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 IRSHAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDINGS (NORTH ZONE), LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 174 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 788 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRFAN ZAHID vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LIVESTOCK AND DAIRY1986 PLC (C.S.) 994 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRFAN And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2329 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRFAN ALAM vs THE STATE and 3 others1986 MLD 2813 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL ZIA and 3 others vs NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TIB, ISLAMABAD and 3 others1986 MLD 489 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1425 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Raja MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND OTHERS s1986 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the Board of Revenue issued a notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, declaring that no right of pre-emption would exist for three years regarding certain sales in favour of displaced persons affected by the construction of the Mangla Dam. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the notification extinguished the pre-emptor's right before the decree. The appellate courts reversed this, holding the notification was prospective and did not affect accrued rights. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that a pre-emptor must possess the right of pre-emption on the date of sale, the date of filing the suit, and the date of the decree. Where a notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 is issued during the pendency of a suit and before a decree is passed, it effectively extinguishes the right of pre-emption, preventing the court from granting a decree.
Questions settled- Must a pre-emptor's right to pre-empt subsist continuously from the date of sale up to the date of the decree?
- Does a notification issued under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 during the pendency of a suit extinguish a pre-emptor's right if no decree has yet been passed?
- Can a pre-emption notification taking away the right of pre-emption affect a case where a decree has already been obtained by the pre-emptor prior to its promulgation?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC 51 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Other1986 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which accepted a Regular Second Appeal and modified the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts regarding the partition of disputed property. The respondent had filed a suit for possession through partition, to which the petitioner contested ownership regarding items Jeem and Dal. The trial court and the District Judge held in favour of the petitioner, finding that items Jeem and Dal belonged to him. However, the High Court reversed these concurrent findings of fact and ordered the entire property, including Jeem and Dal, to be partitioned. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court legally erred in setting aside concurrent findings of fact and misread the documentary evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised require detailed examination, and directed that the interim order shall continue pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and first appellate courts in a second appeal?
- Does the misreading of a documentary agreement by the appellate court warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether properties claimed to be exclusively owned by a defendant can be subjected to partition without resolving ownership disputes?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MANSAB And Other1986 SCMR 609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction and sentences of three respondents under section 302/34 and section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were set aside and they were acquitted. The core legal question involves evaluating the correctness of the High Court's appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the right of private defence, the explanation of injuries on the accused, the reliability of the motive, and the credibility of eyewitness and recovery evidence in a murder trial. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court was reasonable and supported by the record, noting that the prosecution failed to plausibly explain the incised injuries sustained by the respondents, that the defence version was corroborated by medical evidence, and that material flaws existed in the prosecution's case regarding motive, the informant's status, and weapon recoveries. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the extension of the benefit of doubt to the respondents and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's acquittal of the accused on the basis of an unexplained injury on the accused's side and a plausible right of private defence warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the injuries sustained by the accused undermine the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Whether the recovery of weapons from an open public place after a significant delay can be safely relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Does a judgment of acquittal proceeding on grounds well accepted for the safe administration of criminal justice call for interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 81 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Fand1986 P Cr. L J 906(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs DEPUTY MANAGER, WORKSHOP M.C.P., FAISALABAD1986 PLC 692 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 796 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL TOOR vs Mian MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1986 P Cr. L J 503 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL RAFI And 2 Others vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, LAHORE1986 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside a single judge's decision and upholding the Provincial Government's admission policy for medical colleges. The core legal question was whether the government's rule deducting ten marks for each extra chance availed or attempt made to improve marks in F.Sc./B.Sc. examinations was arbitrary, and whether failure to implead affected students was fatal to the constitutional petitions. The Supreme Court held that the government possesses the lawful authority to frame such admission policies in the broader academic interest without judicial interference unless proven unreasonable or arbitrary, and that failing to implead necessary parties whose admissions would be affected is fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition. The key principles established are that executive policy regarding educational admissions is a matter of administrative discretion entitled to judicial deference if not arbitrary, and that affected beneficiaries must be impleaded as necessary parties in constitutional petitions challenging admissions.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Government has the right to lay down a policy deducting marks for extra chances in F.Sc. examinations for medical college admissions?
- Is the rule deducting ten marks for each additional attempt made to pass or improve marks in the Intermediate Examination arbitrary?
- Does the failure to implead students who would be affected by the success of a constitutional petition against medical college admissions render the petition fatal?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED1986 PLC 77 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, MILLAT TRACTORS Ltd. And 2 Others1986 PLC 80 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs Mst. SULTANA BEGUM and others1986 MLD 2305 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS vs MIRZA MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a decree for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell Government land. The original grantee (since deceased) entered into an oral agreement with the respondent to transfer the land once proprietary rights were conferred by the Provincial Government, receiving the consideration in advance. After proprietary rights were subsequently conferred on the deceased grantee's legal heirs, they refused to perform the contract and sold the land to the appellants. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an agreement to sell Government land, entered into prior to the acquisition of proprietary rights, is void or barred under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment, following its own Full Bench precedent. The Court held that an agreement to sell contingent upon the acquisition of proprietary rights is not an impermissible transfer or charge under Section 19 of the Act, nor does it violate public policy, making it legally enforceable once proprietary rights are conferred.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell Government land executed before the acquisition of proprietary rights violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912?
- Is a suit for specific performance maintainable upon an agreement to sell land where performance is postponed until proprietary rights are conferred by the Government?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 2573 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others vs ABDUL HAMID1986 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees, Muhammad Iqbal and others, challenging the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal (R.F.A.) in a pre-emption suit initiated by the respondent, Abdul Hamid. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the procedural implications of a plaintiff deliberately fixing a nominal court fee in a pre-emption suit and whether, under such circumstances, the trial court or appellate court is justified in allowing the plaintiff to subsequently rectify the deficiency in the court fee. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioners' counsel and the respondent's representative, determined that the petition raised substantial questions of law worthy of further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider the effect of the deliberate under-valuation of the court fee and the propriety of permitting the deficiency to be made up. The Court ordered the provision of security in the amount of Rs. 2,000 and allowed the parties to file additional documents for the final hearing on the same record.
Questions settled- Does the deliberate fixing of a nominal court fee in a pre-emption suit preclude the plaintiff from later making up the deficiency?
- Under what circumstances should a court allow a plaintiff to rectify a deficiency in court fees in a pre-emption case?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 954 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Another vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other1986 SCMR 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the fixation of seniority in the cadre of officiating Executive Engineers in Class I Service of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab. The core legal question involves the proper interpretation and application of seniority rules, specifically rule 15.2 and rule 15.4, concerning temporary Engineers, Class II Officers, and promotees regarding continuous officiation versus cadre seniority. The court granted leave to consider whether the Tribunal misconstrued the explanation to rule 15.2 and whether the relative seniority of the parties was correctly determined. The court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding continuous officiating service and the applicability of the rules required deeper consideration, thereby granting leave to appeal.
Questions settled- How is seniority determined for Class II Officers and temporary Engineers holding posts of Executive Engineers under rule 15.2?
- Whether continuous officiation as an Executive Engineer determines seniority in Class I Service under the applicable rules?
- Does the explanation to rule 15.2 apply to cases of promotion from Assistant Executive Engineers to Executive Engineers in the manner interpreted by the Service Tribunal?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1986 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a seniority dispute within the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab, specifically regarding the interpretation of the Irrigation Engineers Services (Class I) Rules, 1967. The core legal question was whether the government's notification granting "Class I status" to all Graduate Engineers ipso facto resulted in their encadrization into the Class I service, thereby requiring their induction at the junior Class I level regardless of their existing rank. The Supreme Court held that the mere up-gradation of status via notification does not constitute encadrization into the service established by the 1967 Rules. The Court clarified that the Rules of 1967 prescribe specific procedures for filling vacancies through absorption and promotion, which must be strictly followed. The Tribunal's reliance on the up-gradation notification to determine seniority was found to be legally flawed. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed that seniority lists be redrawn in accordance with the statutory provisions of the 1967 Rules, emphasizing that administrative up-gradation cannot override the established statutory framework for service recruitment and seniority.
Questions settled- Does the administrative up-gradation of status to Class I automatically result in encadrization into the Irrigation Engineers Service?
- Must seniority in the grade of Executive Engineer be determined by the rules governing promotion rather than by the date of up-gradation to Class I status?
- Does the Irrigation Engineers Services (Class I) Rules, 1967 require the department to classify vacant posts and fill them through specific absorption and promotion procedures?
- MUHAMMAD NABI And Others vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court which accepted the application of respondent No.1 and set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, dated 15-8-1985, through which bail was allowed to the petitioners. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail by a Sessions Judge who was merely attending to urgent matters during vacations rather than trying the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the bail order granted under such circumstances. The petition was dismissed with the observation that the trial judge should make every effort to dispose of the Sessions Trial expeditiously at the defence stage before the end of the year.
Questions settled- Was the High Court justified in setting aside an order of bail granted by a Sessions Judge who was merely attending to urgent matters during vacations?
- Can a Sessions Judge not trying the main case grant bail during vacation periods?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs Mst. SHAH BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD Azad J & K 184 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And 9 Others vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1986 CLC 207 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 21 OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL And 10 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 181 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias BALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 420 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs Messrs PACKAGES Ltd.1986 PLC 441 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ vs ABDUL AZIZ and another1986 MLD 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 344 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed before the High Court of Sindh by the applicant, who was sent up for trial before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicant sought to set aside the order taking cognizance and requested that the case be tried by a Magistrate of the First Class. The core legal question before the High Court was whether it retained revisional jurisdiction over cases relating to the enforcement of Hudood following the insertion of Article 203-DD into the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The High Court held that under Article 203-DD read with Article 203-G of the Constitution, revisional jurisdiction in respect of any case decided or proceedings pending before any criminal court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood is exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court. Consequently, the High Court held that the revision application was not maintainable before it and dismissed the application.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision application in a case relating to the enforcement of Hudood after the insertion of Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether Article 203-DD read with Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confers exclusive revisional jurisdiction on the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood matters?
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2575 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs SHAHAB DIN and 10 others1986 MLD 415 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs MUHAMMAD DIN And Other1986 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns five petitions for leave to appeal filed by the same petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the District Judge's decision to set aside eviction orders previously granted by the trial court. The petitioner sought the eviction of the respondents from specific premises under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1969. The appellate court had reversed the eviction decree, reasoning that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence establishing that the premises occupied by the respondents were part of the property transferred to the petitioner. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lower appellate court and the High Court erred by disregarding a judicial admission made by the respondents before the trial court, wherein they acknowledged their occupation of the premises in question. The Supreme Court, finding that the issue regarding the weight and effect of this admission required further consideration, granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts wrongly refused to rely on the respondents' statement. The Court directed the preparation of the record and expedited the hearing.
Questions settled- Whether a judicial admission made by a respondent regarding occupation of premises is binding upon the appellate court?
- Can an appellate court set aside an eviction order if it determines that the petitioner failed to prove the property was transferred to them?
- Does the failure of lower courts to consider a specific admission of fact by a party warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,1986 PLC (C.S.) 719 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHAN vs MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the mutation of land in the revenue records. The petitioner claimed ownership of the disputed land based on an agreement for sale executed in 1960. Following the death of the vendor, the Mukhtiarkar mutated the land in favor of the vendor's heirs. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner reversed this and mutated the land in the petitioner's name, which was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner on the ground that mutation cannot be effected on a mere agreement for sale without a registered sale-deed. The Member, Board of Revenue, subsequently remanded the matter to the Mukhtiarkar. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition against the remand order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that since a civil suit for specific performance was already pending, the civil court was the appropriate forum to decide the questions of title and locus standi. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a revisional order passed on the merits by the Board of Revenue is not rendered invalid even if intermediary appellate orders were allegedly time-barred.
Questions settled- Can revenue authorities effect a mutation of land in the revenue records solely on the basis of an agreement for sale in the absence of a registered sale-deed?
- Is a revisional order passed on the merits by the Board of Revenue rendered void or invalid if the intermediary appellate orders before the lower revenue authorities were allegedly time-barred?
- Should a constitutional court interfere with a revenue remand order when a civil suit for specific performance of the underlying agreement is already pending before a civil court?
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS End Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2647 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYA S KHAN and 4 others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1986 MLD 686 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KASUR1986 PLC (C.S.) 432 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM SHAH vs MEMBER (CUSTOMS), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1986 PLC (C.S.) 717 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM QURESHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 987 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IJAZ And 3 Others vs M. KHURSHID MALIK And 4 OTHER1986 CLC 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for permanent injunction and removal of a latrine spout, which the trial court decreed after the parties agreed to be bound by the court's spot inspection. The petitioner appealed, but the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal holding that the decision constituted a non-appealable consent decree. The Lahore High Court examined whether a decree based on an agreed procedure of court inspection operates as a consent decree barring an appeal under section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that where parties voluntarily agree to abandon the ordinary course of evidence and bind themselves to the decision of the court following a spot inspection, the resulting decree is a consent decree from which no appeal lies. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a decree passed on the basis of a court's spot inspection, accepted by the parties as binding, constitutes a consent decree?
- Does an appeal lie against a consent decree under section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can parties resile from an agreement to abide by a court's decision following a local inspection?
- MUHAMMAD IHSAN KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION A POWER DEPARTMENT And Another1986 PLC (C. S. ) 910 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT N0. 3 SHEIKHUPURA1986 PLC 605 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDRIS and another vs Mst. SAEEDA AMIN and another1986 MLD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2952 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This rent matter arose from a petition where the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent No. 3. The petitioner contended that the original owner, respondent No. 4, had executed an agreement for sale in his favour and claimed protection of his possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could invoke the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A to protect his possession. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner did not enter into possession of the property under or in terms of the contract/agreement for sale with respondent No. 4, he could not claim protection under the said provision. The Supreme Court found no force in the petition and dismissed it accordingly. The key principle laid down is that protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is not available to a party who did not obtain possession of the property under the terms of the agreement for sale.
Questions settled- Can a person claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 if possession was not obtained under the agreement for sale?
- Is a tenant entitled to deny the landlord-tenant relationship based on an unfulfilled sale agreement without entering possession pursuant to it?
- MUHAMMAD IDREES MUGHAL vs SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INTERIOR And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 396 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES Alias DIN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and 23 others--1986 P Cr. L J 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1782 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD ARIF SARDAR1986 CLC 2050 · Election Tribunal · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION Ltd.1986 PLC 217 · Labour Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs LAKHANO1986 PLD Rev. 99 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-06-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SHAUQ vs Haji MUHAMMAD JEE AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM DASTI And Another vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 845 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM BHATTI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM And Others vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND OTHERS vs QUDRAT ULLAH RUDDY AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioners to face trial under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite their earlier discharge during police investigation. The core legal questions involve whether the discharge of an accused by a Magistrate amounts to cancellation of the case, and under what circumstances a trial court may summon a previously discharged accused during ongoing proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the discharge of some accused while others are sent up for trial does not operate as a cancellation of the case against the discharged individuals, and that summoning an accused based on incomplete, un-cross-examined testimony is legally flawed. The court emphasized that evidence without cross-examination is not legally admissible evidence and set aside the summoning orders, directing the trial court to properly process the pending private complaint in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether the discharge of some accused persons by a Magistrate during investigation amounts to the cancellation of the case against them?
- Can a Court of Session summon a previously discharged accused on the basis of incomplete and un-cross-examined testimony?
- What is the legal effect of discharging an accused under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- How should a Court of Session handle a private complaint alongside a State case when certain accused have been discharged by the police?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 3 OTHERS vs Moulvi ABDUL REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 37 · Board of Revenue, Balochistan · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBAD ALI KHAN vs Haji JAM ALI KHAN1986 CLC 2680 · Board of Revenue · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs WAPDA And 2 Others1986 PLC 690 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2717 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 289 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1986 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Miss MUMTAZ And 9 Other1986 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three connected petitions for leave to appeal concerning property disputes and related ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) possessed the jurisdiction to re-examine the status of a property already transferred via a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) and whether the authority could disregard prior administrative orders that had previously classified the property as 'available'. The Supreme Court held that the matter regarding the property's status had been closed once and for all, and no further investigation into the property's availability was permissible once the P.T.D. had been issued. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions, upholding the principle that administrative authorities exercising jurisdiction under repealing legislation cannot reopen matters involving properties that have already been validly disposed of and transferred. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused as the Court found no merit in the contentions raised.
Questions settled- Can a Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) re-examine the status of property after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued?
- Does an administrative authority have the jurisdiction to reopen matters regarding property disposal that have already been finalized by previous settlement authorities?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Mian IQBAL SALA H UD DIN1986 CLC 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from an order restoring a suit dismissed in default under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner challenged the trial court's decision to restore the suit without framing issues or recording formal evidence, arguing that such proceedings require the same rigor as an original suit. The core legal question was whether a trial court is mandatorily required to frame issues and record evidence when deciding an application for restoration of a suit dismissed in default. The High Court held that no such mandatory requirement exists. The court ruled that a trial court may satisfy itself regarding the 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance through affidavits and other documentary material. While a party may request the cross-examination of a deponent, the court is not obligated to record oral evidence sua sponte if the material on record is sufficient. The principle laid down is that restoration proceedings are not required to be treated as original suits, and courts have the discretion to decide based on affidavits unless a specific request for cross-examination is made and granted.
Questions settled- Is a trial court mandatorily required to frame issues and record formal evidence when deciding an application for the restoration of a suit dismissed in default?
- Can a court rely on affidavits to determine the existence of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance in a restoration application?
- Does the failure of a party to request the cross-examination of a deponent preclude them from later challenging the reliance on that affidavit?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs LAL KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, concerning land originally allotted to the petitioner as a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, which he later had allotted in the name of a respondent and subsequently sold to his sons. A pre-emption suit was filed against the sale, prompting the petitioner to challenge the allotment in revision, which was allowed by the Settlement Commissioner upon the respondent's concession. Upon an application by the pre-emptor alleging fraud and misrepresentation, the Settlement Commissioner recalled the order and directed a rehearing, a decision upheld by the High Court despite arguments regarding the repeal of evacuee property laws. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner retained jurisdiction to entertain the application and recall the order after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that given the petitioner's conduct and the fraudulent manner in which the initial order was obtained, discretionary relief was rightly refused by the High Court on technical grounds of jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Commissioner has jurisdiction to recall an order secured through fraud and misrepresentation after the repeal of the evacuee property laws?
- Does a party obtaining an order through collusion and concession have the right to claim finality of such an order?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction to a party whose conduct involves fraud?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, INSERVICE1986 PLC 1111 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 116 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT And 21986 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And ANOTHER vs THE STATE and another1986 P C r. L J 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Another vs ALI GOHAR1986 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent, Ali Gohar, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption over the suit land based on his status as a co-sharer, a participator in amenities and appendages, and an owner of contiguous land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision subsequently upheld by the District Judge and the Peshawar High Court. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent retained his status as a co-sharer in the suit property despite the petitioner's contention that an official partition had occurred, thereby extinguishing the respondent's superior right. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts had concurrently determined the issue of the respondent's superior right based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. The Court affirmed that the finding regarding the respondent's status as a co-sharer was a finding of fact and that no substantial question of law was presented to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Questions settled- Does a finding regarding the status of a pre-emptor as a co-sharer constitute a question of fact?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a pre-emption suit?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 2 others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1986 MLD 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Alias MULLA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 337 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1986 PLC (C. S.) 888 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others1986 MLD 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs GUL MUHAMMAD and another1986 MLD 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs AHMAD YAR1986 PLD Lahore 270 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption where the trial court rejected the appellant's plaint for failing to deposit the required Zar-e-Panjum (1/5th of the sale price) by the deadline. The appellant was ordered to deposit the amount by May 9, 1976. As May 9 was a holiday, the appellant was entitled to deposit the amount on the next working day, May 10, 1976. However, the trial court rejected the plaint at 8:00 a.m. on May 10, 1976, after the appellant stated he lacked the funds at that early hour. The core legal question was whether a court has the jurisdiction to reject a plaint for non-deposit of Zar-e-Panjum before the expiry of the full day allowed for such deposit. The High Court held that the rejection was premature and legally unsustainable. The court established the principle that where a deadline falls on a holiday, the party has the entire next working day to comply; therefore, a court cannot reject a plaint during the course of that final day, regardless of a party's statement regarding their inability to pay at an early hour.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint for non-deposit of Zar-e-Panjum before the expiry of the full day allowed for the deposit?
- Does a party have the entire working day to deposit Zar-e-Panjum if the original deadline falls on a public holiday?
- Is an order rejecting a plaint for non-deposit of Zar-e-Panjum sustainable if passed in the early hours of the final day available for such deposit?
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 893 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 924 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT And 5 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs THE STATE and 8 others-1986 P Cr. L J 470 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs Mst. ROBINA SHAHEEN And ANOTHER1986 CLC 275 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 3 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE-II AND 20 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 422 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs Mst. ASHA AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 55 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASAN vs MUHAMMAD BACHAL1986 PLD Rev. 119 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-05-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAROON vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EAST), KARACHI and 111986 MLD 2933 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →