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 AKBAR And Another vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1673 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR ALI vs THE SECRETARY (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others1987 CLC 318 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AINI1L HAQUE vs UNITED BANK And 2 Others1987 PLC 599 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AIJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1320 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMED SHARIF vs Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN1987 MLD 896 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs SHAFIQUE AHMAD1987 CLC 679 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMAD KHAN vs MUKHTAR AHMAD Alias TARI1987 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-07
  leave to appealmurderacquittalappraisal of evidenceocular testimonyrecovery evidencecriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge of murdering his brother's wife. The trial court had previously convicted the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was based on an expeditiously lodged FIR, ocular testimony of two related witnesses, medical evidence showing multiple incised wounds, and recovery of blood-stained articles. The High Court reversed the conviction, holding the motive unproven, the ocular account unreliable, and the recovery evidence deficient because the witnesses were also recovery attesting witnesses. In the present petition, the complainant contended that the High Court overlooked the respondent's own admission regarding taking the deceased from her parents' house to the crime scene, and failed to appreciate the prompt FIR and corroborative evidence properly. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court made a proper appraisal of the evidence in accordance with established principles of criminal justice administration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court made a proper appraisal of the evidence in accordance with the well-established principles of the administration of criminal justice while acquitting the respondent?
  • Can an accused's own statement admitting to taking the deceased to the scene of the crime be used to corroborate the ocular testimony disbelieved by the High Court?
  • Does the fact that eye-witnesses also acted as attesting witnesses for recoveries render the recovery evidence inherently unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-11
  murdersentence enhancementfamily honourmitigating circumstancescriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the accused for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The accused challenged his conviction, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence back to capital punishment. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the accused's counsel did not dispute the conviction or the responsibility for the death, focusing solely on the sentence. Regarding the complainant's petition for enhancement, the Court observed that the prosecution’s own evidence established the motive for the killing was to rehabilitate family honour, which mitigated the circumstances of the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the lesser sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate and that the capital sentence was not warranted. Both petitions were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the conviction while imposing the lesser sentence of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sentence of life imprisonment appropriate for a murder committed to restore family honour?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be upheld when the accused does not dispute their responsibility for the death?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs TARIQ MAJEED-1987 P Cr. L J 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1987 CLC 2234 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs SABO1987 MLD 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs MUHAMMAD HANIF Alias JUJE And Others1987 P Cr. L J 2067 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM1987 MLD 2113 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1987 SCMR 2106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-02
  review petitionwithdrawal of petitioncivil procedureSupreme Court practicejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for review. During the hearing, the Court examined the arguments presented by the learned counsel in support of the petition. Upon the Court expressing its observation that the petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed, the counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the review petition. The judgment establishes the procedural principle that a party may seek to withdraw a petition for review after the Court has indicated its inclination to dismiss the matter on its merits, thereby avoiding a formal dismissal order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner withdraw a review petition after the Court indicates it merits dismissal?
  • Is a party entitled to withdraw a petition for review during the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1987 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-12
  evacuee propertysettlement disputeauction-purchaserPermanent Transfer Deedrevisional jurisdictionconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition concerning an urban settlement dispute over an evacuee shop. The core legal questions involve the validity of a second auction of evacuee property without the lawful cancellation of a prior confirmed auction, the competence of settlement authorities to set aside transactions and examine the legality of orders leading to the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), and the effect of the repeal of certain rules on the revisional powers of settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that a property already disposed of in a first auction is not available in the compensation pool for a second auction, that a confirmed auction cannot be legally cancelled without proper notice and competent authority, and that the repeal of procedural rules does not strip settlement authorities of their statutory powers to examine the legality and propriety of foundational orders tainted by jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evacuee property disposed of in a first auction remains available in the compensation pool for a second auction without proper cancellation of the first?
  • Does the repeal of settlement rules deprive settlement authorities of their statutory power to examine the legality of orders forming the basis of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Can a confirmed auction be legally cancelled without affording a show-cause notice to the auction-purchaser and by an incompetent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL etc. vs Mst. NAZEER KHATOON1987 MLD 2483(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL BUTT vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, AUDIT & ACCOUNTS1987 SCMR 1413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-02
  compulsory retirementtime-barred appealcondonation of delayservice tribunalleave to appeallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against compulsory retirement as time-barred. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, in December 1984. Following the rejection of his departmental representation in January 1985, the petitioner failed to file an appeal before the Tribunal until July 1986, resulting in a delay of approximately one and a half years. Crucially, the petitioner failed to provide any explanation for this significant delay and did not file an application for the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred and that no question of law had been raised to warrant interference. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of any justification for the delay or a valid legal question, there were no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal be entertained if it is significantly time-barred without an application for condonation of delay?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when no question of law is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1987 SCMR 1896 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other (Copy)1987 SCMR 2078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-28
  evacuee propertyland allotmentlocus standiconstitutional jurisdictionfinding of factjudicial reviewrefugee claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from constitutional petitions challenging the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which dismissed an application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 and protected an allotment of land made to a refugee. The appellants, who were vendees of the land from evacuee owners prior to partition, had failed to obtain confirmation of their sales from the Custodian. They argued that they had locus standi to contest the subsequent allotment to the refugee, alleging fraud and lack of proper transfer of units. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the appellants possessed sufficient locus standi to maintain their petitions due to their personal interest and participation in the lower proceedings, the High Court had correctly refused to interfere with the Chief Settlement Commissioner's findings of fact. The Court reiterated that in constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as a court of fact and cannot substitute its own findings unless the subordinate tribunal's decision is based on no evidence, bad faith, or a complete misreading of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes sufficient locus standi for an applicant to maintain a constitutional petition under the Pakistani legal framework?
  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction substitute its own findings of fact for those recorded by a competent tribunal?
  • Under what circumstances can a finding of fact by a subordinate tribunal or authority be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1073 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL And 2 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  criminal appealmurder convictionsentence mitigationeye-witness testimonymedical evidenceleave to appealcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from a conviction for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Asghar, and Sikandar alias Kandoo, were convicted by the trial court and the High Court for the murder of Muhammad Arshad. The prosecution alleged that the motive stemmed from the abduction of a woman, leading to a confrontation where the accused shot the deceased. The petitioners challenged the conviction, arguing that eye-witness testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence, specifically regarding the omission of certain injuries, and that the recovery of weapons was uncorroborated. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, finding it consistent and credible, and rejected the challenges to the conviction. However, regarding the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Asghar, the Court noted the argument that he lacked a specific motive compared to his co-accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition concerning Muhammad Afzal and Sikandar alias Kandoo, maintaining their sentences, but granted leave to appeal specifically on the question of the sentence awarded to Muhammad Asghar.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted solely on the question of the sentence awarded to a convict?
  • Does the omission of specific injuries in eye-witness testimony necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the absence of a specific motive for one co-accused a valid ground for reconsidering a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Alias PAPPU vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 100 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Alias Abdur Rahman And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 762 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFSAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 151(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFAQ KHAN SHAHID and others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 341 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFAQ KHAN SHAHID And Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 341 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUR RASHID vs Mst . SHAZIA PARVEEN and others1987 MLD 766 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE and 7 others1987 P Cr. L J 1976 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs RASHID SHAH And Another1987 SCMR 2045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  enhancement of sentencemurderculpable homicidegrave and sudden provocationpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant for the enhancement of the sentence of the respondent, who was originally convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction and sentence were subsequently altered by the Lahore High Court to Section 304 Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 with a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question involved the propriety of altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on grave and sudden provocation arising from the deceased's refusal to accompany the respondent and her provocative remarks concerning illicit relations. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the circumstances of the case, refusing to interfere with the reduction of sentence. The key principle laid down is that where a spouse acts under grave and sudden provocation due to provocative statements and refusal of conjugal rights leading to a loss of self-control, alteration of conviction from premeditated murder to culpable homicide is justified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 PPC to Section 304 Part-I PPC based on grave and sudden provocation?
  • Does a spouse's refusal to accompany the husband coupled with provocative statements amount to grave and sudden provocation?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of a sentence by the High Court in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH KHAN vs THE COLLECTOR/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER1987 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL RASHEED vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL MUID KHAN and others vs The LAND ACQUISITION1987 CLC 542 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL LATEEF vs Shaikh EJAZ AHMAD1987 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-22
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementrent appealremand of caseopportunity of rebuttallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court setting aside an ejectment order granted by the Rent Controller in favor of the appellant landlord. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant's personal requirement for the rented premises was not bona fide due to the subsequent renting out of two flats on the first floor of the building during the proceedings, without affording the appellant an opportunity to explain. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in resting its decision on an unpleaded and unrebutted circumstance where the landlord was given no opportunity to offer an explanation. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the relevant provisions. The key principle laid down is that a party must be afforded a fair opportunity to address or rebut factual circumstances relied upon against them.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the requirement of the appellant was not bona fide and in good faith?
  • Can an ejectment application be decided on a factual premise regarding available accommodation without affording the landlord an opportunity to rebut it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL1987 MLD 613 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL (MUNICIPAL) and 5 others1987 MLD 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN vs UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI o1987 MLD 875 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS AND 5 OTHERS vs ESSA E. H. JAFFER AND 5 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas And 5 Other vs Esa E.H. Jaffar And 5 Other1987 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS and 3 Others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS And 3 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD A HMED vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and 2 others1987 CLC 2179 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUGHAL vs MANZUR AHMAD1987 P Cr. L J 460 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mufti MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS And Another1987 PLC 357 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mufti MAHMOODUL HASSAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1987 PLC (C.S.) 327 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUBARIK SHAH And Other vs UMAR KHANK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK Alias MARRI vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-19
  special leave to appealcriminal appeallimitation periodjail petitionconvictionprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Mubarik alias Marri, was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, and sentenced to death, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioner filed two separate petitions for special leave to appeal against his conviction: one through counsel and another through jail. Due to an administrative oversight, the jail petition was not brought to the Court's attention when the counsel-filed petition was heard and dismissed on its merits. The second petition, submitted through jail, was filed with a delay of 58 days. The Supreme Court addressed the procedural irregularity and the issue of limitation. The Court held that since the initial petition had already been heard and dismissed on merits after providing the petitioner's counsel a full hearing, and given that the subsequent jail petition was time-barred by 58 days, there were no grounds to entertain the second petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the jail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second petition for special leave to appeal be entertained when a prior petition filed through counsel has already been dismissed on merits?
  • Does a delay of 58 days in filing a jail petition for special leave to appeal warrant dismissal when the merits of the case were previously adjudicated?
  Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK ALI vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD And Another1987 SCMR 1627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06
  special leave to appealfraud or misrepresentationjurisdictioncivil procedurejudgment and decree
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the High Court. The petitioner had initially challenged concurrent judgments and decrees through civil suits and subsequent appeals which were dismissed. After withdrawing his petitions for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court with the intent to pursue a remedy under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, he filed applications in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that because leave petitions were previously filed in the Supreme Court, the applications under Section 12(2) should have been filed in the Supreme Court instead. The core legal question is whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lies before the Supreme Court or the High Court when a petition for special leave to appeal against the lower court's decree was withdrawn. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention that final judgments were not passed by the Supreme Court when leave petitions were simply not pressed requires examination, thereby setting the matter down for a regular hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lies before the Supreme Court or the High Court when a petition for special leave to appeal has been withdrawn?
  • Does the withdrawal of a petition for special leave to appeal mean that the final judgment, decree or order was passed by the Supreme Court for the purposes of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK ALI AND OTHERS vs GULZAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK ALI AND Other vs GULZAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK ALI Alias BILLA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 559 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUBARAK And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1994 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUBARAK ALI vs THE CHAIRMAN UNION COUNCIL and 2 others1987 CLC 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUBARAK ALI vs SHAUKAT ALI and another1987 MLD 3214 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
• MUBARAK ALI vs Messrs MODERN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., TANDOJAM1987 PLC 967 · Labour Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUBARAK ALI And 3 Other vs Messrs MODERN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., TANDOJAM1987 PLC 973 · Labour Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• MU HA MMA D Y A MIN vs HAJRAN BIBI1987 CLC 653 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mtts. RAFIQA BEGUM THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS vs Mrs. MAHMOODA1987 PLD Karachi 287 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mst.ZARINA AMIR vs Mst.NASEEM BEGUM1987 MLD 3078 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mst.SAEEDA KHATOON vs MATLOOB1987 MLD 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst.ROSHAN BI and 6 others vs MUNAWAR HUSSAIN GIL1987 MLD 3263 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst.RIAZ FATIMA vs S. SHAMIM AHMED and another1987 MLD 3311 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst.REHANA alias ZEESHAN FATIMA and 2 others vs Mst.RABIA BEGUM1987 MLD 644 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst.NAFIS FATIMA vs Syed MUHAMMAD MASHOOQ and another1987 MLD 2755 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst.MEHRUN NISA vs YOUSUF ALI and another1987 MLD 3261 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mst.MAQADSA BEGUM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3240 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst.MAHJABEEN BEGUM vs R.M. KHAN1987 MLD 512 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst.KHURSHID AKHTAR and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1808 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst.KHADIJA BAI vs BAGH ALI1987 MLD 2102 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst.IRSH AD BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others1987 MLD 748 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst.INAYAT SULTANA and others vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1987 MLD 477 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst.HUSNA and 2 others vs MIR MUHAMMAD and 7 others1987 MLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst.HAMIDAN BIBI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3099 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mst.HALIMA BAI through Legal Heirs and another vs Mst.FARIDA BANO1987 MLD 507 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst.HAJRA BAI vs ABDUL RASHEED TABANI1987 MLD 3255 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-18Read full judgment →
• Mst.FAROOQUN-NISA vs MUHAMMAD YASIN1987 MLD 2835 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mst.CHIRAGH BIBI and others vs KARIM BAKHSH and another1987 MLD 3055 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst.AMRO vs Mst. ATLAS AND 22 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst.ALLAH JAWAI and 5 others vs NAZIR ALI and 15 others1987 MLD 3301 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst.AISHA KHATOON vs IRFAN ALI KHAN1987 MLD 3062 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM vs NATHEY KHAN1987 SCMR 1934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24
  transfer of suitfamily courtrestitution of conjugal rightsdissolution of marriagejurisdiction of supreme courtinter-provincial transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before a Family Court in Naushero Feroze, Sind, to a Family Court in Rajanpur, Punjab, where her own suit for dissolution of marriage was pending. The Lahore High Court had previously dismissed her application under Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, on the grounds that the Family Court in Sind was not subordinate to the Lahore High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to transfer the case. The Supreme Court held that the contention was meritless, clarifying that Article 186-A confers jurisdiction to transfer proceedings between High Courts, not from subordinate courts of one High Court to another. The Court affirmed the High Court's order as unassailable and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner's remedy for her safety concerns lay in moving the relevant High Court within whose jurisdiction the case was pending.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 186-A of the Constitution to transfer cases between subordinate courts of different High Courts?
  • Can a High Court transfer a case pending in a court outside its territorial jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZOHRA BI and 10 others vs ALLIES BOOK CORPORATION and another1987 MLD 484 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZARINA vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 2508 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZARINA MAI vs ABDUL SATTAR And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 905 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZARIFAN vs Mst. REHMATI1987 SCMR 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-30
  Declaratory suitLimitation periodMutation of inheritanceCause of actionPossessory titleCivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of land, where the petitioner challenged a 1953 mutation of inheritance, alleging fraud and collusion. The trial court decreed the suit in the petitioner's favor, finding her to be the owner in possession. However, the appellate court and the High Court reversed this decision, ruling the suit time-barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, calculating limitation from the date of the mutation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the limitation period for a declaratory suit challenging a mutation commences from the date of the mutation or from the date the plaintiff's possession is threatened. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. The Court held that the cause of action for such a suit does not necessarily accrue from the date of the deed, but from the date the plaintiff's possession is threatened. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff in possession is not obligated to sue immediately upon the creation of a deed but may wait until the threat to their possession becomes real and visible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for a declaratory suit challenging a mutation necessarily commence from the date of the mutation?
  • When does the cause of action accrue for a plaintiff in possession challenging a fraudulent deed or mutation?
  • Is a plaintiff in possession required to immediately sue for the cancellation of a deed upon its creation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAREENA Alias ZOHRA vs TRIBUNAL/S.D.M. LIAQUATABAD and another1987 P Cr. L J 55 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAMARRUD BEGUM and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAINAB And Another vs NAEEM AHMAD And Another1987 SCMR 1883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-15
  leave to appealcourt feedeficiency in court feememorandum of appealappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge against a trial court decree, affixing court-fee stamps worth Rs.30 instead of the required higher amount due to an erroneous entry in the decree-sheet. Upon an objection raised by the respondents, the Additional District Judge granted the petitioners one week to make up the deficiency in the court fee, which they complied with. The respondents challenged this order through a revision petition in the High Court, which was accepted, setting aside the extension and restoring the trial court's decree. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the appellate court has the discretion to grant time to make up a deficiency in court fee on a memorandum of appeal. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding entitlement to an opportunity for making up the deficiency, as laid down in previous precedent, required examination, and consequently granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can grant time to make up a deficiency in the court fee on a memorandum of appeal?
  • Does an erroneous entry in a decree-sheet regarding the value of a suit constitute sufficient ground for initial under-valuation of court fee?
  • Is the High Court justified in setting aside an appellate court's order granting an extension of time to make up court fee deficiencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAIB-UN-NISA vs ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH1987 MLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAHIDA PERVEEN vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1987 MLD 3175 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAHIDA BI vs MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD1987 CLC 57 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. WAZEERAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. WALAYAT BI And Another vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Other1987 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  murderleave to appealocular testimonygrave and sudden provocationsentence enhancementcorroborationcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from a murder conviction. The accused, Muhammad Akram, was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Rasul, with his sentence reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court, while his co-accused was acquitted. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, arguing that the acquittal of his co-accused necessitated material corroboration of the ocular testimony and that the crime was committed under grave and sudden provocation due to the deceased's alleged illicit relations with the petitioner's wife. Simultaneously, the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court examined the consistency of the ocular evidence and the medical corroboration, finding the petitioner's conviction well-founded. Regarding the provocation plea, the Court acknowledged the motive of illicit liaison but found no merit in interfering with the High Court's judgment. The Court held that where ocular testimony is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused, and dismissed both petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused?
  • Can a conviction be maintained on ocular testimony alone without material corroboration if a co-accused is acquitted?
  • Is a motive involving illicit relations with the accused's wife sufficient to invoke the exception of grave and sudden provocation under Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. VIQAR BANO vs Syed SHER ALI SHAH and others1987 MLD 146 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. UMME KHATOON vs Mst. UMME SALMA1987 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-05
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needdefault in rentpre-litigation noticeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner landlady sought the ejectment of the respondent tenant on the grounds of personal bona fide need and default. The Rent Controller allowed the application solely on the ground of default. Upon appeal, the Sind High Court set aside the eviction order. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan, contending that the failure to mention personal need in the statutory pre-litigation notice dated 1-4-1978 was inconsequential since personal need was specifically pleaded in the ejectment application and supported by evidence, relying on precedent. The core legal question concerned the effect of omitting the ground of personal need from the pre-litigation notice when it was duly pleaded in the rent application. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised an arguable issue requiring detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security in the sum of one thousand rupees, thereby settling that the matter merits a full hearing on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to mention personal bona fide need in a pre-litigation notice invalidate a subsequent ejectment application where personal need is specifically pleaded?
  • Whether an order of the High Court setting aside an eviction order based on default warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. UMATUL QAYYUM vs MUSHTAQ HANIF1987 CLC 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. ULFAT BIBI and anothers vs FAYYAZ ALI KHAN and 4 others1987 CLC 508 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. TALEH BIBI vs ABDULLAH and 2 others1987 CLC 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →