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.

• MUKHTAR AHMAD vs Mst. SHAHNAZ BIBI1986 CLC 2312(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO AND 2 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-24
  seniority disputeservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicevested rightconstitutional jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises three consolidated civil appeals raising a core legal question as to whether the Sind Service Tribunal is competent to entertain appeals concerning seniority disputes of civil servants. The Sind Service Tribunal had previously declined jurisdiction, reasoning that seniority is not a vested right under section 8 of the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973 and thus does not form part of the terms and conditions of service. This view was challenged before the Sind High Court, which held that seniority is indeed a term and condition of service and that the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate seniority disputes, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 pursuant to Article 212. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the view of the High Court, holding that seniority disputes fall within the terms and conditions of service and are cognizable by the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and remanded the cases for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sind Service Tribunal is competent to entertain appeals concerning seniority disputes?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested right to a particular seniority under section 8 of the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Is seniority considered a term and condition of service for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is ousted in matters of seniority by virtue of Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD And Others vs Mst. BUSHRA And OTHER1986 CLC 2839 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD And Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 690 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 981 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• MUKARRAM vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUJAHID MOEEN vs VICE CHANCELLOR And OTHER1986 CLC 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHIBULLAH KHAN vs SADIQ KHAN1986 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-19
  revisional jurisdictionlandlord and tenantconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidenceejectment suitrent deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an ejectment suit filed by the respondent against the appellant regarding two shops. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The respondent challenged this in the High Court, which exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, reversed the concurrent findings, and decreed the suit, concluding that the rent deed was proved and the tenancy relationship established. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction because the lower courts had misread the evidence. Specifically, the appellant's own written statement and the testimony of the respondent's witness, Shah Pasand Khan, confirmed the respondent's ownership and the tenancy. The principle established is that a revisional court may interfere with concurrent findings of fact when such findings are based on a misreading of evidence or a failure to consider material evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a misreading of evidence by lower courts justify interference by the High Court in revision?
  • Is a party bound by admissions made in their written statement regarding the ownership of the property in dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMADA vs THE STATE-1986 P C r. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD, RIAZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2233 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1768 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Govemment Of Pakistan And 2 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 363 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZARAAT vs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD1986 PLC 481 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMIR KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1986 PLC (C.S.) 1044 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MURID HUSSAIN vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SGA &1986 PLC (C.S.) 938 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs D.I.G. OF POLICE, FAISALABAD RANGE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 303 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Through Legal Heirs vs SHAHABUDDIN And OTHER1986 CLC 2165 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER And Another1986 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-03
  oral giftMuslim lawminor doneeland reformsmutationconstitutional jurisdictionbona fide intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of oral gifts of agricultural land made by a father to his minor sons, which were challenged by land reform authorities during the implementation of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question was whether the gifts were complete and valid under Muslim law despite the subsequent rejection of mutation entries and the donor's temporary retraction. The Supreme Court held that the gifts were valid, ruling that the entries in the Roznamcha Waqiati provided unequivocal evidence of the donor's bona fide intention and the transfer of possession. The Court clarified that under Muslim law, a father's gift to a minor child does not require formal acceptance or transfer of possession, only a bona fide intention. Furthermore, the Court held that the subsequent failure to confirm mutations or the donor's later attempt to repudiate the gifts did not invalidate the transactions. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower authorities' orders and the High Court judgment, declaring the gifts valid and directing the land commission to give effect to them.

  Questions settled

  • Are the three requirements of a valid gift under Muslim law applicable to a gift made by a father to his minor child?
  • Does the failure to confirm a mutation entry invalidate a completed oral gift under Muslim law?
  • Can a High Court review a finding of fact by a subordinate tribunal in constitutional jurisdiction if that finding ignores material evidence?
  • Does a donor's subsequent attempt to repudiate a gift invalidate a transaction that was already complete?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMA N vs YASEEN1986 CLC 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAKAULLAH KHAN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LYALLPUR And OTHER1986 CLC 2851 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHUR NASIR vs VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSs1986 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR alias ZAHOORI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2209 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SHAH KHAN And ANOTHER vs NASIRUDDIN And OTHER1986 CLC 2463 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHID vs ABBAS And Another1986 P Cr. L J 222 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHID HUSSAIN and 11 others vs Messrs NATIONAL SANITARY1986 MLD 1371 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHID And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2583 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHEERUDDIN (ANWAR) vs The STATE1986 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-05
  cross-examinationrecall of witnessdiscretionary powerinterest of justicecriminal trialright to cross-examineSection 540 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a trial court's refusal to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in exercising its discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by denying the accused an opportunity to cross-examine a witness who had testified in the absence of the accused's counsel. The Supreme Court held that the interest of justice necessitated the recall of the witness. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the same, and remanded the case to the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, with directions to afford the petitioner or his counsel a proper opportunity to cross-examine the witness before proceeding with the trial. The key principle established is that the trial court's discretionary power to summon or re-summon witnesses under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, must be exercised in a manner that ensures the accused is not deprived of the fundamental right to cross-examine witnesses, particularly when the witness is available and the request is made promptly.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse the recall of a witness for cross-examination when the witness is available and the request is made promptly?
  • Is it a valid exercise of judicial discretion to deny an accused the opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness who testified in the absence of the accused's counsel?
  • Can the Supreme Court remand a case to the trial court to ensure the accused is afforded the opportunity to cross-examine a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH vs THE STATE1986 CLC 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL vs MANZOOR AHMAD1986 P Cr. L J 2658 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-31
  registration of FIRcognizable offencejudicial inquirypolice dutyconstitutional petitionpolice misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for the registration of a criminal case against a police officer, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, who allegedly shot the petitioner on a false pretext and subsequently implicated him in a fabricated criminal case. The core legal question before the Court was whether the police are legally obligated to register a First Information Report (FIR) when information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, particularly when a prior judicial inquiry has already substantiated the allegations of misconduct. The Court held that the police authorities could not refuse to register the case, as the judicial inquiry had clearly established the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court accepted the writ petition and directed the Superintendent of Police to register the criminal case against the respondent. The key principle laid down is that under sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it is mandatory for the officer-in-charge of a police station to record an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, a duty further reinforced by the Police Act 1861 and the Police Rules 1934.

  Questions settled

  • Is the officer-in-charge of a police station legally bound to register an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence?
  • Can the police refuse to register a criminal case when a judicial inquiry has already substantiated the allegations of a cognizable offence?
  • Does a judicial inquiry finding of misconduct override a police officer's claim of acting in the discharge of duty?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs The STATE1986 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-23
  ZinaHudood Ordinanceleave to appealsentence computationcriminal convictionSection 382-B CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Yousaf against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld his conviction and sentence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for committing Zina with a woman to whom he was not married, resulting in a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment, whipping, and a fine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction was supported by the evidence and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had indeed eloped with the complainant and engaged in sexual intercourse with her while unmarried, thereby confirming the conviction under section 10(2) of the Ordinance. The Court held that the conviction was justified and the sentence was not excessive. However, the Court granted the petitioner the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of his remaining sentence. The petition was dismissed, subject to this modification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of eloping and engaging in sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman constitute an offence under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the computation of their sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs KHUDA BAKHSH1986 MLD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs BASHIR AHMAD and others1986 MLD 524 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20
  post-conviction bailbail pending appealnature of injuriescriminal appealcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a bail application filed by petitioners convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, along with a co-accused, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, with the co-accused receiving a death sentence and the petitioners receiving life imprisonment. Their appeals against conviction are currently pending before the High Court. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail pending the disposal of their appeals, given the nature of the injuries attributed to them. The Supreme Court observed that the injuries attributed to the petitioners were simple and caused by 'Sotas'. Noting that interim bail had previously been granted by the Court on 13-8-1986, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and directed that it be fixed for an early hearing. The judgment reinforces the principle that the nature of injuries and the specific role attributed to an accused are critical factors in determining the grant of bail pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Are petitioners entitled to bail pending appeal when the injuries attributed to them are simple in nature?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1571 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE-.1986 P Cr. L J 2035 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE and another1986 P Cr. L J 1246 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04
  bail cancellationthird proviso to Section 497successive bail applicationsjudicial improprietystatutory delayaggregation of detentionmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner challenged the order on three grounds: the impropriety of entertaining a third bail application on identical grounds after two prior rejections; the non-aggregation of detention periods; and the inclusion of delay caused by the accused’s own adjournments in the statutory calculation. The Court held that entertaining successive bail applications on the same grounds without new circumstances constitutes judicial impropriety and such applications should be dismissed in limine. Regarding the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that while interrupted periods of detention can be aggregated for the purpose of the two-year requirement, the benefit of the proviso is unavailable if the trial delay is attributable to the accused's own acts or omissions. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, finding that the trial delay was partly caused by the accused, and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Sessions Court entertain a third bail application on the same grounds after two previous applications have been dismissed?
  • Can interrupted periods of detention be aggregated to satisfy the two-year requirement under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should delays in trial caused by the accused's own requests for adjournments be deducted when calculating the two-year period for bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1986 PLC 1083 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF BALOCH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1415 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF And 6 Oth vs Messrs FIRDOUS SPINNING & WEAVING1986 PLC 883 · Labour Court · 1985-07-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1872 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and 6 others1986 MLD 863 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs Mrs. MUHAMMAD MOHSIN and 5 another1986 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs INAYATULLAH and others1986 MLD 2047 · Board of Revenue · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS1986 SCMR 1637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-10
  leave to appealcompulsory retirementFederal Service Tribunalmisconductdepartmental enquiryfresh pleaservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner, a member of the Pakistan Rangers, was compulsorily retired following a departmental inquiry after failing to report for duty upon the expiry of leave and submitting a medical certificate from a private practitioner, contrary to applicable rules. Before the Supreme Court, the sole ground raised by the petitioner was that the sentence imposed was overly harsh. The Supreme Court held that since the plea regarding the severity of the sentence was not raised before the Service Tribunal, it could not be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Court further noted that because the punishment awarded was legal, interference was not justified, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a fresh plea regarding the severity of a disciplinary sentence be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not raised before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Supreme Court justify interference with a departmental punishment that is otherwise legally awarded?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs SALIM RAZA and another1986 P Cr. L J 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2422 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Alias KALU And 3 Others1986 P Cr. L J 3012 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS And Others vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1986 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-15
  adverse possessionpre-emption decreerevenue recordleave to appealappellate judgmentco-sharerstenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, unsuccessful plaintiffs, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their revision petition, thereby affirming concurrent findings against their claim of ownership over specific land. The petitioners asserted ownership through adverse possession, arguing they remained in possession for over twelve years following a pre-emption decree obtained by the defendant in 1965, which they claimed was never executed. The Supreme Court examined the revenue records, noting the petitioners were recorded as tenants or co-sharers rather than exclusive owners. The Court held that the petitioners' claim of adverse possession was untenable, particularly as they had accepted the pre-emption money from the defendant, confirming the defendant's title. While the Court acknowledged the appellate court's failure to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it determined that no substantial question of law warranted further interference. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the petitioners failed to establish hostile, exclusive possession sufficient to override the defendant's established title.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party claim adverse possession over land after accepting the pre-emption money for that same land?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to strictly comply with Order XLI, rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, automatically necessitate the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Is possession recorded as a tenant or co-sharer sufficient to establish adverse possession against the true owner?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAWAR KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1871 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01
  criminal convictionconcurrent findingsleave to appealrash and negligent drivingrevision application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed a revision application and upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt under the charged section were sustainable. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, the Supreme Court found no grounds to take exception to the concurrent findings of the three courts below, which had concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the case against the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a criminal revision matter?
  • Is a conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when supported by concurrent findings of three lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs THE STATE--Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 2985 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-23
  KhulaFamily CourtConstitutional jurisdictionMatrimonial disputeDissolution of marriageIrretrievable breakdown
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of a Family Court that granted a decree of Khula' to the respondent wife. The core legal question was whether the Family Court erred in its finding that the matrimonial relationship had suffered an irretrievable breach, thereby justifying the dissolution of marriage through Khula'. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction and that its conclusion regarding the breakdown of the marriage was a finding of fact based on evidence. The court affirmed that while Khula' cannot be granted on the mere asking of a wife, it is permissible when the wife proves to the satisfaction of the court's judicial conscience that an irremediable breach exists, rendering it impossible for the spouses to live together within the limits prescribed by Allah. Furthermore, findings of fact by a competent court are not reviewable in constitutional jurisdiction merely because they might be erroneous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court grant Khula' solely on the request of the wife without evidence of an irremediable breach?
  • Is a finding of fact by a Family Court regarding the breakdown of a marriage reviewable in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the existence of prior litigation between spouses preclude a court from granting Khula'?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs KARIM BAKHSH1986 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-06
  leave to appealejectmentbona fide personal uselandlord and tenantinconsistent evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenant Muhammad Yasin against the eviction order passed in favor of landlord Karim Bakhsh, successor of original landlord Maula Bakhsh. The core legal question concerns whether a landlord can be permitted to lead evidence inconsistent with the specific plea taken in the ejectment application—specifically, seeking eviction for personal use while adducing evidence that the premises are required for the use of sons—and whether an eviction order can be sustained on that basis. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that this question requires detailed consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that material inconsistencies between the landlord's pleaded case in an eviction application and the supporting evidence adduced at trial present a substantial question of law warranting further examination by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord be allowed to lead evidence inconsistent with the plea taken in the application for ejectment?
  • Whether an eviction order can be passed on the basis that the premises are required for the male children of the landlord when his pleaded case was personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN vs FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another1986 PLC 333 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN vs REHMAT KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12
  compromiserejection of plaintbar of suitsuppression of factscivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against identical orders of the Lahore High Court dismissing revision applications, which upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a compromise entered into by the respondents in prior proceedings before the Supreme Court was inconsequential to the petitioner's rights regarding disputed land. The core legal question was whether the rejection of the plaint and the holding that the suit was barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were legally correct. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly declined to interfere as the suit was barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and further noted that the petition was liable to be dismissed due to the suppression of material facts concerning the dismissal of a prior civil review petition. The key principle established is that a suit challenging a judgment or compromise obtained in such manner is barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and suppression of material judicial history warrants dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit challenging a compromise decree is barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the suppression of material facts, such as the dismissal of a prior review petition, warrant the dismissal of a leave to appeal petition?
  • Is the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justified when the suit is barred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN BAIG and another vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1986 MLD 1040 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 883 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN And 4 Other vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 1030 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN And 11 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-12
  bail applicationwithdrawal of petitionleave to appealcriminal proceduretrial court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Yaseen and 11 others against an order of the High Court, which had previously dismissed their application for bail in a criminal case. The petitioners were accused of serious offenses, including attempted murder and arson, involving the blocking of a road and the burning of a truck. Upon the matter coming before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the petitioners requested to withdraw the petition. The stated intention behind this withdrawal was to allow the petitioners to approach the trial court directly with a fresh bail application based on new grounds. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. The judgment establishes the procedural principle that where a petitioner seeks to pursue bail on fresh grounds, they may withdraw a pending petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court to seek relief from the trial court in the first instance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner withdraw a petition for leave to appeal to seek bail from the trial court on fresh grounds?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal dismissible if the petitioner requests to withdraw it as not pressed?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD Yarand Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 987 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another1986 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-03
  Board of Revenuejurisdictionremanddistribution of businesswrit petitionadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a challenge to orders issued by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), regarding the binding nature of recommendations made by the District Remount Officer upon the Collector. The petitioner contended that the Board of Revenue authorities erred in their legal interpretation and that the Member (Judicial) lacked the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the specific matter. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the High Court failed to adequately address these jurisdictional and procedural contentions when dismissing the initial writ petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the distribution of business among Members of the Board of Revenue pursuant to the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The Court determined that the question of jurisdiction regarding the allocation of business among Board Members was a substantial legal issue requiring consideration. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the same, and remanded the case to the High Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh, specifically addressing the jurisdictional questions raised by the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to distribute business among its members under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
  • Is the High Court required to address jurisdictional challenges raised in a writ petition regarding the authority of a Member of the Board of Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 129 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-20
  specific performanceevacuee propertysettlement operationscompensation bookreadiness and willingnessoral agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning the transfer of an evacuee shop. The appellant, a non-claimant displaced person, entered into an association agreement with a claimant displaced person (the respondent) who paid the full transfer price of the shop through her compensation book. The parties executed a written agreement allowing the appellant to purchase the shop within five years by paying the price the respondent had paid to the Settlement Department, while paying monthly rent in the interim. The appellant subsequently sought specific performance, asserting an oral agreement that he was only liable to pay fifty percent of the adjusted claim value. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court all dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld these findings, holding that the appellant failed to prove the alleged oral agreement and did not perform his part of the contract, including the payment of rent. The Court reiterated that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must allege and prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract as it actually was, rather than as the plaintiff unilaterally interpreted it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract must allege and prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract as it actually was, rather than as they unilaterally interpreted it?
  • Can a party to a written agreement for the transfer of property rely on an unproven oral agreement to reduce the purchase price stipulated in the written contract?
  • Does the failure of a purchaser to pay agreed interim rent and the actual price paid by the seller to the department defeat a claim for specific performance of a re-conveyance agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB and others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1986 MLD 2277 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB alias PANJU vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 828 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 3 others1986 MLD 727 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Alias LOOMRI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQEENUDDIN vs S. AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI1986 MLD 2771 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs GHULAM RASOOL1986 MLD 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMIN And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2400(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAKUB vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1701 · Lahore High Court · 1966-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1810 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD USMAN JUNEJO vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 PLC 156 · Labour Court · 1985-09-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMER SAILYA vs Malik MUHAMMAD HANIF and another1986 MLD 2139 · Election Tribunal · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMER (Deceased) Through L. R's And Another vs Dr. AMEENA1986 SCMR 1850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-23
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentleave to appealrent controllerlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dated 24-3-1986, which maintained the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the petitioners from the suit shop on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were wilful defaulters in the payment of rent and whether the rent fixed was legal and proper. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the lower forums regarding the default in payment of rent and the lack of evidence supporting adjustments for repairs or a lower rent amount were unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, finding no merit in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by rent tribunals regarding default in rent payment, supported by evidence, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether tenants who fail to bring cogent evidence of rent payment are wilful defaulters?
  • Can unverified expenses for repairs claimed by a tenant be adjusted towards rent without the landlord's consent?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding default in rent are open to interference in leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 784 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 364 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 769 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL And Others vs THE STATE and another1986 P Cr. L J 2749 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-29
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictioncriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil vs criminal liabilitymens reabreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application sought the quashment of proceedings pending before a Magistrate regarding a direct complaint filed under sections 406, 409, and 420/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the petitioner first exhausting the remedy under section 249-A, and whether a failure to supply goods after receiving payment constitutes a criminal offence or a civil breach of contract. The Court held that while approaching the trial court under section 249-A is generally proper, the High Court may entertain a section 561-A application directly in appropriate cases. On the merits, the Court quashed the proceedings, ruling that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. It established the principle that a mere failure to perform a contract or return advance payments, absent evidence of mens rea or dishonest intention at the time of the transaction, does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court entertain an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 directly without the petitioner first exhausting the remedy under section 249-A?
  • Does the failure to supply goods after receiving payment constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the inherent power of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 wider in scope than the powers of a Magistrate under section 249-A?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another vs Ch. SARDAR KHAN and another1986 MLD 733 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Alias FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and 4 others-1986 P Cr. L J 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2779 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-02
  criminal trespassright of private defencemurder convictionbenefit of doubtacquittalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal petitions arising from a murder conviction. The petitioner, Muhammad Tariq, was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Hameed, while his co-accused, Mohammad Asif, was acquitted by the High Court. The incident occurred during a dispute over land excavation, where the deceased allegedly trespassed onto the petitioner's land. The petitioner contended that the deceased committed criminal trespass, invoking the right of private defence of property, and argued that the offence, if any, fell under Section 304 rather than Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the petitioner's case, finding merit in the argument regarding the right of private defence and the potential misapplication of the murder statute. Conversely, the Court dismissed the complainant's petition seeking the enhancement of the sentence and challenging the acquittal of the co-accused, finding no illegality in the High Court's decision to grant the co-accused the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence of property extend to causing death when the deceased commits criminal trespass?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 304 if the accused exceeded the right of private defence?
  • Is the acquittal of a co-accused based on the benefit of the doubt sustainable when the evidence against them is insufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAJ And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 965 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAHIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 3025 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAAJ vs Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER Co.1986 PLC 554 · Labour Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs STANDARD STEEL ROLLING MILLS And Others1986 PLC 926 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN vs Mst. MAHARUNISA and another1986 MLD 237 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SUHAIL BUTT And Others vs ARIF MAHMOOD SHEIKH1986 SCMR 1827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-16
  evictiontemporary injunctioncivil suit maintainabilityrent restrictionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an eviction application filed by the respondent landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, wherein the Rent Controller ordered the deposit of arrears and future rent. The petitioners challenged this order by instituting a civil suit and seeking a temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, and subsequent appeals and revisions before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were likewise dismissed. The petitioners then sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court heard the learned counsel and held that no prima facie case was made out to justify the issuance of a temporary injunction or the institution of a civil suit in cases of this nature. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, affirming the lower forums' decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge an order passed by a Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance by filing a separate civil suit?
  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted against an interlocutory rent deposit order passed in eviction proceedings?
  • Does the institution of a civil suit lie to challenge rent restriction orders of a Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SOHAIL FAROOQ vs DAWOOD YAMAHA Ltd. And Another1986 PLC 1071 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDLQUE vs D.I.-G. OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR RANGE, BAHAWALPUR And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 656 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs The STATE1986 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdergrave and sudden provocationdeath penaltylesser sentencecriminal appealabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant Muhammad Siddique broke off his daughter's childhood engagement to Sher Ahmed, who subsequently abducted the daughter in retaliation. Enraged, the appellant armed himself with a gun, went to the house of Sher Ahmed's father, Faiz Muhammad, and demanded her return. Upon not receiving the desired response, the appellant deliberately shot and killed Faiz Muhammad, Faiz Muhammad's wife Mst. Mehr Nishan, and a house guest, Muhammad Rafique. The trial court and High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death for the murders. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court solely to examine whether the extreme penalty of death was warranted given the mitigating circumstance of grave and sudden provocation caused by the abduction of the appellant's daughter. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant is not entitled to leniency because his actions did not amount to sudden and indiscriminate firing in the heat of the moment; rather, he deliberately and selectively targeted and executed multiple victims, including an innocent teenager.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the abduction of a daughter by the son of the deceased constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does deliberate and selective targeting of multiple victims negate the plea of grave and sudden provocation for the purpose of sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD SHOAIB1986 SCMR 1207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-13
  ejectmentpersonal needbona fide needlandlord and tenantappellate courtconstitutional petitionsufficiency of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioner on the ground of personal and bona fide need for a shop. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on 15 May 1985, finding the need not genuine, but the appellate court reversed this decision and accepted the landlord's testimony regarding his bona fide need. The petitioner challenged this factual conclusion through a constitutional petition in the High Court, arguing that the solitary statement of the landlord was insufficient to establish bona fide need. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate court committed no legal or procedural illegality, as the law does not require a specific number of witnesses and it is the quality of evidence that determines acceptance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's view and dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no legal error in the impugned judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary statement of a landlord is sufficient to establish bona fide personal need for ejectment?
  • Does the law require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact in ejectment proceedings?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →