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.

• Malik AMANAT ALI vs S. H. O., POLICE STATION OF SHAH GHARIB SHAKARGARH-1987 P Cr. L J 229 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Malik AMAN vs SAFDAR ALI1987 CLC 1832 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-26Read full judgment →
• Malik AHMED NAWAZ and another vs 1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SOUTH), KARACHI and 3 others1987 MLD 2991 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik ABDUL LATIF And Others vs G.M.PARACHA And Others1987 P Cr. L J 728 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
• Malik ABDUL JALIL vs Mst. B IRJIS1987 CLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
• Malik ABDUL AHAD vs Mehr GHULAM DASTGIR LAK and another1987 MLD 476 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• MALI And Others vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1987 SCMR 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-10
  pre-emption suitrejection of plaintcourt-fee deficiencycompetency of petitionlegal representativesdeceased respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption, which was initially rejected by the trial court due to a failure to make up a deficiency in court fees. The District Judge subsequently set aside this rejection and remanded the suit for disposal. The respondent, Muhammad Khan, appealed this remand order to the High Court, which restored the trial court's order of rejection. During the pendency of the High Court appeal, the respondent died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the High Court's order but filed the petition naming only the deceased respondent, Muhammad Khan, rather than his legal representatives. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competency of the petition due to this defect. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had no explanation for filing the petition against a deceased party despite the substitution of legal representatives in the lower court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal filed against a deceased respondent, without impleading the legal representatives who were substituted in the lower court, competent?
  • Does the failure to implead legal representatives of a deceased party in a petition for leave to appeal render the petition liable to dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• MAKKI MASJID MOHAJIR COLONY vs MUHAMMAD KARAM ILLAHI1987 CLC 1969 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
• MAKHNA and 3 others vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT BHAKKAR1987 MLD 759 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) RIASAT ALI vs FAUJI FERTILIZERS And Others1987 PLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) A.S.K. SAMAD vs Lt. Col. (Rtd.) A. HUSSAIN And Another1987 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-30
  ejectmentdefault of rentdeposit of rentSind Rented Premises Ordinancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated against the appellant-tenant by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the appellant's continued deposit of monthly rent in an earlier miscellaneous rent case instead of the subsequent ejectment case constituted a non-compliance of the Rent Controller's order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, warranting the penalty of eviction. The Supreme Court held that since the rent was being deposited regularly in court and withdrawn by the landlady, the technical failure to deposit it specifically in the ejectment case file did not amount to a contumacious disobedience of the order and could not validly entail eviction. The court laid down the principle that where a tenant deposits rent regularly in court pursuant to a bona fide prior practice known to the parties, a technical error in depositing it under the wrong case number does not justify striking off defense or ordering eviction without considering the absence of willful default.

  Questions settled

  • Does depositing rent in an earlier miscellaneous court case instead of the subsequent ejectment case amount to non-compliance warranting eviction?
  • Whether a technical failure to deposit rent in the specific case file entails the penalty of striking off defense and eviction under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • Is a tenant liable for default in rent when the rent is regularly deposited in court and withdrawn by the landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) JAMSHED KHUDADAD IRANI vs ABDUL REHMAN1987 CLC 1988 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17
  First Rent Appealeviction applicationpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantsufficiency of accommodationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal was filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller allowing the respondent landlord's eviction application on the ground of personal requirement in good faith. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the first-floor premises, claiming he and his ailing wife needed additional accommodation to accommodate their married daughter and son-in-law to care for them and to isolate due to illness. The High Court examined the evidence and found significant contradictions in the landlord's statements, including admissions in cross-examination that his illness was not dangerous, that he did not intend to live in isolation, and that his ground-floor accommodation already contained three bedrooms, a drawing room, and a dining room. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred by ordering eviction without properly ascertaining the extent and sufficiency of existing accommodation. Holding that the existing accommodation was ample and that the landlord failed to prove bona fide requirement under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, the High Court set aside the eviction order and dismissed the eviction application.

  Questions settled

  • Can an eviction order under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be sustained without first ascertaining the extent and sufficiency of the accommodation already occupied by the landlord?
  • Whether contradictory statements by a landlord regarding illness and isolation negate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
  • Does a landlord discharge the burden of proving bona fide requirement for a married daughter and son-in-law when the existing premises in his possession already contain sufficient vacant bedrooms to accommodate them?
  Read full judgment →
• MAJIDULLAH KHAN vs N. W.F.P. Through Board Of Revenue And Other1987 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24
  constitutional petitionland allotmentsettlement lawsrepeal of statutepending caseSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing his constitutional petition regarding the cancellation of his land allotment. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner's claim constituted a pending case to be disposed of under the law prevailing before the repeal of settlement laws, and whether the allotment made after such repeal was valid. The Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court remanding the case to the Notified Officer for a detailed and proper determination by the tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction suffered from no legal infirmity. The Court affirmed that questions regarding pending status and disposal under repealed laws require determination by the appropriate competent forum, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of land made after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act is valid?
  • Does an order remanding a settlement case to a Notified Officer for fresh determination suffer from legal infirmity?
  • How are pending settlement cases to be treated upon the repeal of settlement laws and transfer of property to Provincial Governments?
  Read full judgment →
• MAJEED AHMAD etc. vs YOUSAF and another1987 CLC 1891 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18
  pre-emptiontenancy rightsoccupancy tenantColonization of Government Lands ActPunjab Pre-emption ActCollector permissiongovernment landsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, following permission granted by the Collector under Section 19 of the Act. The first appellate court had decreed the suit, holding the transaction to be a sale of occupancy tenancy rights pre-emptible under Section 15(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913.

  The High Court held that tenancy rights created under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 are distinct from occupancy tenancy rights defined under the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887. Section 15(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 applies exclusively to occupancy tenancy rights under the 1887 Act and does not extend to government tenancy rights under the 1912 Act. Furthermore, permission under Section 19 of the 1912 Act is person-specific, granted for a particular vendee, and cannot enure to the benefit of a pre-emptor to impose a tenant on the Government.

  Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sale of tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 constitutes a sale of occupancy tenancy rights under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable against a sale of government tenancy rights made with permission under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
  • Whether permission granted by the Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 to sell tenancy rights to a specific vendee enures to the benefit of a pre-emptor?
  Read full judgment →
• MAHMOODUL HASSAN and others vs MUHAMMAD UMAR and others1987 CLC 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD ZADA vs DIRECTOR OJHA INSTITUTE OF CHEST DISEASES And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD SHAH vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION and another1987 MLD 2380 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD HUSSAIN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 870 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD Allias MOONDA vs The STATE1987 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD ALAM vs SHAHID ZAMAN and others1987 CLC 1791 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD AHMED vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman1987 SCMR 2007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26
  service tribunalremoval from serviceillegal gratificationjurisdictionappraisal of evidenceWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 19-5-1984, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding his removal from service. The appellant, a Stenographer employed by WAPDA, was suspended following his arrest for accepting illegal gratification and was subsequently removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act pursuant to a general policy regarding employees facing criminal cases. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, and the merits of the removal based on appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional issue stood resolved by earlier precedent and that the Tribunal's findings on the merits, being based on proper appraisal of evidence establishing illegal gratification, warranted no interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that factual findings based on evidence by the Service Tribunal will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed in respect of persons employed or serving under WAPDA?
  • Does a finding of fact regarding the acceptance of illegal gratification arrived at by the Service Tribunal warrant interference by the Supreme Court based on appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD AHMED vs CONTROLLER, EXAMINATIONS, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE1987 CLC 891 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-27Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD AHMAD vs BARKAT ALI And 5 Others1987 P Cr. L J 151(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD AHMAD And 6 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1527 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 33 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• MAHMAND and others vs RAJA1987 MLD 2612 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
• MAHIA And Others vs SHAHIA And Other1987 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25
  inheritancedisqualification of murdererMuslim Law of Inheritanceleave to appealculpable homicideprogeny of murderer
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in an inheritance dispute. Petitioner No.1, convicted of culpable homicide for the murder of his father, and his children (petitioners Nos. 2 to 6) were excluded from inheriting the property of the deceased under the Muslim Law of Inheritance, on the principle that a murderer and his progeny are disqualified from inheriting from the victim. The core legal questions involve whether the exclusion applies when a conviction is under section 304 Part-II, Pakistan Penal Code, rather than murder, and whether the progeny of a murderer are similarly excluded under Muslim Law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter raises a case of first impression regarding the rights of the murderer's progeny, and ordered that possession of the property be maintained pending the appeal subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is disqualified from inheriting from the victim under Muslim Law?
  • Whether the progeny of a murderer are excluded from inheriting the property of the victim under the Muslim Law of Inheritance?
  • Whether there is a difference of opinion amongst Muslim Jurists regarding the exclusion of the heirs of a murderer from inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• MAHBOOB KHAN and anothers vs BADAR HUSSAIN1987 MLD 1334 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
• MAHBOOB ALAM SHAH and others vs Mst. NOOR BEGUM and others1987 CLC 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
• MAHBOOB AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB And Others1987 P Cr. L J 820 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
• MAHAM ALI vs NIAZ AHMAD and others1988 MLD 2888 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• MAGIC CHEF and another vs ALNOOR INDUSTRIES and another1987 CLC 972 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
• MACHHIA vs Mst. PANAN1987 SCMR 2058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  gift of landhibamutationtransfer of possessionhusband and wifeagricultural landvalidity of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld a lower appellate court's decision regarding the validity of a gift of agricultural land. The petitioner, the husband of the respondent, challenged a gift mutation made in 1958, approximately one month before their marriage, alleging he had neither made the gift nor transferred possession of the land. The trial court initially decreed in his favor, but the District Judge reversed this, finding the gift valid. The core legal question was whether the gift was validly made and if possession had been transferred, given the petitioner's subsequent challenge thirteen years later. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's personal involvement in reporting the gift to the Patwari and his presence during the mutation attestation established the validity of the gift. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner's management of the land, even if continued, was on behalf of his wife, especially given her illiteracy. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that a donor's active participation in mutation proceedings and long-term acquiescence strongly support the validity of a gift.

  Questions settled

  • Does a husband's personal reporting of a gift mutation and presence at its attestation constitute a valid transfer of property to his wife?
  • Can a donor challenge the validity of a gift thirteen years after the mutation was attested?
  • In the context of a gift between spouses, does the husband's continued management of the land negate the transfer of possession?
  Read full judgment →
• MA NZOOR A HMA D vs ABDUL RASHID and others1987 CLC 829 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-07Read full judgment →
• M.SARWAR MAQBOOL vs WAPDA LAHORE1987 PLC (C.S.) 84 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
• M.S. SIDDIQI vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary (Military Finance), Government1987 PLC (C.S.) 566 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• M.RAFI SHAFQAT vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1987 MLD 1328 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• M.J.A. GAZDAR vs HASSAN AKBAR and 8 others1987 MLD 2169 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-04Read full judgment →
• M.FARANI, BARRISTER-AT-LAW vs LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others1987 MLD 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
• M.C.W.KAMDIA And Another vs SAJJAD HUSSAIN KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28
  anticipatory bailtheftcrop theftcriminal liabilityspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. The respondents were accused of committing theft under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding the removal of a crop valued at Rs. 86,800. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the removal of a crop by the very individuals who had sown it could legally constitute the offence of theft. Upon review, the Court observed that it was undisputed that the respondents had sown the crop themselves. Consequently, the Court held that a serious question existed as to whether the ingredients of the offence of theft were satisfied in such circumstances. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order granting bail, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reinforces the principle that the nature of the act and the ownership or possession of the property are critical considerations in determining the prima facie existence of a criminal offence like theft.

  Questions settled

  • Can an individual be charged with theft for removing a crop they personally sowed?
  • Does the removal of a crop sown by the accused themselves constitute an offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• M.A.BHATTI And 4 Others vs ABDUL HAQ And Another1987 P Cr. L J 164 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• M.A.AZIZ SIDDIQUI vs Mst.AZIZ KHATOON1987 MLD 3081 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
• M.A. RASHID vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others1987 MLD 153 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-25
  constitutional petitioncontractual re-employmenttermination of servicesvested rightmaster and servantwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by a retired Enforcement Officer of the Food Department challenging the termination of his contractual re-employment. The core legal question is whether a re-employed civil servant serving on a contractual basis can challenge the termination of their services when such termination is executed in accordance with a specific clause in the employment agreement providing for termination on one month's notice. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being employed on a contractual basis, was bound by the terms of the agreement, which explicitly allowed for termination on one month's notice, and thus had no vested right to challenge the termination order under writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that contractual terms regarding termination agreed upon by a re-employed civil servant govern their employment status, precluding judicial interference under writ jurisdiction when invoked in accordance with the contract, notwithstanding any past meritorious service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a re-employed government servant on a contractual basis have a vested right to challenge the termination of their services under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can services held on a contractual basis be terminated in accordance with the stipulated notice clause in the employment agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• M. YASIN KHAN vs M. QAISER QURESHI1987 CLC 698 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
• M. SALEEM BABAR vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 288 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-25
  absconderexemption from appearancepersonal attendancecriminal trialanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, dismissing the petitioner's application for exemption from personal attendance during a corruption trial. The core legal question was whether an absconding accused who has fled the country and never appeared before the trial court can be granted exemption from personal appearance under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the statutory provisions of section 540-A require that the accused must be physically 'before the Court' and 'incapable of remaining before the Court', conditions which cannot be fulfilled by an absconder who deliberately avoids the court's jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that an absconding accused who has never appeared before the trial court is not entitled to the benefit of dispensation of personal attendance under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can an absconding accused who has never appeared before the trial court claim exemption from personal attendance under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the foundational conditions required to dispense with the attendance of an accused during a trial under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• M. RAMIZUL HAQ vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 531 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
• M. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Sh. INAYATULLAH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IST CLASS, LAHORE And Another1987 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-11
  Muslim Family LawsArbitration CouncilMaintenanceRepresentative's RoleQuasi-judicial authorityAgencyLeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a marital dispute where a wife sought maintenance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, before the Chairman of the Union Council. An arbitration council was constituted, including representatives for both parties. The petitioner, the husband, failed to attend certain hearings. Although he requested the re-summoning of witnesses for cross-examination and the production of his own evidence, his nominated representative on the arbitration council withdrew this application. Consequently, the maintenance claim was granted based on the consent of the representatives of both parties. After unsuccessful challenges before the Collector and in a writ petition, the petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question identified by the Court is whether a representative nominated by a party on an arbitration council acts as a quasi-judicial authority charged with decision-making duties, or merely as an agent of the party with the power to concede claims and withdraw applications. The Court granted leave to appeal to resolve this significant legal issue regarding the role of such representatives, while maintaining an interim stay order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a representative nominated by a party on an Arbitration Council act as a quasi-judicial authority or as an agent of the party?
  • Can a representative on an Arbitration Council withdraw an application submitted by the party they represent?
  • Is the role of a representative on an Arbitration Council comparable to that of a judge or a party?
  Read full judgment →
• M. IQBAL BAJWA And Another vs THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, SIND And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 652 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• M. BASHIR ABID vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1874 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• M. ABDUL RASHID vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (P) And Other1987 SCMR 1315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21
  evacuee propertysettlement lawsinformer transferlocus standivested rightlis pendensdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of a disputed shop in Lyallpur under settlement laws. The core legal questions involved whether an informant has a vested right or locus standi to obtain the transfer of evacuee property under Notification No. SRO 824 (K)/61, and whether an associate of an informant acquires protected rights during the pendency of litigation affecting the property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that an informant has no independent locus standi or vested right to claim the transfer of property about which information was laid, and that the power to transfer evacuee properties to non-possessing informers was extinguished with the amendment of Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Furthermore, the Court held that any transfer and association executed while a writ petition challenging the cancellation was pending are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, conferring no independent rights on the associate.

  Questions settled

  • Does an informant who lays information regarding irregular transfer of evacuee property have a vested right or locus standi to claim its transfer?
  • Did the repeal of clause (b) of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by Ordinance II of 1962 take away the power to transfer evacuee properties to informers who were not in possession?
  • Are transactions and associations made regarding a property during the pendency of a writ petition subject to the principle of lis pendens?
  Read full judgment →
• M UHAMMAD ALI and 3 others vs NISSAR AHMED and 11 others1987 MLD 3067 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
• M A HMOOD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another1987 CLC 706 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
• M .N ASEEM IQBAL vs DAWOOD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI and others1987 MLD 2580 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• M & B PAKISTAN LIMITED vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And Others1987 PLC 737 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
• LUC CLAUDE JEAN PAUL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1474 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• LT.COL. SARFRAZ KHAN MALIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL1987 CLC 919 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Lt.Col. M.M.A. BEG and others vs MESSRS SARHAD BANK LIMITED1987 CLC 2298 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-25Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col.J. A BEL vs EMMANUAL ZAFAR and others1987 MLD 1372 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Syed HASNAIN AHMAD vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT1987 PLC (C. S.) 200 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col. (Retd.) FAZAL AKBAR vs ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, PAKISTAN REVENUES, ISLAMABAD And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 586 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) MUNIR HUSSAIN And Others vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT1987 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05
  allotment cancellationfraudulent allotmentinformers rightssubsistence holdingvendeesevacuee landretrospective legislationChief Settlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal arose from the Lahore High Court’s judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the disposal of resumed agricultural land. The land in question had been cancelled in 1971 from a fraudulent allottee upon information provided by the appellants. At that time, sale of the entire land was recommended in favour of bona fide vendees, while the informers were directed to stand in queue. Subsequently, legislative amendments restricted the sale to vendees to subsistence holdings and restored retrospective allotment rights to informers under the amended land settlement scheme. The High Court had held that the 1971 order was final and the informers lacked locus standi. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the High Court's findings, holding that subsequent statutory amendments improved the informers' rights while their claims were pending. Consequently, the vendees were entitled to purchase land only up to subsistence holdings under Section 3 of the 1975 Repeal Act, and the surplus land was to be allotted to the informers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subsequent legislative amendments conferring allotment rights on informers apply retrospectively to pending claims for resumed evacuee land?
  • Whether bona fide vendees of cancelled evacuee land are restricted to purchasing only up to a subsistence holding under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
  • Whether an informer has locus standi to challenge the disposal of resumed land if surplus area becomes available following statutory restrictions on vendee purchases?
  Read full judgment →
• LOUNG Represented By His Legal Heirs- vs DUR MUHAMMAD And Another1987 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• LOUNG represented by his Legal Heirs vs DUR MUHAMMAD and another1987 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• LITHOCRAFT CORPORATION vs A. HABIB through his Legal Heirs1987 CLC 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• LIBERAL UNION vs Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD.1987 PLC 413 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
• LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1780(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 512 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• LIAQUAT ALI vs HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD and others1987 MLD 2870 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• LIAQUAT ALI And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-15
  post-arrest bailcriminal trialexpeditious trialjudicial discretionmurder casebail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of lower courts to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners, who were accused in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Faqir Hussain and causing injuries to two other individuals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail given that they were in custody and the trial had not yet commenced. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel, the Supreme Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower courts in denying bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. However, the Court issued a directive to the prosecution authorities to expedite the necessary steps for holding the trial and expected the trial court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication in criminal matters where the accused remains incarcerated pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that a trial has not yet commenced entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion of lower courts in refusing bail?
  • What is the duty of the prosecution and the trial court regarding the expeditious disposal of a criminal case where the accused is in custody?
  Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT KHAN AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1987 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT KHAN AND Other vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1987 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT HAYAT vs BASHIR AHMAD And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderocular evidencerecovery of weaponsbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from two petitions for leave to appeal filed by Liaqat Hayat against the acquittal of respondents Bashir Ahmad, Misri, Abdul Haq, and Naseer Ahmad for the murder of Allah Yar Khan. The deceased was allegedly shot dead by the respondents to avenge an earlier insult. The trial court had convicted Abdul Haq and Naseer Ahmad under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting the other two respondents. Upon appeal and reference, the High Court reappraised the evidence, discarded the testimony of the sole remaining eye-witness due to unnatural presence and material contradictions, found the recoveries planted, and acquitted all the respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court's reappraisal of evidence and acquittal of the respondents suffered from any legal error warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the appraisal of evidence by the trial court and High Court suffered from no legal infirmity or violation of established principles. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent or well-reasoned findings of fact and acquittals based on a proper appreciation of ocular and circumstantial evidence unless a glaring legal error is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in discarding the testimony of an eye-witness on the ground of unnatural presence and material contradictions?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment that is based on a proper reappraisal of evidence and suffers from no legal infirmity?
  • Whether recoveries of crime empties and weapons that are found to be planted can be used as corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 979 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI vs JAVED AKHTAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL and 21987 MLD 3118 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2476 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
• LIAQ AT BA IG vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN1987 CLC 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
• LEVI STRAUSS & Co. vs THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS1987 MLD 466 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
• LATIF AHMAD KHAN vs CHAIRMAN SUPARCO, KARACHI1987 PLC (C.S.) 76 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
• LATEEF AHMED vs SAHIBULLAH and another1987 MLD 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• LASKHARI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1333 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
• LASHKAR And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
• LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR NO. II, TARBELA DAM AND 2 OTHERS vs DILBAR1987 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• LALZADA AND ANOTHER vs GUR BAKHSH SINGH AND 15 OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• LALZADA AND Another vs GUR BAKHSH SINGH AND 15 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• LALA vs THE STATE1987 PLD Supreme Court 414 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• LALA alias LALOO vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3030 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-22Read full judgment →
• LAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 659 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
• LAL MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS SUKKUR1987 PLC 144 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
• LAL MUHAMMAD BROHI vs IQBAL AHMAD and another1987 CLC 484 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
• LAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2627 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
• LAL DIN vs THE STATE and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 263 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• LAL DIN vs MUHAMMAD HABIB And 3 Other1987 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-22
  consolidation of land holdingstenancy rightsconstitutional jurisdictionres judicataremand orderfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside orders passed by Consolidation Authorities regarding the petitioner's possession of disputed land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a tenant under a previous owner at the time a consolidation scheme was sanctioned, could maintain that status despite a prior High Court finding to the contrary. The petitioner argued that the Consolidation Authorities were free to re-evaluate the facts upon remand. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the High Court's previous judgment had conclusively determined that the petitioner did not possess the status of a tenant at the relevant time. Because that earlier finding was not challenged, it became binding. The Court affirmed that the Consolidation Authorities could not ignore the High Court's conclusive verdict on the petitioner's status. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the orders that had erroneously recognized the petitioner's tenancy claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subordinate tribunal or authority disregard a finding of fact conclusively determined by the High Court in a previous round of litigation?
  • Does a remand order by the High Court allow a lower tribunal to re-adjudicate a question of fact that was already decided against a party in the same proceedings?
  • Does the change of ownership in consolidation proceedings affect the existing tenancy status of a person on the land?
  Read full judgment →
• LAL DIN and 3 others vs DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 111987 CLC 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• LAL DIN and 2 others vs Mst. ZEENAT BIBI and 4 others1987 CLC 587 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• LAL DIN Alias LALU vs The STATE1987 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18
  criminal appealdeath sentencecompromisereduction of sentenceimprisonment for lifemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming his death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. During the proceedings, the counsel and the legal heirs of the deceased submitted that the parties had arrived at an out-of-court compromise, fully compensating the heirs, and that the compromise was made voluntarily to end longstanding hostility. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly accepted it, reducing the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the sentence of fine based on the compromise between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be reduced to imprisonment for life on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Whether an out-of-court compromise can be considered by the Supreme Court in a criminal petition arising from a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• LAHORIMAL vs SAIN BUKHSH and others1987 CLC 800 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
• Lahore] Malik GHULAM SARWAR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN and another1987 PLD Lahore 669 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
• LAHORE Versus MIRZA MUHAMMAD ANWAR , Punjab, Decided On LstK.L.R. 1987 Labour ami ServiceCases 81 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• LAHORE Versus DHUMMAN LAHORE vs DHUMMANK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →