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 NAWAZ AND OTHERS vs SULTAN1986 PLD Lahore 50 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Others vs Mst. ISMAT JAN1986 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal regarding a disputed land gift. The core legal question was whether a power of attorney, purportedly executed by the original owner while residing in Indonesia, was legally authenticated and proved, thereby validating the subsequent gift of land made by the attorney to his own sons. The respondent, the sister of the attorney, had challenged the gift to recover her share of the ancestral property. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the document in question failed to meet the necessary legal requirements for authentication, as it was not executed before or authenticated by a Notary Public, Court, Judge, Magistrate, or authorized representative. Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding that the gift was void, rendering the suit not barred by limitation. The key principle laid down is that a power of attorney executed abroad must strictly comply with established authentication procedures to be admissible and valid for transferring property rights.
Questions settled- Is a power of attorney executed abroad valid if it is not authenticated by a Notary Public, Court, Judge, Magistrate, or authorized representative?
- Does a void gift of land trigger the bar of limitation in a suit for recovery of inheritance share?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others1986 MLD 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1812 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another vs THE STATE And Another1986 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partially accepted an appeal by a Patwari convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The trial court had originally sentenced the accused to imprisonment and a fine for accepting illegal gratification. The High Court set aside the imprisonment sentence but maintained and reduced the fine, stipulating that failure to pay would result in detention. The accused challenged the conviction, while the State challenged the leniency of the sentence, specifically arguing that the sentence imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan condoned the delay in the State's petition and granted leave to appeal in both petitions. The core legal question addressed is whether the sentence imposed by the High Court adequately reflects the gravity of the corruption offence committed by the public servant, necessitating a full review of both the conviction and the sentencing quantum.
Questions settled- Does a sentence of fine alone, without imprisonment, adequately address the gravity of a corruption offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in cross-petitions challenging both the conviction and the quantum of sentence in a corruption case?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And 7 Others vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM And 5 OTHER1986 CLC 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from rent proceedings where the landlord obtained ejectment orders against his tenants from the Rent Controller and the appellate authority on the ground of personal requirement for a shop. During the pendency of the constitutional petition in the High Court, the landlord passed away. The core legal question was whether the death of a landlord after obtaining a final ejectment order under the rent law, but during judicial review, affects the rights of his successors to execute the order and recover possession. The High Court held that where an ejectment order based on personal need has attained finality during the lifetime of the landlord, the right vests and becomes part of the deceased's estate, and the execution proceedings do not abate upon the landlord's death. The legal representatives can execute the ejectment order as they step into the shoes of the deceased landlord and are included within the statutory definition of landlord. The constitutional petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the death of a landlord after the final conclusion of rent proceedings affect the rights of his legal representatives to execute an ejectment order?
- Whether an order of ejectment passed on the ground of personal requirement abates upon the death of the landlord occurring during judicial review?
- Can the legal representatives of a deceased landlord execute an ejectment order obtained for personal use of non-residential premises?
- Are successors of a deceased landlord included in the definition of landlord under the rent law for the purpose of executing an eviction order?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2787 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH vs AZIZUL QADIR And Other1986 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition in a rent dispute. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel chose not to press the petition on its merits and instead requested additional time to vacate the residential premises. The respondent-landlord consented to granting a four-month grace period, subject to the conditions that the petitioner delivers vacant possession of the house by the specified date and pays the monthly rent in advance for this extended period. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted this mutual agreement, granting the petitioner four months to vacate the premises under the agreed-upon terms, and consequently dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can grant an extension of time to a tenant to vacate premises based on a mutual agreement between the parties?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed as not pressed on merits if the tenant only seeks time to vacate the premises?
- MUHAMMAD NASIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1414 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASIR And 7 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1812 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAQI vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed constitutional petitions concerning the transfer of property under settlement laws. The petitioner, having been allotted a Chaubara that was subsequently demolished, sought the transfer of a shop (U/355) as compensation. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of a shop in lieu of a demolished structure and whether a second revision petition had been validly pending and subsequently decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having lost possession of the demolished Chaubara and failing to seek reconstruction or alternative allotment, could not claim the transfer of a separate shop. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with the factual findings regarding the status of the second revision petition, noting that such findings, made during the reconstruction of records, were not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that a claimant cannot, based on the allotment of a non-existent property, secure the transfer of an entirely different property without legal entitlement or possession.
Questions settled- Can a claimant secure the transfer of a property based on the previous allotment of a structure that has since been demolished?
- Is a finding of fact made during the reconstruction of lost records subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the transfer of a shop in lieu of a demolished Chaubara constitute a valid transfer under settlement schemes when the claimant is not in possession of the shop?
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM and anothers vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2719 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM And 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN1986 SCMR 331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the restoration of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerned whether sufficient and good cause was shown by the plaintiff for his non-appearance on the date fixed for evidence, leading to the dismissal of his suit for non-prosecution, thus justifying its subsequent restoration by the trial court after remand. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had indeed demonstrated good cause, noting that the plaintiff was a heart patient who suffered a heart attack and left the court premises before the case was called, while his counsel was engaged in court for bail matters. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums that the restoration was lawful and properly ordered. The key principle laid down is that sudden medical emergencies substantiated by record, coupled with counsel's unavoidable preoccupation, constitute sufficient good cause for setting aside a dismissal for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff suffering a sudden medical emergency like a heart attack constitutes good cause for non-appearance to justify the restoration of a dismissed suit?
- Does the absence of counsel due to engagement in other criminal proceedings amount to sufficient ground for setting aside an order of dismissal for non-prosecution?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere in concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the sufficiency of cause shown for the restoration of a civil suit under revisional or constitutional jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA vs Syed MUHAMMAD YUSUF1986 PLD Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE-1986 P C r. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ And Others vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal petition filed by a complainant challenging the High Court's decision to alter the convictions of the respondents, Muhammad Mushtaq and Niamat Ali, from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of Nawab Din, with Mushtaq sentenced to death and Niamat to life imprisonment. The High Court reduced these convictions based on the deceased's age and the nature of the injuries. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's reasoning, finding the mitigating factors cited—specifically the age of the deceased—to be irrelevant given the gravity of the injuries inflicted, which included a fatal head fracture. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal regarding the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Mushtaq, noting the lack of sound legal basis for the High Court's reduction of the charge, while refusing leave in the case of Niamat Ali, whose conviction under Section 304-II was maintained.
Questions settled- Can the age of a deceased victim serve as a valid mitigating factor to reduce a conviction from murder to culpable homicide?
- Is the reduction of a sentence from death to imprisonment for life based on irrelevant mitigating factors legally sustainable?
- Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a High Court's alteration of a conviction?
- MUHAMMAD MURAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 64 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1763 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUNIR CHUGHTAI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 26 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUNEER UD DIN BHATTI vs ASHFAQ MIRZA And Others1986 P Cr. L J 744 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUMTAZALI And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1423 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2413 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR KHAN vs SARBRAH VEGETABLE GHEE AND GENERAL1986 PLC 630 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUBIN vs ABDUL HAKIM And Other1986 SCMR 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a Settlement Revision under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, concerning the classification of land abandoned in Bikaner State and its corresponding Produce Index Units (P.I. Units). The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act, could substitute its own findings of fact regarding soil classification and P.I. Units for those determined by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting an elaborate inquiry into factual matters and substituting its own findings, as Section 21 restricts the High Court to questions of law. The Court affirmed that the classification of soil and the determination of P.I. Units are essentially questions of fact, not subject to interference in revision unless there is a manifest misreading of the record. The key principle laid down is that the High Court cannot, under the guise of revisional jurisdiction, re-evaluate evidence to reach a different factual conclusion or substitute its own assessment for that of the competent Settlement Authorities.
Questions settled- Does the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, extend to the determination of disputed questions of fact?
- Is the classification of soil and the assignment of Produce Index Units a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can the High Court substitute its own findings of fact for those of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in a revision petition under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- MUHAMMAD MOOSA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 578 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for bail filed in the High Court by an accused facing trial before a Special Court (Banks). The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to grant bail under sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the pendency of a trial before a Special Court, given the restrictive language of section 10 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984. The Court held that the High Court retains the power to grant bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the trial is pending. The ratio of the decision is that the bar on jurisdiction contained in section 10 of the Ordinance applies exclusively to appeals against sentences passed by the Special Court, not to pre-conviction proceedings. The Court established the principle that because a Special Court is empowered to grant bail, the High Court concurrently retains its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail during the pendency of the trial.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused facing trial before a Special Court?
- Does the bar on jurisdiction in section 10 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 apply to bail applications filed during the pendency of a trial?
- Is the power to grant bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available to an accused facing trial in a Special Court?
- MUHAMMAD MOOSA and another vs THE STATE and another1986 MLD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MOHSIN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1798 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MAZHAR FARID vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 515 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MATLOOB vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI1986 PLC 880 · Labour Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANZUR and 2 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANZOOR vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil suit for the recovery of a loan filed by the respondent National Bank of Pakistan against the petitioner Muhammad Manzoor, which was decreed by the trial court, upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, and further dismissed in limine by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the respondent's recovery suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the suit was within time because the limitation period was validly extended prior to its expiry through the execution of a mortgage deed and the subsequent signing of a Balance Account Slip by the petitioner acknowledging the outstanding debt. The key principle laid down is that the execution of a mortgage deed and the signing of a balance confirmation slip prior to the expiration of the original limitation period effectively extends limitation for filing a recovery suit.
Questions settled- Does the execution of a mortgage deed prior to the expiry of the original limitation period extend the time for filing a recovery suit?
- Whether signing a Balance Account Slip effectively extends the period of limitation for the recovery of a loan?
- Can a debtor challenge a Balance Account Slip without producing evidence to disprove their signature?
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 758 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA vs THE PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 1 LAHORE And 21986 PLC 517 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MALOOK MANGSI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2764 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD vs FAZALUR REHMAN1986 MLD 902 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD AKHTAR And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MAHFOOZ vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CUSTOMS1986 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 challenged the search, seizure, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty by customs authorities. The primary legal questions were whether customs officers possessed territorial jurisdiction to search premises situated outside their designated port limits, whether mandatory requirements for conducting a search without warrant under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 were fulfilled, and whether the burden of proving lawful import rested on the petitioner. The High Court declared the search, seizure, and subsequent adjudication orders illegal and without lawful authority. The Court held that customs officers cannot exercise search and seizure powers beyond their notified territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969, an officer conducting a search without warrant must apply their mind and explicitly record written grounds of belief regarding both the presence of contraband and the danger of immediate removal before search. Failure to satisfy these statutory safeguards renders the search invalid. Regarding onus, the Court clarified that under Section 187, the burden of proving lawful import and duty payment rested on the person in possession.
Questions settled- Can customs officers lawfully exercise powers of search and seizure outside their notified territorial jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to record written grounds of belief regarding the danger of removal of goods invalidate a search without warrant under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969 when a question arises as to the lawful import and payment of duty on seized goods?
- Muhammad Mahfooz vs Collector Of Customs (Preventive), CustomPTCL 1986 CL. 270 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MAALIK Alias MIKKI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LUQMAN vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT and others1986 MLD 533 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIALKOT And Other1986 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two election appeals arising from a dispute over the validity of ballot papers where election staff recorded identity card numbers on the back of the ballots. The lower courts held that this practice violated the principle of secrecy of the ballot and contravened Rule 29 of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979, thereby vitiating the entire election. The appellants challenged this, relying on Rule 40(4)(b) of the same Rules, arguing that ballot papers are only invalid if the voter themselves marks or writes something that identifies them, not if election officials do so. The Supreme Court noted that both parties relied on the precedent of Niaz Ahmad v. Azizuddin (PLD 1967 SC 466), which required interpretation and potential modification or amplification. Given that the precedent was established by a five-judge bench, the Court determined that these appeals necessitated consideration by a larger bench of at least five judges to resolve the conflict regarding the interpretation of the election rules and the effect of official markings on ballot secrecy.
Questions settled- Does the recording of identity card numbers on the back of ballot papers by election staff violate the principle of secrecy of the ballot?
- Under Rule 40(4)(b) of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979, are ballot papers invalidated only by markings made by the voter, or also by markings made by election officials?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, CENTRAL RECORD OFFICE, LAHORE AndAnother1986 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from the cancellation of an allotment of land made to the petitioner as the successor-in-interest of deceased claimants, which was cancelled on the ground of fraud. The petitioner's initial challenges to the cancellation were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, with a review petition dismissed in 1967. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained new records from India and sought restoration of the allotment. The High Court, in a subsequent writ petition, directed the Central Record Office to reverify the petitioner's entitlement but explicitly held that the petitioner could not reopen the previously cancelled allotment, a position accepted by the petitioner's counsel at the time. The petitioner's subsequent attempt to restore the allotment was dismissed by the High Court on the basis of the earlier judgment. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the petitions for leave to appeal, held that the question of the petitioner's entitlement to the land originally allotted stood foreclosed by the Supreme Court's 1967 dismissal of the review application.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner seek the restoration of a cancelled land allotment based on newly obtained records if the cancellation has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in a final review order?
- Does a concession made by a party's counsel before the High Court, stating they do not wish to reopen a cancelled allotment, bind the party in subsequent proceedings?
- Whether a question of entitlement to land stands foreclosed once a review application challenging its cancellation is dismissed by the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And OTHER1986 CLC 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs Hakim NISAR AHMED And Other1986 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an eviction order against a tenant, Muhammad Latif, initiated by the landlord, Hakim Nisar Ahmed, on grounds of personal requirement for his son, unauthorized subletting, and default in rent payment. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on personal requirement and unauthorized subletting. The Additional District Judge upheld the eviction solely on the ground of personal requirement, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the ejectment application was incompetent because another shop owned by the landlord had become vacant prior to the filing of the application, rendering the current eviction unnecessary. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that it is the prerogative of the landlord, not the tenant, to determine which premises are suitable for the specific trade or business intended for their family member. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the landlord has the discretion to choose the property best suited for their bona fide requirement.
Questions settled- Can a tenant dictate which of a landlord's properties should be used to satisfy the landlord's personal requirement?
- Is a landlord's ejectment application incompetent if another property owned by the landlord becomes vacant before the application is filed?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF RAN DH AWA vs EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, PUNJAB BAR1986 CLC 2447 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI vs CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD (E), WAPDA1986 PLC (C.S.) 544 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI vs CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD (E) WAPDA1986 PLC (C.S.) 111 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI And Another vs The CHAIRMAN, A.E.B.(E) WAPDA1986 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The two petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution raise a common question of law concerning whether a service grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, filed under a misconception of law, can be considered sufficient compliance with rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act read with section 17 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act. A further question examined is whether non-compliance with rule 11 of the said rules could be ignored in entertaining and adjudicating the petitioners' appeals. Noting a divergence of opinion on the matter, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement.
Questions settled- Can a service grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance be taken as sufficient compliance with rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Whether non-compliance with rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 can be ignored for entertaining and adjudicating appeals by the Service Tribunal?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF and others vs ABDUL KARIM and others1986 MLD 584 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF And Another vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL And 2 Other1986 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition, which challenged an appellate order setting aside an eviction decision on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved. The core legal question concerned whether observations made by the High Court regarding the potential lack of jurisdiction of a civil court over evacuee property would prejudice the petitioners' future legal recourse. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the grievance regarding the High Court's observations was justified, as it could prejudice the petitioners' civil suit. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it to the extent of quashing the High Court's observations concerning the civil court's jurisdiction over evacuee property, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The key principle laid down is that superior courts should avoid making observations on matters such as civil court jurisdiction that might prejudice a party's right to seek independent legal remedies regarding property title.
Questions settled- Whether observations made by the High Court regarding the jurisdiction of a civil court over evacuee property should be quashed if they prejudice a party's title suit?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal to address prejudicial observations made by a lower court?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF and another vs HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN and anothers1986 MLD 2885 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LAIQ vs SULTAN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 108 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHURSHID vs WAZIRZADA And Other1986 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which granted bail to respondents convicted of various offenses, including murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by granting bail to convicted persons based on the fact that the trial court had erroneously awarded a five-year sentence for a Section 302 offense, rather than the mandatory death or life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the trial court committed a legal error in sentencing, and the High Court further erred by applying the criteria of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—which governs pre-trial bail—to a post-conviction bail application under Section 426. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and cancelled the bail. The judgment establishes that bail under Section 426 cannot be justified by relying on an illegal, lenient sentence imposed by a trial court in contravention of mandatory sentencing provisions.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on an illegally lenient sentence imposed by a trial court?
- Does the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to bail applications filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a sentence of five years imprisonment for an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 legally valid?
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 102 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Syed ABDUL KHALIQ AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an election dispute where the Election Tribunal declared the election of the returned candidate, Muhammad Khan, null and void, citing a disqualification under Article 10(2)(b)(8) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, due to a subsisting government contract. The core legal question was whether a contract is considered 'subsisting' for disqualification purposes if the contractor has physically completed the work within the stipulated time, even if final measurements and payments occurred post-nomination. The Supreme Court held that the disqualification clause must be strictly construed, as it is penal in nature. The Court determined that where a candidate has performed their contractual obligations within the agreed timeframe and communicated an intention to cease being an approved contractor, the contract does not remain 'subsisting' merely because administrative formalities like final measurements or payments are pending. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the candidate suffered no disqualification. The principle laid down is that for disqualification to apply, a candidate must have a subsisting interest in both the contract and its active execution; completed performance terminates this interest.
Questions settled- Does a government contract remain 'subsisting' for election disqualification purposes if the contractor has completed the work but final payment is pending?
- Should election disqualification provisions be interpreted strictly or broadly?
- Can a candidate unilaterally terminate their status as an approved government contractor to avoid disqualification?
- Does the mere pendency of administrative formalities like final measurements constitute a subsisting interest in the execution of a contract?
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of the respondents, who were initially convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and subsequently acquitted by the High Court. After leave to appeal was granted and non-bailable warrants were issued, the respondents surrendered. Pending the hearing of the appeal, the respondents applied for bail. The core legal question concerns the discretion of the court to grant bail to respondents in an appeal against acquittal after leave has been granted, particularly when the appeal is delayed. The Supreme Court held that one of the applicants, who was attributed a minor role and had faced a significant delay of over a year without the appeal being fixed for hearing, should be released on bail, while the bail applications of the remaining two applicants were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that post-leave bail in appeals against acquittal may be considered in cases involving lesser attribution coupled with unreasonable delay in the fixation of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted to respondents in an appeal against acquittal after leave has been granted by the Supreme Court?
- Does a minor attribution coupled with a delay in fixing the appeal for hearing constitute sufficient ground for granting bail?
- What is the principle applied when considering a bail application pending the hearing of an appeal against acquittal?
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI TRANSPORT1986 PLC 159 · Labour Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN CHEEMA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 300(2) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two criminal petitions: one filed by the accused convicts against their convictions and sentences for double murder, and the other filed by the complainant for the enhancement of those sentences. The core legal question involves whether the Supreme Court should reappraise the evidence and interfere with concurrent factual findings of the courts below regarding convictions and the reduction of sentences. The Supreme Court held that it is not inclined to enter into a reappraisal of evidence or reverse concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts when no valid legal contention is raised, and further held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for awarding lesser sentences are tenable. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to reappraise evidence to upset concurrent findings of fact in criminal petitions where no substantial question of law is presented.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence to reverse concurrent findings of fact reached by courts below when no legal contention is urged?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with an impugned judgment reducing a sentence where the reasons recorded by the High Court are tenable?
- MUHAMMAD KHAN And Others vs STATE and others-1986 P Cr. L J 2615 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 5 OTHERSConvicts vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALIL vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERTIVE DEPTT.1986 PLC (C.S.) 300(1) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALID vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, Muhammad Khalid, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Naseem Akhtar, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and for house-trespass under Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and fines by the trial court, which were subsequently maintained by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the petitioner's defence version, which claimed the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation after he allegedly discovered his wife in a compromising position with a stranger. Upon reviewing the judgments of the courts below, the Supreme Court found that the defence version had been properly evaluated and correctly rejected by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the plea lacked merit and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the conviction and sentences imposed upon the petitioner. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of a defence plea when properly considered by lower courts.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the rejection of a defence plea?
- Does the discovery of a spouse in a compromising position automatically constitute grave and sudden provocation for murder?
- MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALID PERVEZ UPPAL vs The CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 117 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALID And 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ And Another1986 P Cr. L J 115 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAIR UL AZAM And 2 Others vs MEHTARJO TAJ MUHAMMAD1986 CLC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUSTAQEEM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 2290 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KAMIL And Others MUHAMMAD KAMIL And Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION, COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JUMAN vs DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,1986 PLC 394 · Labour Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JI vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1986 MLD 2510 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SAHIWAL And OTHER1986 CLC 2410(1) · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And OTHER1986 CLC 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL And ANOTHER vs THE STATE---Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 462 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL And Another vs THE STATE- Respondent1986 P Cr. L J 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMEEL And Others vs ZAHOOR AHMAD1986 SCMR 1088 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the tenant petitioners by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently reversed by the District Judge and upheld in second appeal by the Lahore High Court. The respondent-landlord sought the ejectment of the petitioners from a shop in Shahi Bazar, Bahawalpur, on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement for his business, as he operated an adjacent shop and needed space for extension and storage. The core legal question was whether the landlord's requirement was bona fide and whether he was entitled to seek vacation of a rented or owned property despite occupying other premises. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide need of the landlord, recorded by the first appellate court and the High Court, were based on proper appreciation of evidence and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that a landlord has a right to seek the ejectment of a tenant for personal use notwithstanding the occupation of other rented premises, and concurrent findings of fact on bona fide need, if not based on misreading of evidence, are binding in appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can seek ejectment of a tenant for personal use when already occupying other premises?
- Are concurrent or non-concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide need binding in second appeal if not based on misreading of evidence?
- Can a landlord claim a shop in good faith for the extension of an existing business and storage of goods?
- MUHAMMAD JAMALUDDIN vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1986 PLC 582 · Labour Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JALAT KHAN And ANOTHER vs GHULAM SARWAR Represented By Legal Heirs And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 552 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the first appellate court granted the plaintiff a partial decree for agricultural land on payment of a proportionate sale price. However, the court inadvertently miscalculated the proportionate price as Rs. 2,128 instead of Rs. 1,128, and failed to specify a time limit for the deposit of the excess amount. The vendees subsequently sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the excess pre-emption money was not deposited within a reasonable time. The High Court, affirming the decision of the Single Judge and the Senior Civil Judge, held that the error in the first appellate court's judgment was a clerical and arithmetical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission. Under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, such errors can be corrected by the court at any time, either of its own motion or on application, without any limitation period. The court ruled that a party cannot be made to suffer due to an act or mistake of the court, and the correction takes effect retrospectively.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emptor be penalized for failing to deposit excess pre-emption money within a specific time frame when the decreeing court failed to prescribe any time limit for such deposit?
- Whether a clerical or arithmetical mistake in a judgment or decree can be corrected by a court at any time under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does any period of limitation apply to an application seeking the correction of an accidental slip or clerical error in a judgment or decree?
- Whether a correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake in a judgment takes effect retrospectively from the date of the original judgment.
- MUHAMMAD JAFFAR vs Mst. KHAIRAN and 6 others1986 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ITTEFAQ vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a correction in a sentencing order where the trial court, having originally awarded death sentences, failed to specify that the subsequent sentences of imprisonment for life and imprisonment under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should run concurrently. The Supreme Court observed that the consecutive running of these sentences violated the statutory requirements set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the Court noted that the trial court's omission to order concurrent sentencing was an error in light of the modification of the original death penalty. Relying on established precedent and the interest of justice, the Court held that all sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner must run concurrently rather than consecutively. This judgment reaffirms the principle that where multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed, the court must ensure compliance with the statutory provisions governing the concurrent running of such sentences to avoid illegality.
Questions settled- Does the consecutive running of multiple sentences of imprisonment violate the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the Supreme Court direct that sentences of imprisonment run concurrently when the trial court failed to specify such an order?
- MUHAMMAD ISRAR And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1986 CLC 340 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs PIR MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Rev. 157 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-03-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD SALEH1986 MLD 11 · Board of Revenue · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs Mst. BRAG BIBI and another1986 MLD 2576 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs ABDUL SATTARR and another1986 MLD 1814 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs MUHAMMD FAZIL and others1986 MLD 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2237 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs SALIMULLAH1986 MLD 910 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others vs Mst. KAPURI and others1986 MLD 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND 6 OTHERS vs GHULLAM SARWAR ,>ND 5 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 75 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2067 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and others1986 MLD 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs ABDUL JABBAR And Another1986 PCrLJ 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs THE STATE1986 P C r. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-03Read full judgment →