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 ARIF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1178 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. and 3 others1987 MLD 2059 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd1987 PLC 60 · Labour Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF alias BAHARI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3163 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARAB KHOSO vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1614 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AQEEL vs CHUTTAN KHAN And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 749 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR- vs Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. LTD. And 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 535 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2309 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 631 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE and another-1987 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-12
  criminal appealmurder convictionSection 382-B Cr.P.C.under-trial periodsentence computationcompensation to heirsreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Anwar, was convicted for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and sentenced to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment while enhancing the fine. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, instigated by his father, stabbed the deceased with a knife (Chhuri) following a dispute over sugarcane cutting. The petitioner challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the defense version. The Supreme Court reviewed the judgments of the courts below, finding the prosecution's case supported by the testimony of an injured eyewitness and the recovery of the weapon. The Court declined to interfere with the conviction or engage in a reappraisal of evidence. However, regarding the petitioner's request for the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court held that the benefit of counting the period spent as an under-trial prisoner would be granted only if the petitioner paid the compensation amount of Rs. 20,000 to the heirs of the deceased before the expiry of his sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be made conditional upon the payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case?
  • Should sentences for separate offenses run concurrently or consecutively when the court does not specify otherwise?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Messrs MODERN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., TANDOJAM1987 PLC 956 · Labour Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. LTD. and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 535 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR TIPU vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through CHAIRMAN, RAILWAYS BOARD HEADQUARTERS OFFICES, ISLAMABAD and another1987 CLC 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR RAHI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR MANO0 and others vs MUHAMMAD WAQAR MONNO 01987 CLC 1943 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR MALIK vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, P.O.Fs., WAH1987 PLC (C.S.) 70 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR HAKIM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT And 32 Others1987 PLC (C . S .) 160 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, DASKA And 3 Other1987 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10
  local government electionsecrecy of ballotelection petitionmaterially affected resultillegalities by polling staffconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether an election held under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 could be declared void as a whole due to the recording of National Identity Card numbers on ballot papers by polling staff, without proof that the result was materially affected. The appellant contested and won a union council election, which was subsequently challenged via an election petition on grounds including the violation of the secrecy of the poll. The Election Tribunal declared the entire election void, finding multiple illegalities and omissions by the presiding officer, including failure to seal ballot papers properly and noting identity card numbers on them, rendering votes invalid and making it impossible to ascertain the true result. The High Court dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that where the departure from prescribed methods and violation of the secrecy of the ballot is so fundamental, all-pervasive, and gross as to make it an election not conducted under the governing statute, the election must be declared void as a whole without needing to prove that the result was materially affected. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an election can be declared void as a whole for violation of the secrecy of the ballot without proof that the result was materially affected?
  • Does the recording of National Identity Card numbers on ballot papers by presiding officers invalidate the votes cast?
  • When does a departure from prescribed election methods render an election not conducted under the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BHATTI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 PLC (C.S.) 791 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another- vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 576 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Another vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 576 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 6 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2628 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 4 others vs MUHAMMAD KHALID MAHMOOD and 51987 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR And 11 Others vs NAZIR AHMED1987 SCMR 672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-14
  withdrawal of appealregular first appealpower of counselVakalatnamapre-emption suitinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed their application under Section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside an earlier order dismissing their Regular First Appeal as withdrawn. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' counsel and one of the co-appellants had the authority to withdraw the appeal and whether the withdrawal was vitiated by lack of understanding of court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly examined the Vakalatnama which authorized the counsel to compromise the matter, and that the counsel had unequivocally asked for the appeal to be withdrawn. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a counsel armed with a Vakalatnama containing powers of compromise can validly withdraw an appeal on instructions, and subsequent regrets or assertions of lack of authorization by a co-appellant without substantive proof do not furnish grounds for setting aside a withdrawal order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a counsel authorized by a Vakalatnama to compromise a matter has the authority to withdraw an appeal?
  • Can an order dismissing an appeal as withdrawn be set aside under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the appellant did not understand English court proceedings?
  • Whether one of multiple appellants can challenge the withdrawal of an appeal made through counsel and co-appellant statements without sufficient proof of lack of authorization?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANNA R vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANIS vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1386 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2217 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR vs THE STATE1981 MLD 817 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR vs GHULAM YASIN AND 1S Other1987 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR vs GHULAM YASIN AND 15 OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1981 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUHAMMAD MOOSA and 5 others1987 CLC 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD DOSSAL1987 CLC 1777 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH vs HAJI MUHAMMAD1987 SCMR 7 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionleave to appealinheritancevendors
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The petitioner challenged a registered sale deed through which land was purchased, while the respondent filed a suit for pre-emption claiming a superior right based on relationship to the vendors. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. The High Court partially modified the decree, dismissing the suit regarding the shares of certain vendors while maintaining it for others. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, raising contentions regarding the impact of the precedent in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah and the interpretation of the term 'person entitled to inherit land' under section 15(b) of the Pre-emption Act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions required consideration, granted leave to appeal, directed security, and ordered the maintenance of status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of relationship with vendors in view of the rule laid down in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah?
  • Whether a pre-emptor can be treated as a person entitled to inherit land under clause thirdly of section 15(b) of the Pre-emption Act with regard to maternal-aunts, maternal-cousins, and husbands of maternal-aunts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-02
  post-arrest bailmurder trialcommon intentionmedical evidencelathi injuriesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns three accused persons facing trial for the murder of deceased Karim Bux. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with lathis, inflicted fatal injuries upon the deceased due to a domestic dispute regarding the deceased's daughter. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and the uncertainty regarding which accused inflicted the fatal injury. The Court observed that medical reports from two different doctors showed conflicting findings regarding the number of injuries, which contradicted the prosecution's claim that all three accused participated in the assault. Furthermore, the Court noted that the weapons used were lathis, not deadly weapons, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a common intention to commit murder. Relying on the principle that uncertainty regarding the specific perpetrator and the existence of common intention warrants further inquiry, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail to all three applicants, finding that their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant criminal procedure provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the use of lathis instead of deadly weapons negates the existence of a common intention to commit murder?
  • Does a conflict between medical reports regarding the number of injuries on a deceased person entitle the accused to bail for further inquiry?
  • Is bail grantable when the prosecution fails to specify which of the accused caused the fatal injury?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN and others vs IMDAD HUSSAIN and others1987 CLC 1953 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-02
  pre-arrest bailparity of treatmentcriminal liabilityFIR allegationsspecific roleleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations in the FIR and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the petition for Anwar A.I. was correctly dismissed because the FIR ascribed a specific role to him, namely inflicting a blow on the complainant. Conversely, the Court allowed the appeal for Mohammad Amin, finding his case indistinguishable from other co-accused who had been granted bail, as no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR. The key principle laid down is that the grant of pre-arrest bail should be consistent with the roles attributed to co-accused; where no specific role is assigned to a petitioner, they may be entitled to bail on parity with similarly situated co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of parity apply to the grant of pre-arrest bail when co-accused have been granted relief?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate for an accused when the FIR attributes a specific, injurious role to them?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal to grant relief to one co-accused while denying it to another?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 311 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN and another vs MUHAMMAD RAMZ AN and another1987 CLC 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN and 5 others vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1987 CLC 2358 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-10
  regular second appealregistration of documentsimmovable propertysale of landevacuee propertyquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 288/79 and 432/79 arising from a decree of the District Judge, Sheikhupura, concerning ownership of land measuring 17 kanals 16 marlas. The core legal question was whether un-registered documents such as an endorsement on a mortgage deed, a receipt, an affidavit, and a relinquishment writing could legally prove the sale and transfer of immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees without compulsory registration. The Lahore High Court held that documents purporting to create or extinguish rights in immovable property exceeding the value of one hundred rupees require compulsory registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, and under section 49, unregistered documents cannot be accepted as evidence to create or extinguish any such right. Furthermore, findings of fact determined concurrently or by the first appellate court cannot be disturbed in second appeal where no substantial question of law is raised. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an endorsement on a mortgage deed, receipt, and affidavit regarding the sale of immovable property require compulsory registration?
  • Can findings of fact determined by the lower courts be disturbed in a regular second appeal where no question of law is raised?
  • Does an unregistered document affecting immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees create or extinguish any right?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN And 2 Others vs Mst. SAFIA BEGUM1987 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-19
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide personal requirementreconstructionconsent orderSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from three petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants against concurrent ejectment orders obtained by their common landlady in respect of three shops in Quetta, which were sought for reconstruction and personal use of the property. The core legal question concerned the bona fide personal requirement of the landlady, specifically challenged on the ground that another tenant in the same building had not been evicted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the remaining tenant was untenable as it was neither raised in the written statement nor supported by good faith, noting furthermore that the parties subsequently agreed to a modified arrangement. The Court accordingly converted the petitions into appeals and disposed of them in terms of a joint consent statement, maintaining the eviction orders subject to the condition that the tenants shall vacate the premises immediately after the landlady obtains possession from the other tenant and demolishes that portion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an objection regarding bona fide personal requirement can be raised for the first time during cross-examination without being pleaded in the written statement?
  • Can ejectment orders be modified on the basis of a consent statement and joint prayer of the parties before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN & CO. vs IQBAL ASHRAF And Other1987 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16
  contractual disputeauction bidconcurrent findings of factspecial leave to appealvaluation of goodsrefund of bid money
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a contractual dispute concerning an auction for the disposal of coal ashes and cinder at the Shahdara Power Station. The petitioner, having made the highest bid, deposited the full amount, but the bid was never formally confirmed by the Additional Chief Engineer. After being stopped from removing the goods, the petitioner sought a full refund of the bid money, claiming no goods were removed, while the respondents contended that one-third of the goods had already been taken. The trial court, affirmed by the High Court, found as a matter of fact that the petitioner had removed one-third of the goods and adjusted the refund accordingly. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether these concurrent findings of fact regarding the quantity of goods removed and their valuation were sustainable. Holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence absent a clear legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the quantity of goods removed in a contractual dispute?
  • Does the appreciation of evidence by lower courts regarding the valuation of goods constitute a question of law suitable for appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMEER ABDULLAH KHAN And 3 Other vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1987 PLC (C. S.) 676 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMAN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-05
  petition for leave to appealcircumstantial evidencelast seensodomymurdermitigating circumstancedelay in execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which convicted the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of a minor child and under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing sodomy, sentencing him to death and nine years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, recovery of the dead body at the petitioner's pointation, recovery of incriminating blood-stained weapons and clothing, and corroborative medical and chemical examiner reports. The petitioner's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction of the death sentence solely on the ground of prolonged delay of six years spent in the condemned cell. The Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration in the condemned cell does not constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the commutation of the death sentence in heinous crimes. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged incarceration in the condemned cell can be considered a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Can a conviction for murder and sodomy be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence including last-seen evidence and recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs The STATE1987 MLD 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB And 2 Others1987 PLC (C. S.) 738 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALLY AHMED through Legal Heirs vs Sheikh ABDUL HAMEED1987 CLC 492 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD Alias MAMMI vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 12 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD Aliand Others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1987 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03
  displaced personland allotmentsettlement and rehabilitationconstitutional petitionre-confirmation of allotmentpreferential right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the appellants regarding the cancellation of land allotments. The core legal questions involve whether the land confirmation made in favor of the appellants in April 1957 had become final and whether subsequent re-confirmation proceedings were void, and whether a Jadid claim form was properly transferred. The Supreme Court held that the allotment made in favor of the appellants on 24-4-1957 stood restored by virtue of an earlier Supreme Court decision, making any subsequent re-confirmation and cancellation proceedings illegal and void. The Court established that where an allotment is restored by a superior court, subsequent inconsistent proceedings by lower authorities are without legal effect, and sitting allottees possessing prior proposed allotments hold a preferential right over later-received claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the confirmation of land in the name of allottees that had not been challenged by any person had become final?
  • Whether subsequent re-confirmation and proceedings after a final allotment are void and ineffective?
  • Whether a Jadid claim was properly transferred to the relevant Chak?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2216 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM1987 SCMR 1538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-12
  Sind Rented Premises Ordinancelandlord and tenantevictionco-ownershipsubstantial question of lawleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the interpretation of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question presented is whether the benefit of the summary eviction procedure provided under Section 14 is restricted exclusively to a full owner of the demised premises, or whether such relief is also available to a co-owner who falls within the specific categories mentioned in the statute, such as a widow, a minor whose parents are deceased, a salaried employee nearing retirement, or a person who has attained the age of 60 years. The Court determined that this issue constitutes a substantial question of law requiring authoritative consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the petition, and directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises pending the final decision of the appeal, subject to the continued deposit of rent. The Court also ordered that notice be issued to the Advocate-General of Sindh to assist in the determination of this legal question.

  Questions settled

  • Is the benefit of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 restricted to a full owner of the demised premises?
  • Can a co-owner who is a widow, minor, or retiree avail the summary eviction benefits under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1987 PLC 123 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs BANSIMEL1987 CLC 487 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH vs NOOK MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1546(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-16
  restoration of appealnon-prosecutionlimitationgross negligenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's application for restoration of a second appeal, which had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the petitioner provided sufficient grounds to justify the restoration of the appeal despite the significant delay in filing the application. The Supreme Court observed that the appeal was dismissed on 16-9-1979, while the restoration application was not filed until 24-3-1980. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the petitioner's failure to inquire about the status of the appeal during this interval. Consequently, the Court held that the learned Single Judge correctly determined that the application was time-barred and demonstrated gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. The principle laid down is that a party seeking restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution must provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and demonstrate due diligence; absent such justification, the court will not interfere with a finding of gross negligence and time-bar.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to inquire about the status of an appeal for several months constitute gross negligence?
  • Can an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution be rejected on the grounds of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI HEMANI through his Legal Heirs vs Mst. ALTAF FATIMA1987 CLC 282 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Etc. vs THE STATE1987 KLR Shariat Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others1987 MLD 82 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 671 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-07-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI And Another vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL And Another1987 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil disputeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' application for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against them under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code before a Magistrate at Narowal. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings ought to be quashed where the underlying dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature arising from a breached business contract and delayed repayment of money. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the dispute was civil in nature, as there was no evidence of a dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction to constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained for a breach of contract absent proof of initial fraudulent intent, thereby setting aside the impugned criminal proceedings and directing the release of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed in the absence of evidence showing a dishonest intention at the time of the initial transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI And Another vs ABDUS SATTAR And Other1987 SCMR 1959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-27
  constitutional petitionsettlement authoritiestransfer of propertyremandpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a constitutional petition and remanded a property dispute case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The dispute concerned four rooms on the first floor of a composite property in Faisalabad, claimed by both the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (as part of a transferred ground-floor shop) and by respondent No.1 (who filed a C.H. Form and claimed prior possession). The High Court had set aside the transfer of the rooms to the appellants' predecessor and remanded the matter due to lack of adequate opportunity for respondent No.1 to prove his possession and failure by settlement authorities to properly investigate the nature of the property and possession dates. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the remand order, holding that crucial factual questions regarding possession dates and whether the rooms formed an independent unit or part of the shop required proper inquiry. To remove any apprehension, the Court directed that the remand proceedings be decided uninfluenced by the High Court's observations, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for re-examining the question of possession and transfer of the disputed rooms?
  • Did the settlement authorities properly inquire into whether the occupant's possession of the disputed rooms originated prior to the target date?
  • Whether the disputed rooms constituted an independent unit or formed an appropriate part of the shop transferred to the appellants' predecessor?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), LAHORE and others1987 MLD 426 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAMGIR HASHMI vs CHAIRMAN, UNION COUNCIL and others1987 CLC 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM AND Another vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT1987 PLD Supreme Court 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-03
  cognizance of offencecriminal proceduredischarge of accusedProvincially Administered Tribal Areascancellation of casepolice reportwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment, which had set aside an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner discharging murder accused persons under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner, acting under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provision) Regulation 1975, possessed the authority to discharge or cancel a case under Section 169 or Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after having already taken cognizance of the offence. The Supreme Court held that once a court has taken cognizance of a case under the Regulation, it is legally obligated to proceed according to the prescribed statutory framework, specifically the constitution of a Tribunal. The Court ruled that the power to cancel a case under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not available after cognizance has been taken. Consequently, the discharge order was declared illegal and without lawful authority, and the original cognizance was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a case be cancelled under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a court has already taken cognizance of the offence?
  • Does the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provision) Regulation 1975 permit the discharge of an accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after cognizance has been taken?
  • What is the effect of taking cognizance on the court's power to discharge an accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 183 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 498 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 471 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs RAHMAT KHAN AND AONTHER1987 PLD Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs RAHMAT KHAN AND A0NTHER1987 PLD Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MUHAMMAD ZAR And Other1987 SCMR 1788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20
  rent restrictionrelationship of landlord and tenantstriking off defencejurisdictioneviction applicationrent deposit order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenants' defence and directing their ejectment. The appellant landlord had filed an eviction petition against the respondents, who raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller framed issues and simultaneously ordered the tenants to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. Upon the tenants' failure to deposit, their defence was struck off and eviction was ordered. The High Court held that the Rent Controller acted without lawful authority by ordering rent deposits and proceeding with eviction without first determining the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and tenancy relationship through evidence. The core legal question considered was whether a Rent Controller is competent to direct a rent deposit under Section 13(6) without first resolving a bona fide dispute regarding jurisdiction and the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court upheld the view that preliminary jurisdictional issues must be adjudicated before ordering rent deposits under the rent laws. The key principle laid down is that where a tenant raises a bona fide plea denying the relationship of landlord and tenant or challenging jurisdiction, the Rent Controller must decide those preliminary issues by recording evidence before making or enforcing an order for deposit of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller can pass an order for deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance without first deciding the preliminary question of jurisdiction and the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Is it mandatory for the Rent Controller to record evidence and decide preliminary issues concerning maintainability and jurisdiction before directing an eviction for default in rent deposit?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Mst. TASNIM AKHTAR1987 CLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Messrs ROTI CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, HYDERABAD1987 PLC 113 · Labour Court · 1986-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs HABIB KHAN and 3 others1987 MLD 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS1987 PLC 566 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION SARGODHA And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 11 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2700 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Other vs Mst. ARIF BIBI AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-05
  pre-emptionagricultural landexemption from pre-emptionimprovement of statusorder of priority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a vendee who originally purchased an area of agricultural land exceeding the two Kanals statutory limit under section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, could claim exemption from pre-emption by subsequently transferring a portion of the land to his sons prior to the institution of the suit, thereby reducing his holding to less than two Kanals. The Supreme Court held that the exemption under section 5(c) applies to the property originally purchased, and the subsequent transfer of a portion did not cure the defect of the initial purchase exceeding two Kanals, nor did it constitute an improvement of status under section 17(2) of the Act as the transferees had no superior or equal right of pre-emption. The appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing that pre-emption exemptions are strictly construed based on the initial size of the property purchased.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vendee who originally purchases land exceeding the two Kanals limit qualify for the exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 by subsequently transferring a portion of it prior to the suit?
  • What is the distinction between the concepts of 'status' and 'exemption' under the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
  • Can a vendee improve their status to defeat a pre-emptor's claim by transferring property to persons who lack an equal or superior right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Another vs SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT And Another1987 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-13
  Industrial Relations OrdinanceLabour Court jurisdictioncognizance of offenceprivate complaintstatutory interpretationRegistrar of Trade Unionscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether a Labour Court can competently take cognizance of an offence under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, upon a complaint filed by a private party, or if such authority is restricted exclusively to the Registrar of Trade Unions under Section 13(b). The appellants contended that Section 13(b) impliedly excluded private complaints. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Labour Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain such complaints. The Court reasoned that Section 13(b) merely outlines the Registrar's functions and does not impose a mandatory bar on the Labour Court’s power to take cognizance of offences. The Court emphasized that where the legislature intends to restrict cognizance to specific authorities, it employs explicit negative language, as seen in other provisions of the Ordinance. The absence of such restrictive phrasing in the general provisions governing the Labour Court indicates that no such limitation exists. Furthermore, interpreting Section 13(b) as an exclusive bar would render other specific provisions of the Ordinance redundant. Consequently, the Labour Court may validly take cognizance of complaints initiated by private individuals.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 13(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 create an exclusive bar preventing a Labour Court from taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint filed by a private party?
  • Can a Labour Court take cognizance of an offence under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 without a complaint from the Registrar of Trade Unions?
  • Does the absence of negative language in a statute regarding the filing of complaints imply that the court's power to take cognizance is not restricted to specific authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM And 4 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01
  leave to appealself-defencereappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findingsmurder convictiondeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted the petitioners for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced them to death. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the petitioners' plea of self-defence. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners essentially sought a reappraisal of evidence, which is not the function of the Court at the leave-to-appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court determined that the lower courts had already carefully considered and correctly rejected the plea of self-defence. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence, particularly when the lower courts have properly evaluated the defense's arguments.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plea of self-defence that has been rejected by two lower courts warrant a reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to re-examine the merits of a self-defence plea if the lower courts have already carefully considered and rejected it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2625 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 2 others vs Mst. TAZEEM AKHTAR and another1987 CLC 1301 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKMAL and 9 others vs Messrs GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. and anohter1987 CLC 2353 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBARXHAN AND Another vs MUNAWAR KHAN1987 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3125 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs S. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1987 MLD 254 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT1987 MLD 2998 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs Haji WAHID BAKHSH And Other1987 SCMR 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-02
  acquittalmurderpetition for leave to appealenhancement of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the conviction of seven respondents for murder and acquitted them of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while also dismissing the revision petition for enhancement of sentences. The core legal question concerned whether the acquittal by the High Court warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court for acquitting the respondents were sound and the case was not a fit one for interference. Consequently, the petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal was dismissed, and the connected petition for enhancement of sentences was dismissed as infructuous. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal by the High Court when the reasons for acquittal recorded by the appellate court are found to be satisfactory upon review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the reasoning of the High Court is found to be satisfactory?
  • Does the dismissal of a petition against an acquittal render a connected petition for enhancement of sentence infructuous?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR VIRK vs The STATE1987 SCMR 853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmedical certificatejudicial discretionpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Deputy General Manager in PASSCO accused under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, sought pre-arrest bail. His interim bail was cancelled by the trial court after it deemed his medical certificate non-genuine upon his failure to appear. His subsequent petition before the High Court was dismissed by the Chief Justice with an observation that the petitioner should approach the trial court again. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, requesting that the High Court itself hear the bail petition due to apprehensions of bias from the trial court. The Supreme Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal while granting temporary ad-interim bail to enable the petitioner to approach the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the administrative or judicial discretion of a High Court Chief Justice regarding the assignment or hearing of bail petitions?
  • Does the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by a trial court due to a disputed medical certificate warrant interference by the Supreme Court when alternative remedies before the High Court exist?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MUNAWAR KHAN1987 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR KADRI vs CONTROLLER, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And 5 Other1987 SCMR 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  leave preparatory to retirementrevised leave rulesvested rightswithdrawal of concessionsuperannuationcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Punjab Services Tribunal. The petitioner, a retired government servant, had applied for retirement and leave preparatory to retirement (L.P.R.), which was initially granted for six months. During his L.P.R., revised leave rules were issued extending L.P.R. to 365 days and making them applicable to persons already on L.P.R. The petitioner's L.P.R. was accordingly extended, and his retirement date refixed, but a subsequent circular letter sought to exclude certain persons and led to the withdrawal of the concession, the refixing of his original retirement date, and the recovery of salary for the extra period from his gratuity. The core legal question was whether rights and benefits already accrued and acted upon under a valid order could be withdrawn or rescinded by a subsequent circular letter after the government servant had already retired. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether vested rights could be divested by subsequent administrative orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant's extended leave preparatory to retirement once granted under revised rules be lawfully withdrawn by a subsequent circular letter after retirement?
  • Whether rights created in favour of a civil servant under a competent order can be rescinded by a subsequent administrative order once the civil servant has already retired?
  • Is a recovery from the gratuity of a retired government servant legally sustainable when based on a retrospective withdrawal of a previously granted leave concession?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25
  leave to appealcommon objectappraisal of evidencemurder convictionunlawful assemblysentence enhancementself-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, Muhammad Akbar, challenged his conviction and sentence for murder, while the complainant, Nazar Hussain, sought enhancement of the petitioner's sentence and the restoration of the convictions of four co-accused persons who were acquitted of murder charges by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly appraised the evidence regarding the common object of the accused party and whether the trial court's conviction under the relevant penal provisions was properly modified. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions. The Court held that it is necessary to examine whether the generally accepted principles of the appraisal of evidence were properly applied by the High Court, particularly regarding the common intention or object of the accused party in inflicting injuries. The principle laid down is that appellate courts must rigorously apply established evidentiary standards when determining the common object of an unlawful assembly, especially when assessing whether the accused intended to cause death or merely grievous injury.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that each member of an unlawful assembly inflicted only one injury on the deceased necessarily negate a common intention to commit murder?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based solely on the age of the accused and the number of injuries inflicted?
  • What are the criteria for granting leave to appeal in criminal cases involving the appraisal of evidence by a High Court?
  Read full judgment →