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 SIDDIQUE vs Mst. BEGUM and 3 others1986 MLD 557 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, Dera Ghazi1986 PLC 1080 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BENEVOLENT FUND1986 PLD Quetta 212 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs ALLAH RAKHA And Another1986 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded a property dispute case to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The core legal question concerned the proper determination of the nature and character of the disputed land as it existed at the time of Partition on August 14, 1947—specifically, whether it was classified as agricultural land or Sakni (urban/building) land. The petitioner had been transferred the land based on records from 1944-45 and 1950-51, which indicated agricultural usage; however, the High Court found that the critical special Jamabandi for the year 1946-47 had been overlooked. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order of remand was legally sound and did not warrant interference, as it was necessary to resolve the factual ambiguity regarding the land's classification at the relevant time. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the observation that the petitioner remained at liberty to raise all available legal pleas during the remand proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner.
Questions settled- Is a High Court order remanding a case to a Settlement Commissioner for fresh determination of land character subject to interference if relevant records were previously overlooked?
- Does the classification of land as agricultural or Sakni at the time of Partition require specific evidentiary findings from the relevant Jamabandi records?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs ABDUL LATIF and another1986 MLD 2419 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs ABDUL KHALIQ QURESHI1986 MLD 2872 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE BAJWA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1772 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2857 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Others vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, allottees of resumed land, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-10-1985, which declared the resumption of excess allotted land held by the respondents to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerned whether respondents could retain excess land allotted to them beyond their entitlement and whether the authorities were justified in resuming it for pending claims under the relevant settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the inhibition of the Chief Settlement Commissioner's powers under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and the liability of allottees to surrender excess land under Settlement Scheme No. 1 required formal examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed that petitioners in possession not be disturbed subject to conditions, and ordered security. The key principle laid down is that excess land obtained beyond entitlement is generally subject to surrender for settling pending claims unless protected by specific statutory provisions or instructions.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee can retain land obtained in excess of their entitlement under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the power to resume excess allotted land for the satisfaction of pending claims?
- Are allottees liable to surrender excess land under Settlement Scheme No. 1 if they do not fall within protective clauses?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD MASOOD AKHTAR1986 CLC 1016 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 56 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And ANOTHER vs SHAH MUHAMMAD1986 CLC 2531 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And ANOTHER vs Mst. ZAHIDA BEGUM And ANOTHER1986 CLC 2963 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And 59 Other vs PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY1986 PLC 316 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ALVI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And 31986 PLC (C.S.) 503 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs THE SATE1986 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, BAHAWALPUR1986 PLC (C.S.) 896 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs CRESCENT FACTORIES Ltd., SAHIWAL And Another1986 PLC 695 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Alias Bohli And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 824 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIK vs BACHAL1986 PLD Rev. 47 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIK vs ALLAHDINO alias ALI MOHAMMED AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 34 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-12-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHER And Another vs MUHAMMAD SHER And Other1986 SCMR 1592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld concurrent factual findings regarding the sale price in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a finding of fact regarding the sale price determined by revenue authorities could be interfered with by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the sale price is a question of fact, which cannot be successfully challenged in writ jurisdiction, and consequently refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower forums and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact affirmed through concurrent lower judicial or revenue forums are immune from interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the determination of a sale price in a pre-emption suit is a question of fact?
- Can a finding of fact regarding a sale price be successfully challenged in the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ZILLADAR1986 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court concerning the disposal of an evacuee property. The core legal question involved whether the lower appellate court and the High Court based their judgments of reversal on the misreading and ignoring of vital evidence regarding the identity and transfer of the suit-house, particularly concerning allegations of forgery and the refusal to summon original settlement records and additional evidence. The Supreme Court held that the unjustified refusal to summon the original record and the overlooking of material irregularities regarding disputed house numbers, altered dates, and ignored oral testimony resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court established the principle that in cases involving serious allegations of record tampering and conflicting transfer claims of evacuee property, the examination of original records is imperative, and ignoring vital evidence constitutes a material irregularity warranting a remand of the case for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether the refusal to summon original settlement records in a case involving allegations of forgery constitutes a material irregularity?
- Can a judgment of reversal by an appellate court be sustained when vital evidence regarding the identity of property is ignored?
- Is an appellate court justified in rejecting an application for additional evidence when such evidence is necessary for a just decision?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE and 5 others1986 MLD 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs NAWAB BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent administrative and judicial orders cancelling a lease of State land granted to the petitioner under the Livestock Breeding Scheme. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's possession and lease were lawful in the absence of official delivery of possession under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish lawful possession in terms of an order passed under section 10(4) of the said Act, rendering the initial lease order legally ineffective and his possession illegal. Furthermore, the Court noted that the ten-year term of the lease had already expired. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the unexceptionable orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether a lease of State land under the Livestock Breeding Scheme takes legal effect without official delivery of possession under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
- Can a lessee continue to remain in possession of State land under the shadow of litigation after the expiry of the lease term?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD And 17 Others1986 PLC 703 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR and others1986 MLD 2581 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court passed in a writ petition. The petitioner contended that the High Court's order, which included the phrase "after allowing the landlord to amend his pleadings," effectively precluded the trial court from exercising its judicial discretion to examine the merits of the proposed amendment. The petitioner argued that the consent given by the parties was limited to merely seeking an amendment, not a mandatory direction to allow it. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and held that the language used by the High Court did not constitute a fait accompli. The Court clarified that the phrase in question was subject to the terms of the consent recorded earlier in the order, meaning the trial court retained the discretion to evaluate the amendment application on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, holding that the High Court's order did not improperly fetter the trial court's discretion, and dismissed the petition accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a court order allowing a party to seek an amendment to pleadings automatically mandate that the amendment must be granted?
- Can a trial court exercise its discretion to examine the merits of an amendment application despite a prior order allowing the party to seek such an amendment?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PLOTS) and others1986 MLD 2503 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Through Legal Heirs And Others vs ABDUL MAJID1986 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a land dispute concerning evacuee property, where the respondent filed a suit for possession and demolition of construction. The core legal question revolved around whether an observation made by an Additional District Judge in a remand order, stating that the defendant was "entitled to the cost of improvement," constituted a binding finding in subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court held that such an observation, made when setting aside the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for a fresh trial, was not a binding finding. The original judgment having been set aside, the observation was "thrown overboard" and superseded by the findings recorded after re-trial. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, which determined that the plaintiff's share could be met from vacant land, rendering the plaintiff unconcerned with the defendant's construction. The petition was dismissed, as the findings were factual and called for no interference.
Questions settled- Does an observation made in a remand order, which sets aside a trial court's judgment and remands the case for fresh trial, constitute a binding finding in subsequent proceedings?
- Do concurrent findings of fact by lower courts warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a plaintiff's claim for possession be satisfied from vacant land, even if the defendant has constructed on a portion of the disputed property?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF GILL vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Throughsecretary, Education And OTHER1986 CLC 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1585-04-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs SHAM DIN and others1986 MLD 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Others vs Mst. AMTUL RABIA And OTHER1986 CLC 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs L.A.D.C. (C) and others1986 MLD 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs Mst. MARYAM BIBI And Another1986 SCMR 1982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court order passed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which granted custody of an alleged detenu, Mst. Nur Safia, to the respondents. The petitioner, the husband of the detenu, alleged that the detenu had been abducted and that the respondents were involved in criminal activities, including Zina, for which an F.I.R. had been registered. The High Court, relying on the detenu's statement that she was sui juris and wished to accompany the respondents, ordered her release into their custody, despite her earlier contradictory statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, implicating the respondents. The petitioner contended that the High Court failed to consider the bona fides of the habeas corpus petition, which he argued was filed to create a defense for the accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the conflicting statements and the potential misuse of the habeas corpus jurisdiction required examination. The Court ordered the detenu to be lodged in Darul Aman pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, have a duty to inquire into the bona fides of a habeas corpus petition?
- Should a court grant custody of an alleged detenu to individuals accused of criminal offenses involving that same detenu based solely on her statement of being sui juris?
- Is it appropriate for a court to disregard a statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in favor of a later statement made in court when determining the custody of an alleged detenu?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Others vs ADMINISTRATOR THAL And Other1986 SCMR 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their Regular Second Appeal. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted government land in 1950, which allotment was cancelled in 1957 without notice. The petitioners filed a civil suit in 1966, which was eventually dismissed by the trial court after ex parte proceedings were set aside. The District Judge dismissed the subsequent appeal on the ground that civil court jurisdiction was barred retrospectively by the Thal Development (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance 1975, a view upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a statute taking away the jurisdiction of civil courts applies retrospectively to pending actions and suits instituted before the bar of jurisdiction came into force. The Supreme Court held that statutes affecting rights of action or taking away vested rights are presumed not to apply to pending actions unless express words compel such an interpretation. Finding the matter worthy of consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a statute taking away the jurisdiction of civil courts apply retrospectively to pending actions instituted before the enactment of the bar?
- Can a statute affecting a right of action be construed to apply to pending proceedings in the absence of express words?
- Whether the cancellation of a land allotment without notice can be challenged in a civil court despite subsequent statutory bars on jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)1986 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs ABDUL HAMID and others1986 MLD 2087 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF And 6 Others vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2672 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal addresses the limited question of whether the pre-emptors-respondents possessed a superior right of pre-emption compared to the vendees-appellants regarding the disputed land purchased through a registered sale-deed in August 1965. The respondents claimed a preferential right based on being co-sharers and owners of the Patti, having previously purchased land within the same undivided Khewat. The trial court and the first appellate court both ruled in favour of the respondents. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the respondents, having purchased specific Khasra numbers rather than a fractional share, were not co-sharers. The High Court, relying on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which establishes that purchasers of land in an undivided Khewat are considered co-sharers, held that the respondents indeed enjoyed a superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal with costs, affirming the lower courts' unexceptionable concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of land bearing specific Khasra numbers in an undivided Khewat make the purchaser a co-sharer for the purpose of pre-emption?
- Whether pre-emptors owning land in an undivided Kheat possess a superior right of pre-emption against subsequent vendees?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Alias NIKKA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2879 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF alias BAGGU vs HOME SECRETARY1986 MLD 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAM AND OTHERS vs ALLAH DAD KHAN1986 PLD Supreme Court 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a direct appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the appellants' suit for possession by partition and rendition of accounts. The core legal question involves whether a registered sale-deed can be proven invalid through oral evidence regarding non-payment of consideration and fraudulent misrepresentation, notwithstanding the bar under Section 92 of the Evidence Act and recitals acknowledging receipt of consideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that parol evidence is admissible under the first proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act to prove the invalidity of a document due to fraud, misrepresentation, or failure of consideration, and that formal recitals acknowledging receipt of sale consideration are rebuttable. The key principle laid down is that the rules of evidence do not bar a court from lifting the veil to ascertain the true nature of a transaction and determine whether a document is vitiated by fraud or failure of consideration.
Questions settled- Whether parol evidence is admissible under Section 92 of the Evidence Act to prove that a registered sale-deed is invalid due to fraud or failure of consideration?
- Is an acknowledgment of the receipt of sale consideration in a registered sale-deed conclusive, or can it be rebutted by independent evidence?
- Does the mere registration of a sale-deed operate to pass title when the consideration has not in fact been paid and the transaction is vitiated by misrepresentation?
- MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAHID IQBAL vs THE STATE- Respondent1986 P Cr. L J 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2306 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE And Another vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT1986 PLC 508 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder and other offences under sections 326 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the offense committed by the appellant constituted murder or fell under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code as a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, arising from a sudden fight without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by failing to consider Exception IV to section 300 after disbelieving the prosecution's motive and rejecting the plea of private defence. The Court found that the altercation arose spontaneously from a dispute concerning children, involving a sudden quarrel and scuffle without undue advantage or cruel manner. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under section 302 and the death sentence, altering the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, while modifying other related convictions and sentences accordingly. The key principle laid down is that where a sudden fight occurs without premeditation upon a sudden quarrel and neither party takes undue advantage, the offence falls under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code rather than murder.
Questions settled- Does a sudden fight arising from an immediate dispute over children without premeditation attract Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can a conviction for murder be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when injuries are sustained by both parties during a sudden scuffle?
- Is it material which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault in a case covered by Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and 5 others1986 MLD 405 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM SIDDIQUI And Another1986 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs ABDUL HAYEE And Other1986 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from proceedings involving property disputes under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions presented for consideration involve the competency of an application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the Sessions Judge had already exercised revisional powers under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the same subject matter. Specifically, the Court seeks to determine whether Section 561-A can be invoked to correct alleged errors in an order passed during the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly given the concurrent revisional powers held by the High Court and the Sessions Judge. Furthermore, the Court is tasked with examining whether the underlying proceedings and orders passed therein conform to the statutory requirements set forth in Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Supreme Court suspended the impugned order and directed the attachment of the disputed property.
Questions settled- Is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent after the exercise of revisional powers by the Sessions Judge under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the same subject matter?
- Can the High Court exercise powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct errors in an order passed by a Sessions Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- Do the orders passed in the proceedings conform to the requirements of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AWAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 665 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 851 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 1456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by the High Court. The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner dating back to 1960 and 1967 respectively, through a writ petition filed in 1975, alongside a belated review application against an earlier 1970 judgment. The core legal question concerned whether a constitutional petition suffering from an unexplained and inordinate delay and laches could be entertained by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and the review application was unexceptionable, given the prolonged and unexplained inaction of the petitioners in pursuing the matter. The ratio decidendi is that long and unexplained laches disentitles a party to discretionary constitutional remedies, and petitions filed after extensive delays without justification are liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay?
- Does an unexplained long period of inaction bar a party from seeking relief under writ jurisdiction?
- Can a belated review application against a long-standing High Court judgment be entertained without sufficient explanation for the delay?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2783 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of a residential property under the evacuee property laws. The petitioner, an occupant who was initially transferred the property, alleged that during his period of mental illness and hospitalization, the respondent forged a deed of association to secure the transfer in his own name. The petitioner challenged this transfer upon recovery, but his application was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, which was referred for inquiry but remained unresolved when the Settlement Department was wound up under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine, holding that no case was pending. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was considerable force in the petitioner's plea that his revision petition was indeed pending at the time of the repeal and was thus saved by Section 2 of the Repeal Act. Finding prima facie indications of forgery, the Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition filed before the Settlement Commissioner prior to the repeal of the settlement laws constitutes a pending proceeding saved by Section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
- Can a Deputy Settlement Commissioner refuse to entertain an application challenging a transfer based on an allegedly forged deed of association on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to review an order of an officer of equal jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FORESTRY, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Other1986 PLC (C. S.) 155 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs S.M. ENAMAL HAQ and another1986 MLD 912 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs NIZAM-UR-REHMAN SIDDIQUI1986 MLD 1674 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs NAZIR BEGUM and another1986 MLD 725 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN NOORI1986 MLD 2112 · Election Tribunal · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD SAID1986 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld the Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner-tenant to hand over possession of the demised shop to the respondent-landlord for personal use. The landlord sought ejectment to conduct motor welding and denting work along with his adult sons. The High Court re-examined the evidence and found the landlord's personal need established, dismissing allegations of ulterior motives. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised new pleas regarding a bar on eviction due to a rent agreement and the alleged unsuitability of the small shop for the proposed business, which were neither pleaded below nor substantiated. The Supreme Court held that factual and legal pleas not raised in the courts below cannot be entertained for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though a four-month extension to vacate was granted based on the petitioner's solemn undertaking.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new factual or legal plea for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not raised in the courts below?
- Does the acceptance of advance rent by a landlord in a rent agreement bar their right to seek ejectment of the tenant for personal use?
- Whether the sufficiency of evidence regarding a landlord's personal need for rented premises can be re-examined to interfere with concurrent factual findings?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Mst. SARDARAN BIBI and 3 others1986 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD1986 MLD 2579 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs ABDUL SHAKOOR and 2 others1986 MLD 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs ABDUL GHAFFAR1986 MLD 2591 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2321 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Others vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS1986 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by an original landlord against a tenant under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds including default, damage, and personal need. During proceedings, the original landlord died, and his children were substituted as petitioners. They amended the petition to plead their own bona fide personal requirement, leading evidence in support. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and ordered ejectment. The Lahore High Court accepted the tenant's constitutional petition, holding that the original landlord's personal requirement did not enure for the benefit of legal representatives. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the legal representatives could maintain an independent plea of personal requirement in their own right as landlords through an amended petition. However, because the lower appellate court had proceeded on the misconception that the original cause of action survived rather than evaluating the appellants' independent claim, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does the personal requirement of a landlord for a non-residential building enure for the benefit of his legal representatives after his death?
- Can legal representatives of a deceased landlord amend an ejectment petition to plead their own independent personal requirement?
- Does a landlord's personal action on the ground of personal requirement survive to his legal representatives if it has not matured into an order of eviction?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others vs HUSSAIN BAKHSH and others1986 MLD 2853 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1986 MLD 675 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Others vs CH. FAZAL ELAHI And Other1986 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit filed by collateral reversioners challenging a sale of property by Mst. Mehtab Bibi. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs' failure to implead all personal law heirs of the deceased vendor, Mst. Mehtab Bibi, despite a prior appellate court direction to do so, was fatal to the suit. The High Court had dismissed the appeals, refusing to exercise equitable discretion to allow the impleading of the omitted heirs after an eleven-year delay. The Supreme Court held that while the appellate court's earlier direction to implead the heirs had attained finality and remained uncomplied with, the interests of justice required a proper adjudication on the merits. The Court determined that the plaintiffs should be granted a final opportunity to implead the necessary parties, provided they pay costs to the contesting defendant. The key principle laid down is that procedural defaults, such as the failure to implead necessary parties, should not preclude a decision on the merits where the interests of justice and proper adjudication necessitate allowing an opportunity for rectification, even after significant delay.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead all legal heirs of a deceased defendant in a civil suit necessitate the dismissal of the suit?
- Can an appellate court grant an opportunity to implead necessary parties even after a significant delay in compliance with a prior remand order?
- Is a direction given by an appellate court regarding the impleading of parties binding if it remains unchallenged?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFFI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 647 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs The SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA1986 P Cr. L J 183(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE Through DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR1986 PLC (C.S. ) 498 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1986 SCMR 1638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute where the respondent obtained an eviction order against a tenant under Section 13 of the Sind Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. During execution, the petitioner intervened under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming the property being executed upon was his own property under a different municipal number, which led the executing court to restrict execution. The respondent then filed a suit under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to declare that the property under both numbers was identical and belonged to him. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it on technical grounds of maintainability. The High Court restored the trial court's decree, finding the property was identical and the petitioner had no independent title. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the suit was maintainable as the execution had been frustrated, and a separate prayer for possession was unnecessary because the declaratory decree revived the respondent's right to execute the eviction order.
Questions settled- Is a suit under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable where execution proceedings have been frustrated by a third-party intervener claiming a change in property numbers?
- Is a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title in respect of a property subject to an eviction order required to pray for possession in the same suit, or does the declaration revive the right to execute the eviction order?
- Can a party in a property dispute simultaneously assert independent ownership of the property and claim protection as a co-tenant under rent restriction laws?
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR OFFICER GRADE-III vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And 31986 PLC (C.S.) 847 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR and others vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1986 MLD 2914 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 MLD 447 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAOOD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2277 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SANADI And Others vs MIAN ABDUL MALI SHAH1986 SCMR 135(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a show-cause notice issued to the Advocate-on-Record for the appellants due to a failure to file the required paper books. Mr. Safdar Hussain appeared in response on behalf of the appellants and submitted the paper books directly in Court. Upon the submission and physical filing of the paper books during the hearing, the Court decided to discharge the show-cause notice. The core principle addressed relates to compliance with court directives and procedural requirements regarding the timely filing of paper books in appellate proceedings before the apex court.
Questions settled- What action is taken by the Supreme Court when an appellant fails to file paper books within the stipulated time?
- Can a show-cause notice issued for non-filing of paper books be discharged upon subsequent submission in court?
- MUHAMMAD SALIM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALIM alias CHEEMA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2666 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs FATEH KHAN1986 PLD Rev. 122 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1970-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs ABDULLAH And Another1986 P Cr. L J 2599 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEH And ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1615 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR and another1986 MLD 1307 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 414 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-02-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Sheikh vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And 21986 PLC 953 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM SH. vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And Others1986 PLC 773 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN vs PRINCIPAL, AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE1986 CLC 1425 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought admission to Ayub Medical College against a reserved seat for the 1984-85 session after the candidate originally admitted had his domicile certificate cancelled. The Principal refused admission, citing a prospectus rule prohibiting admissions six weeks after the session's commencement. The petitioner challenged this refusal, arguing the rule was discriminatory, as the previous candidate was admitted well after the six-week deadline, and that the college had been closed for winter vacation during that period. The core legal question was whether the college prospectus constitutes a statutory instrument binding on the administration and whether the Principal's refusal to admit the petitioner was unreasonable. The Court held that the prospectus lacks statutory force and is merely an offer for admission. It found the Principal's reliance on the six-week rule unreasonable and discriminatory, particularly given the previous candidate's late admission. The Court established that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith, and that technicalities in non-statutory documents should not deprive eligible candidates from backward areas of their lawful rights to reserved seats.
Questions settled- Does a college prospectus constitute a statutory document?
- Can administrative authorities rely on non-statutory prospectus rules to deny admission in an unreasonable or discriminatory manner?
- Is a candidate entitled to admission against a reserved seat if the previous occupant's admission is cancelled due to fraud?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM CHUGHTAI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 276 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM And OTHER1986 CLC 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND ANOTHER vs SHAN ALI AND 4 OTHERs1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 103 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM And 2 Others vs DISTRICT JUDGE, BHAKKAR And Other1986 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions arising from orders setting aside ex parte decrees in civil suits for perpetual injunctions. The core legal question concerned whether the ex parte decrees were lawfully set aside despite contentions regarding the validity of counsel's representation and the absence of personal service on the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact that the respondents were not duly served despite the trial court's order and that their purported counsel was not duly constituted justified setting aside the ex parte decrees in the interest of substantial justice. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact and discretionary orders aimed at substantial justice do not warrant interference.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte decree can be set aside when the respondents were not personally served despite a specific court order for their service?
- Does the service of notice on an advocate who was not duly constituted as counsel bind the respondents?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding service and representation warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD SAL1M vs THE STATE1986 PLD Rev. 4 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAIN vs FAMILY JUDGE And OTHER1986 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →