is an acquittal by the High Court liable to be set aside if the conclusions drawn from the evidence are found to be realistic and consistent with the record?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs BASHIR AHMED and OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs BASHIR AHMED And Other1987 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ABDUL MAJID1987 MLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHANG And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 9 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN LAMBARDAR vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST1987 MLD 420 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN and 3 others vs MUHAMMAD DIN and 6 others1987 CLC 2461 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-08-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN FATHAVI and another vs Syed AKBAR ALI SHAH1987 MLD 2360 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 702 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Others vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Other1987 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptionestoppeloral testimonyappreciation of evidenceconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption, wherein the petitioners, who were the vendees, challenged the right of the respondent to maintain the suit. The core legal question before the Court was whether the respondent, acting as the pre-emptor, was estopped from bringing the suit on the grounds that he had previously declined an offer to purchase the disputed property. The petitioners sought to establish this plea of estoppel solely through oral testimony provided by the vendor, her husband, and the petitioner. However, the vendor admitted that her relationship with the respondent was strained, and the respondent was never cross-examined regarding the alleged offer to purchase the land. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court concurrently held that the oral evidence was insufficient to substantiate the plea of estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed these concurrent findings, noting that the determination was based on the appreciation of evidence, and consequently refused the prayer for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is oral testimony alone sufficient to establish a plea of estoppel in a pre-emption suit when the respondent is not cross-examined on the alleged offer?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts based on the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM and others1987 MLD 397 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 220 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Another vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1987 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26
  land settlementwrit petitionleave to appealadjudication on meritsLetters Patent Appealremandprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning land settlement matters. The High Court had disposed of the underlying writ petition without a final decision on the merits, citing an inability to verify claims due to the absence of relevant records. The High Court directed the relevant authorities to determine the claims after perusing the record and hearing the parties. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the High Court erred in deciding the matter separately, noting that similar issues were pending in Letters Patent Appeals before the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned judgment did not constitute a final adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to file a fresh writ petition supported by the necessary records. The Court further directed that such a fresh petition could be heard alongside the similar matters already pending in the High Court, where all legal and factual pleas would remain open for adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court dispose of a writ petition without a final decision on the merits due to the absence of relevant records?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to direct administrative authorities to determine claims when the court itself lacks the necessary record to adjudicate?
  • May a petitioner file a fresh writ petition when the previous petition was disposed of without a decision on the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2030 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And 3 Others vs THE STATE--Opponent1987 P Cr. L J 324 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 2 others vs WALAYAT HUSSAIN and 22 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And 2 Other vs WALAYAT HUSSAIN And 22 Other1987 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HISAMUDDIN ANSARI vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others1987 MLD 3189 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1030 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1312 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN And Other vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 67 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN and anothers vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another1987 CLC 133 · Board of Revenue · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASHIM- vs NABI DAD And Another1987 PLD Quetta 194 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs NABI DAD and another1987 PLD Quetta 194 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs Mst.ALEEMA KHATOON1987 MLD 430 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASHIM And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 461 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1997 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTANK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 77 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs Messrs COFCOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1987 PLC 282 · Labour Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others1987 MLD 279 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE And Others1987 PLC 685 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1987 MLD 860 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1885 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 PCrLJ 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another1987 MLD 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUHAMMAD JAVAID And 4 Other1987 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-25
  displaced personsland settlementconstitutional jurisdictionfinding of factentitlement certificaterefugee claimPunjab Land Preservation Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, concerning the enhancement of a refugee claimant's entitlement. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, was justified in setting aside a factual finding by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding whether the claimant's abandoned land was protected under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s finding of fact. The Commissioner had conducted a comprehensive inquiry, examined special Jamabandis, and cross-examined witnesses, establishing that the claimant’s land was not affected by relevant notifications. The High Court improperly substituted this reasoned finding with a fragmentary report from an Officer on Special Duty that lacked evidentiary support. The Court reaffirmed the principle that findings of fact recorded by a competent authority after a full-fledged inquiry, based on relevant record, are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction unless they suffer from a legal defect, which was absent in this case. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a report by an O.S.D. without reference to underlying records or notifications override a factual finding based on special Jamabandis?
  • Is an enhancement of a verified claim for displaced persons valid if it relies on oral instructions rather than statutory notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, Punjab and 10 others1987 CLC 1873 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF KUKDA vs Mrs.SHIRIN and another1987 MLD 2141 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF And Others vs Subedar SARDAR KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02
  leave to appealcivil revisionconcession in courtstatement of fact in judgmentdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed four civil revision petitions and decreed the respondent's suit for declaration and possession based on a concession made during the hearing. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly recorded the concession of the parties regarding the sale of the disputed land and the restoration of the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court held that statements of fact recorded by a judge in a judicial order or judgment must be accepted as correct unless shown otherwise, and finding no reason to doubt the High Court's record, the petition lacked justification. The key principle laid down is that appellate and revisional courts' statements regarding concessions and facts occurring during proceedings are accorded absolute sanctity, and leave to appeal will be refused when such factual assertions remain unrefuted by cogent material.

  Questions settled

  • Whether statements of fact recorded in a judicial judgment regarding a concession made by parties can be treated as incorrect without strong justification?
  • Does a concession made by parties or their authorized representatives during revision proceedings bind the parties?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based on a recorded concession when no factual error is established?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2245 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others vs ABDUL LATIF and 2 others1987 CLC 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through District1987 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-03
  interim orderspecial leave to appealtemporary injunctionrevision petitionstatus quocivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had filed a civil suit challenging the legality of a land sale and the permission granted by the Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. Initially, the trial court granted a temporary injunction to protect the petitioner's possession, which was subsequently withdrawn by the District Judge on appeal. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the High Court, which initially directed the maintenance of status quo, but a subsequent order by a Single Judge withdrew this direction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it should interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition. The Supreme Court held that it was inappropriate to interfere with such an interim order at this stage. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with a directive that the High Court should endeavor to dispose of the pending revision petition within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition?
  • Is a direction to maintain status quo subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAMEED And Another vs TRAFFIC MANAGER, KARACHI1987 PLC 498 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ KHAN vs GLOBE MANUFACTURING CO. Ltd.1987 CLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-18
  pendente lite interestancillary reliefsuit for rendition of accountscivil appealdiscretionary reliefdecretal amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower appellate court and the trial court, which dismissed the appellant's claim for interest on a decretal amount in a suit for rendition of accounts. The core legal question is whether a court can award pendente lite and future interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when no specific prayer for interest was made in the plaint. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts erred in refusing interest merely due to the absence of a specific prayer, affirming that ancillary relief such as interest can be granted under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provided it is not inconsistent with the main relief claimed. The court laid down the principle that the award of interest pendente lite is within the court's discretion and does not strictly require a specific pleading in the plaint, allowing the appeal and awarding interest at six percent from the date of the suit until recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court award interest pendente lite when no specific prayer for interest was made in the plaint?
  • Whether an ancillary relief can be granted by a court despite the absence of a specific prayer for it?
  • Is an appeal maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the main judgment and decree when an infructuous application under Section 151 was previously filed?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HADI vs THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, AGRICULTURAL AND COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, QUETTA and 2 others1987 CLC 74 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HADI vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And Other1987 SCMR 1882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06
  leave to appealdisparaging remarksservice terminationcondemned unheardnatural justiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitution petition challenging the termination of his service as a Senior Scientific Officer in BPS-18. The core legal question concerns the propriety and justification of disparaging remarks made by the High Court against the conduct and efficiency of the petitioner, allegedly holding him responsible for the discontinuation of a developmental programme without affording him an opportunity of hearing on that specific issue. The Supreme Court held that the submissions regarding the damaging and extraneous observations made without justifiable basis deserve consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether remarks casting aspersions on a litigant's conduct, when unnecessary for the decision and made without a justifiable issue, are sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in making disparaging remarks against a petitioner without a justifiable basis or issue?
  • Can adverse observations affecting a person's career be made without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  • Whether remarks extraneous to the matter in issue and unnecessary for the decision can be sustained on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HABIB vs LAL DIN Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HABIB vs LAL DIN and others1987 MLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GULZAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GULZAR vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 125 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GULZAR vs THE STATE and 2 others1987 MLD 2312 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GULZAR and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2313 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs Messrs DYLON Ltd.1987 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAZAL And Others vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-09
  criminal appealocular testimonymurder convictionbenefit of doubtunlawful assemblycommon intentionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding a murder conviction. The convicts challenged their convictions under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the medical evidence did not support the application of common intention or unlawful assembly, and that ocular testimony should not have been partially relied upon. The complainant sought enhancement of sentences and challenged the acquittal of two co-accused. The Supreme Court examined whether the ocular testimony, which included an independent witness, was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the four petitioners while justifying the acquittal of the two co-accused. The Court held that the High Court correctly differentiated between the specific roles attributed to the convicts and the general allegations against the acquitted co-accused. Finding the ocular testimony consistent and reliable regarding the petitioners' specific acts, the Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that the acquittal of the co-accused was justified based on the evidence presented. The principle affirmed is that ocular testimony can be relied upon to convict specific individuals even if other co-accused are acquitted due to lack of specific evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon to convict specific accused persons while acquitting others in the same case?
  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused based on a lack of specific evidence necessitate the acquittal of all accused persons?
  • Is the application of Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when specific roles are attributed to the accused in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE TEXTILE MILLS WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, SIND(EAST DIVISION) And 2 Others1987 PLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The Collector of Customs, etcPTCL 1987 CL. 309 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others1987 CLC 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 689 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs SIDDIQ AHMAD KHAN1987 MLD 223(1) · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P.1987 PLC (C. S.) 870 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ CHAUHAN vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1987 PLD Supreme Court 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  adverse remarksannual confidential reportservice tribunalpromotionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal seeking the expungement of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report on the ground that they were communicated after the prescribed period. The core legal question is whether the time limit prescribed for the communication of adverse remarks under government instructions is mandatory or directory, and whether delayed communication warrants the expungement of such remarks. The Supreme Court held that the time limit for communication is directory, and government instructions providing that uncommunicated remarks be ignored for promotion and premature retirement do not mandate their expungement, nor do they apply to remarks communicated out of time. The key principle laid down is that delayed communication of adverse remarks does not render them liable to expungement, and such remarks may only be ignored for specific limited purposes like promotion or premature retirement if they remain entirely uncommunicated or unacknowledged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time limit prescribed for the communication of adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports is mandatory or directory?
  • Do government instructions directing that uncommunicated adverse remarks be ignored for promotion also require the expungement of such remarks?
  • Does the communication of adverse remarks after the prescribed time limit render them liable to expungement?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And 6 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FARID vs Messrs MERCURY GARMENTS INDUSTRIES1987 PLC 315 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FARID vs (Mis.) MERCURY GARMENTS INDUSTRIES , Decided OnK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 105 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FARID MUFAKKIR vs Haji MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN1987 MLD 2744 · Election Tribunal · 1987-08-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAREEDUN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-23
  false evidenceperjuryprivate complaintHudood Ordinancecriminal procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of the appellant's application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following his acquittal in a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The appellant, having been acquitted of a false charge, filed a private complaint and subsequently an application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for initiating proceedings against the complainant and witnesses for perjury and fabrication of false evidence. Both the Additional Sessions Judge and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the application on the ground that a prior private complaint on the same facts had been dismissed and had attained finality. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of an incompetent private complaint bars a subsequent proper application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in treating the statutory application under section 476 as a second private complaint, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a proper inquiry in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dismissal of a private complaint bars a subsequent application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a second private complaint?
  • Is an order of the concerned court a prerequisite for filing a private complaint under sections 195, 196, 205, and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ESSA vs Mst. HASEENA BEGUM through her 7 Legal Heirs1987 CLC 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ELLAHI Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs SHER ZAMAN1987 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-15
  specific performanceoral agreement of salepayment of considerationbona fide purchaserfindings of factrevision jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale regarding land, alleging they had paid the full consideration of Rs. 2,000 to the vendor, Sher Zaman. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, the first appellate court set aside the decree regarding portions of the land purchased by subsequent respondents, finding that the payment of sale consideration was not proven and the agreement was unenforceable. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' revision application, affirming the findings of fact. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts' findings regarding the failure to prove the payment of consideration and the enforceability of the oral agreement warranted interference in revision. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate courts' decisions were based on a proper assessment of evidence. Since the findings were purely factual and the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of payment, the Court declined to interfere, dismissing the petition as no question of law was raised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of fact regarding the non-payment of sale consideration in a suit for specific performance can be interfered with in revision?
  • Is an oral agreement of sale enforceable where the plaintiff fails to prove the payment of the alleged sale consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DRAIZ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1690(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs Sh. FAQIR MUHAMMAD1987 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08
  pre-emptioncustom of pre-emptionurban immovable propertyburden of proofcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed in respect of urban immovable property situated in Bhakkar City. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had successfully proved the existence of the custom of pre-emption in the locality prior to the commencement of the relevant statute, as required by law. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate and trial courts misread the documentary and oral evidence, improperly relying on a defective decree-sheet that did not establish the existence of custom or even contain judicial reasoning on the point. The Court laid down that to satisfy the statutory requirements under the pre-emption legislation, a plaintiff must establish the existence of the custom of pre-emption from at least the period of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1905, extending to the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The revision petition was accepted, the judgments of the lower appellate court were set aside, and the plaintiff's pre-emption suit was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of the custom of pre-emption can be proved on the basis of verbal statements of witnesses without judicial precedents?
  • What is the required period from which a plaintiff must prove the existence of the custom of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Does a mere copy of a dismissed decree-sheet without supporting judgment establish the existence of a pre-emption custom?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs S.H.O. and others1987 MLD 2657 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs MUHAMMAD DIN and 7 others1987 CLC 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs ABDUL REHMAN and other1987 MLD 2497 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN AND Other vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-14
  industrial concernevacuee propertysettlement schemeallotmentjoint transferremandconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court remanding property dispute proceedings regarding an unregistered industrial concern in Gujranwala back to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question concerned the legality of dividing an indivisible industrial concern and ousting an original allottee from his actual possession to transfer it to a competing claimant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order was unnecessary since the material on record was sufficient to resolve the matter. The ratio decidendi is that where multiple allottees have valid competing claims to an industrial concern and neither is to be excluded, the property should be jointly transferred to them reflecting their actual physical possessions and shares rather than arbitrarily dividing or ousting them. The Court laid down principles regarding the integrity of industrial concerns under settlement laws, the protection of antecedent rehabilitation possession, and the application of joint transfers indicating specific shares for subsequent lawful partition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an industrial concern can be arbitrarily divided and an original allottee ousted from possession in favor of another claimant?
  • Is a remand order justified when all necessary material for arriving at a decision is already available on record?
  • How should competing claims of multiple allottees to an industrial concern be settled under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN and another vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others1987 CLC 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD CHIRAGH vs ABDUR RASHID And 6 Others1987 P Cr. L J 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUX vs KARIM BUX alias KAMAN LALA1987 CLC 13 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUX vs IKHTIYAR AHMED and 6 others1987 MLD 591 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUX and others vs SIND PROVINCE and others1987 CLC 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUTTA vs The MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1987 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUTA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUTA And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 730 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 63 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR1987 CLC 211 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs DAULAT ALI1987 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-15
  specific performanceconcurrent findings of factsecond appealcontract of saleproperty disputepermanent transfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over house property located in Boreywalla Town, District Vehari. The petitioners asserted ownership based on a Permanent Transfer Order, while the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale allegedly executed by the petitioners on 6 October 1969. Following a contested trial, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioners' subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan. The petitioners then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court was justified in dismissing the Second Appeal because the matter was already concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that no question of law arose in the case to warrant interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere in a Second Appeal where the lower courts have reached concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law is presented for adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere in a Second Appeal where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie when no question of law is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2695 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 230 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 2263 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE and 5 others1987 MLD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE1987 PLC (C.S.) 401 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CITY), LAHORE1987 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  civil servantdisciplinary proceedingsshow-cause noticemisconductwilful absenceservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant. The petitioner contended that the charges leveled against him were vague and lacked specificity, particularly regarding alleged threats to local inhabitants. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that his mere implication in a criminal case under the Pakistan Penal Code did not constitute misconduct, especially since he was later cleared, and that his absence from duty was not wilful as it was supported by a medical certificate. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice was submitted only after the impugned disciplinary order had already been issued. The Court found that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the material on record, including the nature of the petitioner's absence, and had even adopted a lenient view. Finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming that disciplinary findings based on the record will not be disturbed where the petitioner failed to timely respond to show-cause notices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere implication of a civil servant in a criminal case constitute misconduct per se?
  • Can a civil servant challenge disciplinary findings on the basis of vague charges if they failed to respond to the show-cause notice in a timely manner?
  • Is a Service Tribunal's finding regarding the wilful nature of a civil servant's absence from duty subject to interference if based on the record?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Mst. NASIRAN And Another1987 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-25
  evacuee propertydemarcation of propertyfunctus officiosettlement authoritiespermanent transfer deedwrit jurisdictionproperty identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the identification and demarcation of an evacuee house in Rawalpindi, claimed by three different parties under conflicting property numbers (G/116-A, G/117, and G/119). The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities became functus officio regarding the demarcation of property boundaries once a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) had been issued, or if they retained jurisdiction to resolve such disputes. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities are not universally functus officio upon the issuance of a P.T.D. and remain the appropriate forum to identify and demarcate the property they originally transferred, especially when the parties themselves invoked that jurisdiction. The Court established that Civil Courts cannot effectively adjudicate property rights until the subject matter—the specific property transferred—is clearly identified by the authority that transferred it. Consequently, the High Court's decision directing the parties to the Civil Court was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Settlement Authorities for a proper, lawful demarcation based on relevant settlement records.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed render Settlement Authorities functus officio regarding the demarcation of property boundaries?
  • Are Settlement Authorities the competent forum to identify and demarcate property transferred under settlement schemes?
  • Can a Civil Court adjudicate the extent of property rights before the specific property transferred has been identified and demarcated by the Settlement Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MIRZA And Other1987 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29
  giftsalepre-emptionsecond appealfindings of factburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether the High Court was justified in second appeal in interfering with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts that an ostensible gift was genuine. The core legal question involved whether the transaction in dispute, registered as a gift, was in reality a sale intended to defeat a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to examine the evidence in its true perspective, noting that the appellant was unrelated to the donor, belonged to a different village, and failed to establish any adoption or natural obligation justifying such a valuable gift. The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the High Court decreeing the pre-emption suit, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on a misreading or failure to properly appreciate the evidence can be interfered with by appellate courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in second appeal can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of a transaction?
  • Does an ostensible gift made to an unrelated person without established ties constitute a sale to defeat pre-emption?
  • What is the effect of failing to properly evaluate oral and documentary evidence on record by the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MERAJ MUHAMMAD1987 MLD 2573 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →