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 SAGHIR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 883 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAGHIR KHAN And ANOTHER vs ENFORCEMENT STAFF, AZAD J &1986 CLC 1305 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAFDAR CHAUDHARY vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEEDUR REHMAN And Others vs D.S.C. JHELUM And Other1986 SCMR 135(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a show-cause notice issued to the appellants due to the death of their Advocate-on-Record, specifically addressing their failure to deposit the required security and to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-prosecution. No appearance was made on behalf of the appellants in response to the notice. The core legal question concerned the consequence of failing to comply with procedural requirements and directives of the court following the demise of the appellant's counsel. The court held that in the absence of any appearance or compliance in response to the show-cause notice, the appeal must be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellants fail to respond to court notices regarding procedural defaults such as non-payment of security after the death of their authorized counsel.
Questions settled- What is the consequence of failing to respond to a show-cause notice regarding the non-deposit of security after the death of an Advocate-on-Record?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when no one appears on behalf of the appellants in response to a court notice?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 310 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN1986 PLC 618 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs The StatePTCL 1986 CL. 251 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2632 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 1 And Other1986 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent orders of two Labour Courts reinstating the petitioner, a former Pastry Chief, who had been dismissed from service. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who supervised four employees and earned a consolidated salary of Rs. 860 per mensem, qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby entitling him to seek redress for wrongful dismissal. The High Court had reversed the Labour Courts' findings, concluding the petitioner performed managerial duties and was thus excluded from the definition of a workman. The Supreme Court, noting the conflicting interpretations regarding the nature of the petitioner's duties and the scope of judicial review over concurrent findings of fact by Labour Courts, granted leave to appeal. The key principle highlighted is that the determination of 'workman' status requires an assessment of the basic nature and true character of the work performed, rather than being influenced by incidental duties.
Questions settled- Does a person employed in a supervisory capacity who performs manual work in exceptional situations qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is a High Court justified in re-assessing evidence to reverse concurrent findings of fact made by Labour Courts in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 require the nature of duties to be construed disjunctively regarding manual or clerical work?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs NOOR ALAM and others1986 MLD 619 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1986 SCMR 1567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the civil revision filed by the petitioner vendee and upheld the pre-emption decree granted in favour of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner possessed an equal right of pre-emption based on a prior alleged purchase of land in the same Khatta. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts and the High Court rightly treated the petitioner's alleged prior sale-deed as spurious and an afterthought, noting the lack of marginal witnesses, absence of registration, failure to mention the document in pleadings, and late procurement after the institution of the suit. Furthermore, the alternative plea regarding another sale and unaddressed additional evidence was correctly rejected as an abandoned and belated afterthought. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a vendee can claim an equal right of pre-emption based on an unregistered and unproved prior sale-deed procured after the institution of the pre-emption suit?
- Can an appellate court be faulted for not disposing of an application for additional evidence when the application was not pressed during the hearing?
- Whether a plea regarding an alternative sale not raised before the trial court can be entertained as a valid defense in pre-emption proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ALLAH RAKHI and others1986 MLD 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ABDUL AZIZ1986 PLD Rev. 17 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-07-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ SALIMA BIBI vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a successful pre-emptor against a Lahore High Court judgment dated 14-6-1980, which had allowed a revision petition by rival pre-emptors, set aside prior orders, restored the rival pre-emptor's suit, and ordered that the pre-emption decree in favour of the petitioner not extend to the rival pre-emptor's rights. Two competing pre-emption suits had been filed concerning a sale of land. The rival pre-emptor's suit was initially dismissed when his counsel reported no instructions on the date fixed for examining abatement and recording evidence, while the petitioner's suit was subsequently decreed. Applications for restoration and setting aside dismissal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were dismissed by lower courts, but the High Court restored the rival pre-emptor's suit, finding sufficient cause for non-appearance. The core legal question concerns the implications and legal efficacy of restoring a rival pre-emptor's suit against an existing, unconditional pre-emption decree held by another pre-emptor. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these implications, allowing proceedings in the restored suit to continue.
Questions settled- Whether the restoration of a rival pre-emptor's suit affects an unconditional pre-emption decree already held by another pre-emptor?
- Did the High Court properly exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in setting aside the dismissal of the rival pre-emptor's suit?
- What are the legal implications of restoring a pre-emption suit after a decree has already been passed in a consolidated proceeding?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ GONDAL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And OTHER1986 CLC 326 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an appellate order of an Additional District Judge which had set aside a Rent Controller's decision based on a special oath. The core legal questions were whether an attorney, empowered to prosecute cases, possesses the inherent authority to bind their principal to a special oath settlement without express permission, and whether an appeal is competent against a consent order passed by a Rent Controller. The Court held that an attorney authorized only to prosecute cases lacks the authority to agree to an unusual mode of settlement, such as a special oath, without express authorization from the principal. Furthermore, the Court held that an appeal against a consent order is maintainable when the appellant challenges the validity of the consent itself, specifically alleging that the agent lacked the authority to enter into the compromise. The key principle established is that a consent decree is only valid if consented to by the party or a duly authorized agent; if the authority of the agent is challenged, the appellate court must adjudicate that issue rather than dismissing the appeal as incompetent.
Questions settled- Does an attorney authorized to prosecute cases have the inherent authority to bind a principal to a special oath settlement?
- Is an appeal maintainable against a consent order if the appellant challenges the validity of the consent or the authority of the agent?
- Does Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar an appeal where the appellant claims they were not a party to the compromise?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ And Others vs Malik TAJ MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for leave to appeal arising from a civil or constitutional dispute adjudicated in the High Court. The core legal question addressed by the Court is whether a controversy already conceded by a party in the High Court remains open for subsequent adjudication before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recalled its earlier order of dismissal, restored the petition to file upon hearing the petitioners' counsel, but ultimately dismissed the petition on the short ground that the matter was no longer open for adjudication due to the express concession made by the petitioners in the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a party who has made a concession before a lower court is precluded from reopening or agitating the same controversy in subsequent proceedings before the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a party reopen a controversy in the Supreme Court after making a concession on the matter in the High Court?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be dismissed on the short ground of a previous concession made by the petitioner?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ And ANOTHER vs BASHIR AHMAD And OTHER1986 CLC 849 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ ALTAF vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Forestry Wildlife And Fisheries Department, Lahore And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 238 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SABIR vs ABDUL QAYYUM And Other1986 SCMR 125 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SABIR HUSSAIN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-petitions challenging a judgment of the High Court which altered convictions, reduced sentences, and partially acquitted accused persons originally convicted of murder and related offences by the trial court. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence and the sustainability of its findings regarding the alteration of charges and acquittal of co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court suffered from material contradictions and failed to properly address the critical issues in the case, thus requiring a de novo re-examination. The key principle laid down is that where a High Court judgment in a capital case contains internal contradictions and fails to judiciously evaluate the evidence, the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to re-appraise the record and ensure proper administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court judgment suffering from material contradictions in appreciating evidence warrants a de novo re-examination by the Supreme Court?
- Can leave to appeal be granted to challenge both the reduction of sentence and the acquittal of co-accused in a murder case?
- Whether consecutive sentences under section 304(Part-I) and section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are sustainable when arising from the same incident?
- MUHAMMAD S A LEEM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1986 MLD 663 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ROSHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL1986 MLD 837 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Raja ABDUL MUNAF and another1986 P Cr. L J 2511 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ DAR vs THE SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT And Other1986 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Chairman of a Municipal Committee, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that disposed of his constitutional petition against a show-cause notice issued for his removal under section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were mala fide, amounted to double vexation following earlier remedial measures under section 157 of the same Ordinance, and that he was not associated with a subsequent inquiry report. The Supreme Court held that since the competent authority's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 29 was undisputed, it was premature to invoke constitutional jurisdiction against a mere show-cause notice before raising factual and legal objections before the competent authority itself. The Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to interfere at that stage, emphasizing that the competent authority must first address these objections through a speaking order, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against a show-cause notice issued by a competent authority under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether the High Court should interfere in administrative proceedings before the competent authority has examined factual and legal objections raised by the affected party?
- Does the initiation of remedial measures under section 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 bar proceedings for removal under section 29 of the said Ordinance?
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ And Other vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 272 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-11-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND OIHERSs vs JEHAN KHAN AND 9 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 59 · Federal Land Commission · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ ABBASI And 69 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB HEALTH DEPARTMENT And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 672 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2710 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ And Others vs MUHAMMAD DIN1986 SCMR 1379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit must maintain the right of pre-emption up to the date of the decree, and the effect of land being included within municipal limits prior to the decree. The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must possess the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, the date of filing the suit, and the date of passing the decree. Since 15 Kanals of the disputed agricultural land became part of the municipal limits of Sialkot before the decree—thereby exempting it from the law of pre-emption—the dismissal of the suit regarding that portion was correct. The key principle laid down is that the loss of the right of pre-emption due to inclusion of land in municipal limits before the trial court's decree defeats the claim pro tanto.
Questions settled- Must a plaintiff maintain the right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the decree?
- What is the effect of including pre-empted agricultural land within municipal limits before the decree is passed?
- Does the inclusion of suit land in a municipal area exempt it from the law of pre-emption?
- MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ And Others vs KHAKI JAN And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions: one filed by the accused challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and another filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused from imprisonment for life to death. Regarding the accused's petition, the Court observed that the arguments presented merely sought a reappraisal of evidence, which the Court declined to undertake, finding no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. Regarding the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement, the Court reviewed the High Court's reasoning for awarding the lesser sentence of life imprisonment and found those reasons to be sound and valid. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that neither the conviction nor the sentence warranted interference and dismissed both petitions as being without merit. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically re-examine factual findings or evidence in a petition for leave to appeal unless a significant legal error is demonstrated, and that sentencing discretion exercised by lower courts will be upheld if based on valid reasons.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court undertake a reappraisal of evidence in a criminal petition for leave to appeal?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the High Court?
- Is the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death mandatory in murder cases?
- MUHAMMAD RASHID vs MUHAMMAD KHALID And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2848 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID Chaudhry vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED1986 PLC 1140 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID BHATTI vs K. D. A. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges the concurrent orders of the lower courts rejecting the applicant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for permanent injunction against the Karachi Development Authority and an Assistant Commissioner. The trial and appellate courts had rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, viewing the respondents as government departments. The core legal question was whether the Karachi Development Authority and an individual government officer (Assistant Commissioner) constitute a "Department of the Government" under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 so as to bar injunctive relief. The Sindh High Court held that neither the Karachi Development Authority, being a corporate body established under President's Order V of 1957, nor individual government functionaries like the Assistant Commissioner constitute a "Department" of the federal or provincial government under Section 56(d). The Court ruled that individual officers and statutory corporations are distinct entities from government departments, and injunctions may lie against them if their actions are alleged to be illegal, without jurisdiction, or mala fide. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the Karachi Development Authority constitutes a Department of the Government under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Can individual government officers or functionaries be considered a 'Department of the Government' for the purpose of immunity from injunctions under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of facts and documents introduced by the defendant through affidavits without relying solely on the averments in the plaint?
- Whether a plaint can be rejected in part against only one of several co-defendants for want of statutory notice?
- MUHAMMAD RASHID AHMAD vs Mst. NUSRAT JEHAN BEGUM and others1986 MLD 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ZAFAR ULLAH And Another1986 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondent was legally sustainable, particularly when other co-accused persons, who were similarly placed and attributed no specific role in the physical injuries to the victims, had already been granted bail after arrest. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court held that since the petitioner had not challenged the bail granted to other co-accused persons who occupied the same category as the respondent, cancelling the respondent's bail on technical grounds would serve no useful purpose. The Court reasoned that if the respondent were arrested, he would inevitably be entitled to bail again on the principle of consistency, given that similarly situated co-accused were already at liberty. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's order.
Questions settled- Should bail be cancelled on technical grounds if the accused would be entitled to bail again due to the status of similarly placed co-accused?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a bail order where the petitioner has failed to challenge the bail of similarly situated co-accused?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 414(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1986 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute concerning the transfer of a house situated in village Dewala, D.I. Khan, initially claimed by both the appellant and respondent No. 3 as part of agricultural land or an independent house under settlement laws. The core legal questions involved whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner's review order passed without prior permission under section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 vitiated subsequent proceedings, and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities in writ jurisdiction regarding the classification of the property. The Supreme Court held that respondent No. 3, having expressly conceded the house's independent status and value before the authorities, was estopped from challenging the initial review order, and the High Court erred in re-appreciating factual determinations in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court laid down the principle that a party who unequivocally submits to the jurisdiction and concedes a property's status during administrative proceedings cannot later challenge the foundational review order, and concurrent findings of departmental authorities on property classification should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a party who concedes the status and value of a property before settlement authorities is estopped from subsequently challenging the foundational review order?
- Does the definition of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 encompass buildings not used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture?
- To what extent can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And 3 Others1986 PLC 1157 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Another1986 SCMR 1716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a High Court judgment that reduced the respondent's sentence for murder from death to life imprisonment. The respondent had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The High Court, while maintaining the conviction, mitigated the sentence based on the respondent's young age (approximately 16 years), the fact that only a single blow was inflicted, and the existence of a prior altercation between the parties. The petitioner challenged this reduction, arguing that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the respondent's age, that the single knife blow was delivered to a vital part of the body (the chest), and that the earlier altercation did not provide sufficient grounds for mitigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in reducing the sentence under the circumstances presented, specifically examining the validity of the mitigating factors relied upon by the lower court.
Questions settled- Does a prior altercation between the parties constitute sufficient grounds for mitigating a sentence of death to life imprisonment in a murder case?
- Can a court reduce a sentence based on the offender's age if there is no evidence on the record to substantiate that age?
- Is the infliction of a single knife blow to a vital region of the body a relevant factor in determining whether to maintain a death sentence?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Messrs FIKREE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1986 MLD 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN QURESHI vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHERs1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 200 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZ AN and others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others1986 MLD 1951 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAIS and 6 others vs Haji NI2 AMUDDIN and another1986 MLD 326 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAHIM, LECTURER AND 28 Others vs MUHAMMAD AURANGZEB, LECTURER AND 94 Other1986 SCMR 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals regarding the determination of inter se seniority between lecturers recruited through the Public Service Commission under the West Pakistan Education Service (Class II Collegiate, Branch) (Men's Section) Rules, 1962, and those ad hoc appointees regularized under a Government notification dated February 28, 1970. The core legal question was whether the 1970 Order, which regularized ad hoc appointees with effect from January 1, 1970, overrode the seniority rights of regular recruits from the 1967 and 1968 batches who were selected by the Commission but joined service after the notification date. The Supreme Court held that the 1970 Order did not create a conflict with the Rules, as it explicitly excluded posts for which the Commission had already recommended candidates. Consequently, the regular recruits of the 1967 and 1968 batches retain their seniority based on their selection and recommendation, irrespective of their actual joining date. The principle established is that where specific rules govern seniority based on selection, and a subsequent regularization order excludes already recommended posts, the seniority of regular recruits is preserved according to their batch merit, and the date of actual induction into service does not override established batch seniority.
Questions settled- Does the date of actual joining service override the seniority assigned by the Public Service Commission for regular recruits?
- Does a regularization order for ad hoc employees supersede the seniority rights of regular recruits selected through the Public Service Commission?
- Can the seniority of regular recruits be determined by their date of selection rather than their date of appointment?
- MUHAMMAD RAHIM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1055 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFT vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 734 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1100 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs WAPDA And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 392 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Mst. MUNIRAN BIBI1986 MLD 2791 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Messrs KARACHI GYMKHANA Through Its Secretary1986 PLC 868 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment regarding the right of pre-emption claimed by a lessee of agricultural land. The petitioner, who was in cultivating possession of the suit land as a lessee, filed a pre-emption suit asserting a preferential right as a 'tenant' under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115). The trial court, appellate court, and Board of Revenue all ruled in favor of the petitioner. However, the High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the respondents, holding that the Land Reforms Regulation (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (V of 1982) amended the definition of a tenant to expressly exclude a lessee, thereby negating the petitioner's preferential right. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that section 2 of the Amending Ordinance was prospective in effect, as other sections were expressly given retrospective effect while section 2 was not. The Supreme Court found the contentions worthy of consideration and granted leave to appeal, ordering that status quo be maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment to the definition of 'tenant' under the Land Reforms Regulation (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 is retrospective or prospective in operation?
- Does a lessee in cultivating possession of agricultural land retain a preferential right of pre-emption as a tenant after the enactment of the Land Reforms Regulation (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1982?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2638 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 107 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and 8 others vs Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH and others1986 MLD 545 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2523 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, RAWALPINDI1986 P Cr. L J 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1986 PLC 463 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Other1986 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of a dying declaration and the credibility of an eyewitness. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal was justified. It reasoned that the dying declaration was unreliable because the severity of the deceased's neck injury made a coherent statement unlikely, and the use of a thumb-impression for a literate deceased raised doubts about its authenticity. Furthermore, the Court upheld the rejection of the eyewitness's testimony due to his unnatural conduct in releasing the accused after apprehension and his failure to promptly report the incident. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may properly reject evidence, including dying declarations, where the physical condition of the declarant or the conduct of witnesses renders the prosecution's narrative inherently doubtful or inconsistent with the objective facts of the case.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration be rejected if the nature of the injury makes it physically improbable for the deceased to have made a coherent statement?
- Does the unnatural conduct of an eyewitness, such as failing to report a crime promptly or releasing the accused after apprehension, justify the rejection of their testimony?
- Is an appellate court justified in doubting a dying declaration where a literate deceased's thumb-impression is used instead of a signature?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Another1986 P Cr. L J 401 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed applications for the stay of execution proceedings in pre-emption suits. The petitioner had sought to stay the execution of decrees passed in favor of the respondents while their Regular First Appeals were pending before the High Court. Upon inquiry, the High Court determined that the impugned decrees had already been executed and that possession of the suit properties had been delivered to the decree-holders. Consequently, the High Court held that the request for suspension of the decrees had become infructuous and dismissed the stay applications. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the circumstances and found the High Court's order to be unexceptionable, noting that once a decree has been fully executed and possession transferred, the question of suspending or staying the execution proceedings no longer arises. Accordingly, the petitions were found to be without merit and were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an application for the stay of execution proceedings be granted after the decree has already been executed and possession delivered?
- Does the execution of a decree render a pending application for the stay of execution proceedings infructuous?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DIRECTOR, LAHORE Z001986 PLC 641 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL And OTHER1986 CLC 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs ABDUR RAHMAN And 5 Other1986 SCMR 1978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal filed for the cancellation of bail granted by the Lahore High Court to eight respondents accused of murder. The core legal question concerns whether the reports of multiple investigating officers concluding the matter to be a blind murder can form a valid basis for granting bail to accused persons where eyewitnesses are closely related. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while police investigation reports are not binding on courts, they can be duly considered at the bail stage. The Court found that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting bail to seven of the respondents due to doubts regarding the presence of eyewitnesses in the middle of the night. However, bail granted to one specific respondent was cancelled because his identity was sufficiently established by distinct evidence showing he lured the deceased from his home. The key legal principle laid down is that police investigation reports, though non-binding, are relevant material at the bail stage, and bail may be sustained or refused based on the tentative assessment of the individual participation and identity of each accused.
Questions settled- Whether reports of investigating officers are binding on courts at the bail stage?
- Can police investigation reports be taken into consideration when deciding on the grant of bail?
- Does the presence of closely related eyewitnesses in a murder case affect the tentative assessment of evidence for bail purposes?
- Whether bail once granted to an accused can be cancelled when there is distinct evidence establishing his identity and participation?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK vs SHER MUHAMMAD and others1986 P Cr. L J 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Alias PHEEKA vs The STATE1986 SCMR 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner to life imprisonment under Section 304(I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, which was maintained by the High Court. The core legal question involved the assessment of ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the propriety of the conviction and sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder following an incident involving a fatal knife blow. The Supreme Court considered the medical evidence showing a fatal stab wound, the absence of injuries on the accused, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is supported by consistent medical evidence establishing a fatal injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the accused fails to establish a right of private defence or mitigating circumstances, the conviction and sentence concurrently maintained will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding a conviction under Section 304(I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be interfered with when supported by ocular and medical evidence?
- Can an accused claim the right of private defence when no injuries were sustained during the occurrence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will condone a delay in filing a petition where the sentence involves life imprisonment?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ alias BAGGU and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI and others vs KHALID RAUF AHMAD and another1986 MLD 722 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal and ordered the eviction of the petitioners-tenants from the disputed shop. The core legal questions involved whether a fresh ejectment petition is barred after the dismissal in default of a previous one, whether an unregistered rent note is admissible for collateral purposes to establish the nature of possession, and whether the wanton and willful denial of the landlord-tenant relationship by the tenants results in the forfeiture of their defense on other grounds such as personal need and reconstruction. The Lahore High Court held that the dismissal of a previous petition in default does not preclude a fresh petition for recurring causes of action like personal need and reconstruction, that an unregistered rent note can be used for collateral purposes to show the nature of possession, and that a tenant who falsely and wantonly denies the landlord-tenant relationship forfeits the right to contest remaining grounds of ejectment. The court dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal in default of a previous ejectment petition preclude a landlord from filing a fresh petition on recurring grounds such as personal need and reconstruction?
- Can an unregistered rent note be used for collateral purposes to establish the nature of a tenant's possession?
- Does the wanton and willful denial of the landlord-tenant relationship by a tenant result in the forfeiture of their defense on other eviction grounds?
- MUHAMMAD RAFI AND 6 OTHERS vs WSW AFTAB AHMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 1 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI And 6 Others vs KHALID RAUF And Another1986 SCMR 1685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld their ejectment order from a shop. The respondent sought eviction on grounds of personal need and reconstruction, while the petitioners contested the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding no such relationship. However, the District Judge reversed this, holding the relationship existed and that the petitioners' denial of title automatically terminated the tenancy, leading to ejectment. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question involved whether denial of the landlord's title automatically results in eviction without establishing statutory grounds. The Supreme Court held that while the finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant was a question of fact not open to challenge in constitutional jurisdiction, statutory grounds for eviction must still be established. The Court laid down the principle that mere denial of title and forfeiture does not automatically result in an eviction order without the statutory grounds being made out and properly put in issue. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted on this ground.
Questions settled- Is a finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant open to challenge in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the denial of a landlord's title automatically result in an eviction order without establishing statutory grounds?
- MUHAMMAD QAYUM BAIG vs Mst. SABIRA SULTANA And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 194 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QASIM vs THE STATE1986 PLD Quetta 286 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act by the Special Judge Customs, Quetta, arguing inter alia that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the failure to examine the accused on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the trial illegal. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement to examine an accused on oath is mandatory or directory, and whether its omission constitutes a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the provision of Section 340(2) is mandatory, and the failure to comply with it constitutes an illegality that cannot be cured under Section 537. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial before the court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle established is that the examination of an accused on oath is a mandatory procedural requirement, the omission of which vitiates the trial and necessitates a retrial, rather than being a mere irregularity.
Questions settled- Is the failure to examine an accused on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity?
- Does the court have a mandatory duty to examine the accused on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a trial court's lack of territorial jurisdiction necessitate the setting aside of a conviction and a retrial?
- MUHAMMAD QASIM CHANG vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL And Another1986 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Following his removal, the petitioner filed a departmental representation before approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that WAPDA employees are not civil servants for the purposes of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and thus lack the right to make departmental representations under Section 22 of that Act, rendering the appeal filed after the statutory limitation period inadmissible. The core legal question concerns whether WAPDA employees, deemed civil servants under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, possess the right to file departmental representations under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, as a prerequisite to invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Finding that the legal issues raised are of first impression and substantial public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the service rights of WAPDA employees.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Water and Power Development Authority considered civil servants for the purposes of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does a WAPDA employee have the right to file a departmental representation under Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, before approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Is a departmental representation a mandatory prerequisite for a WAPDA employee to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD PEHLWAN vs ALI AKHTAR and others1986 MLD 1958 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NZIR vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT1986 MLD 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NURUDDIN QURESHI represented by Legal Heirs and otherss vs BADRUL HASSAN1986 MLD 1437 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Another1986 SCMR 1441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal against acquittal arose from a murder conviction set aside by the Lahore High Court. The prosecution alleged that the respondent murdered the deceased, Maqsood Anwar, relying on an extra-judicial confession, motive, and recovery of incriminating items. The High Court acquitted the respondent, finding the extra-judicial confession unreliable due to the witness's relationship with the complainant and improvements made in testimony, and casting doubt on the recovery evidence, noting the recovery witness was a 'stock witness' for the police. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's reasoning was flawed or constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were not based on misreading of evidence and that the mere possibility of a different opinion on the appreciation of evidence is insufficient to set aside an acquittal. The Court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, such as the accused sleeping in a different room of the same premises, was insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other reliable proof. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the mere existence of another possibility regarding the appreciation of evidence a sufficient ground for setting aside a judgment of acquittal?
- Can a judgment of acquittal be set aside based solely on the circumstance that the accused was present in the same premises as the deceased during the night of the occurrence, where they were sleeping in different rooms?
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR CHEEMA vs ASADULLAH MUNEER And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2852 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR And Others vs ABDUR RAHMAN And OTHER1986 CLC 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZEER And Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR And OTHER1986 CLC 2350 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZEER And Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And OTHER1986 CLC 2795 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1965-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2264 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MIANWALI and 2 others1986 P Cr. L J 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and 3 others1986 MLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the qualification of a Zilla Council member who was a depot-holder. The core legal question was whether the respondent remained disqualified as a depot-holder at the time of filing nomination papers, given that he had submitted a resignation that had not yet been formally accepted by the Food Department. The High Court had held that the relationship was one of principal and agent, and since the respondent had expressed an intention to resign, he was effectively relieved of the agency regardless of formal acceptance, thus removing the disqualification. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the controversy was no longer live. The Court noted that subsequent legislative changes via Ordinance IV of 1981 had removed the disqualification for depot-holders, rendering any further adjudication academic and futile. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction when the underlying legal controversy has been resolved by subsequent legislation, making the requested relief practically valueless.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the underlying legal controversy has been rendered academic by subsequent legislation?
- Is the relationship between a depot-holder and the Food Department considered one of principal and agent such that resignation is effective upon expression of intent?
- Can a constitutional petition challenging a member's qualification be dismissed if the disqualification has been removed by a subsequent change in law?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs Mst. NAZEER ELAHI1986 CLC 514 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through CHIEF SECRETARY1986 PLC (C.S.) 660 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs DAUD KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted the respondents, Daud Khan and Arshad Khan, of charges related to murder and attempted murder. The respondents were initially convicted by trial courts for the murder of Amir Khan and causing injuries to Lal Khan, with sentences of life imprisonment and fines. The High Court subsequently acquitted both accused, citing doubts regarding the presence of eyewitnesses based on minor contradictions and medical evidence. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court's decision relied on surmises and conjectures, ignored the testimony of an injured witness whose presence was corroborated by physical injuries, and failed to adhere to the principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice. Upon reviewing the record and the arguments presented, the Supreme Court found substance in the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions, determining that a re-appraisal of the entire evidence is necessary to ensure justice, as the High Court's reasoning regarding the eyewitnesses and medical evidence appeared flawed.
Questions settled- Does the presence of an injured witness in a criminal occurrence provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Can an appellate court acquit an accused based on minor contradictions in eyewitness testimony?
- Is a re-appraisal of evidence warranted when an acquittal judgment is based on surmises and conjectures rather than the record?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs COMMISSIONER, DERA GHAZI KHAN DIVISION D.G.1986 PLC (C.S.) 459 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN vs NAIFUL ISLAM Alias KAIFI And Another1986 P Cr. L J 2631 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 370 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →