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 ASLAM vs RASUL BAKHSH and others1986 MLD 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD RAHIM1986 PLD Rev. 40 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-12-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2330 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE And Another1986P L C (C.S.) 891 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs ABDUL HAMID KHAN1986 MLD 995 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs ABDUL AZIZ1986 MLD 8 · Board of Revenue · 1985-11-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM SIDDIQUI vs Mst. HASINA BEGUM1986 MLD 735 · Sindh High Court · 1958-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE And Other1986 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-25
  service appealsenioritydirect recruit versus promoteeeducational qualificationsservice tribunalspecial leave to appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal regarding seniority and educational qualifications. The core legal questions involved whether a direct recruit could claim seniority over departmental promotees appointed earlier or in the same year under applicable service rules, and whether the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualifications for the post. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not claim seniority over respondents promoted prior to his entry into service, nor over a respondent promoted in the same year based on established statutory principles of seniority. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner lacked the prescribed educational qualifications based on expert opinion and that rule relaxation lay within the exclusive competence of the Federal Public Service Commission. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of force, and the principle was affirmed that new factual contentions regarding quota allocations cannot be raised for the first time before the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a direct recruit claim seniority over departmental promotees who were promoted prior to the direct recruit's entry into service?
  • Are officers promoted to a higher grade in a continuous arrangement and regular measure in a particular year ranked senior to those appointed by direct recruitment in the same year?
  • Can a new factual plea requiring investigation be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not pressed or examined before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the relaxation of prescribed educational qualifications lie within the exclusive competence of the Federal Public Service Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 1021 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs ATTAI KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-12
  constitutional petitionleave to appealno-confidence motionstatutory functionarywithdrawal of petitionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Chairman of the Local Council, sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition as withdrawn. The underlying petition alleged that the petitioner had colluded with a statutory functionary to delay a no-confidence motion. During the High Court proceedings, the statutory functionary undertook to convene the meeting within ten days. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the court should not have accepted such an undertaking from the functionary in his absence and that the functionary lacked the legal authority to make such a commitment. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the dismissal of a petition as withdrawn does not raise a serious question of law. The Court reasoned that the statutory functionary's undertaking is not a matter for constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. If the functionary exceeds their jurisdiction or power while implementing the undertaking, the petitioner retains the right to pursue separate, appropriate legal remedies. The Court declined to prematurely examine the validity of the functionary's statement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a constitutional petition dismissed as withdrawn raise a substantial question of law for the Supreme Court?
  • Can a court interfere with a statement or undertaking made by a statutory functionary during writ proceedings before that undertaking is implemented?
  • Is a separate legal remedy available if a statutory functionary exceeds their jurisdiction while implementing an undertaking given to a court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM HAYAT vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM BHUTTA vs DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE, PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 406 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Another1986 SCMR 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-26
  sublettingdefault in payment of rentrent restrictionconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a rent restriction matter, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent and whether rent tendered by the alleged subtenant constituted a default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner-tenant had unlawfully made another person a partner in the tenancy and went abroad, with rent remitted by the said partner, constituting a clear case of subletting without the landlord's consent. Consequently, the tender of rent by the unauthorized subtenant was lawfully refused by the landlord, amounting to a default in the payment of rent. The court laid down the principle that inducting a partner into a tenancy without the landlord's consent, coupled with the tenant leaving abroad and rent being paid by that partner, constitutes subletting, and rent tendered by such an unauthorized person can be lawfully refused, amounting to default. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does inducting a partner into a tenancy without the landlord's consent amount to subletting?
  • Can a landlord lawfully refuse rent tendered by an unauthorized subtenant?
  • Does the remittance of rent by an unassociated partner during the tenant's absence constitute default in payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Another vs TUFAIL AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2262 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2810 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another vs EHSAN ULLAH1985 MLD 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And 6 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2661 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Alias MOULVI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-11
  criminal appealinfructuous appealmootnessrelease on probationSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question addressed was whether the appeal remained maintainable given the subsequent release of the appellant. Upon review of the record, the Court observed that the appellant had been released on 11 October 1982 by the Assistant Director Reclamation and Probation, Lahore, as confirmed by official correspondence from the Superintendent of Jail, Gujranwala. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the appellant's release. The key principle established is that where an appellant has already been released from custody, rendering the relief sought in the appeal moot, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Does the release of an appellant from custody render a pending criminal appeal infructuous?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed if the relief sought has already been granted through administrative action?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias BILLU vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Alias BILLA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 779 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1691 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF ALI vs AHMAD NASEEM And 7 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1316 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2209 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1785 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE DIRECTOR, FOOD PUNJAB, LAHORE And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, SARGODHA1986 PLC (S.C.) 253 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 3 others1986 MLD 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs NATHO1986 PLD Rev. 45 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-02-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Messrs PROVINCO GINNERS (PRIVATE) Ltd. and 21986 MLD 2681 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHOKHAR vs CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, ISLAMABAD1986 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-19
  service lawmala fideannual confidential recordpromotionofficiating promotionburden of proofpublic functionaries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Railway Board, challenged his reversion from a Grade-17 officiating post to his substantive Grade-16 position and sought regularization of his prior service in the higher grade. He contended that his non-promotion was based on a mala fide 'average' grading in his Annual Confidential Record (A.C.R.) for 1976. The Federal Service Tribunal rejected his appeal, finding no evidence of bias, noting that the Countersigning Officer had previously supported the petitioner's career progression. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the allegation of mala fide regarding the A.C.R. entry. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding the petitioner's allegations of mala fide were vague and lacked specific factual support. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that allegations of mala fide against public functionaries must be based on specific facts and proven conclusively, rather than mere assertions. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Must allegations of mala fide against public functionaries be supported by specific facts?
  • Can a court interfere with an administrative decision based on an A.C.R. grading in the absence of concrete evidence of bias?
  • Is an employee entitled to regularization of service in a higher grade simply by virtue of having worked in that position on an officiating basis?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KAYANI vs REGISTRAR, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH1986 PLC (C.S.) 525 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ASGHAR vs MEMBER (Revenue), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 411 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Others vs The SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-30
  ad hoc appointmentstopgap arrangementservice lawpromotionlocus standireversionprovisional appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the cancellation of the petitioners' promotion to the post of Food-grain Supervisor in the Food Department of the Government of the Punjab. The petitioners, initially recruited as Chowkidars, were promoted to the supervisor post in 1979, but the Secretary to the Government subsequently cancelled these promotions in 1983. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, whose promotions were characterized as stopgap arrangements subject to committee clearance, possessed a vested right to the post or were entitled to a hearing before reversion. The Supreme Court held that the promotions were provisional and ad hoc in nature, necessitated by temporary procurement work, and did not confer any permanent rights upon the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court noted that the relevant rules prescribed initial recruitment rather than promotion for the post. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners lacked the locus standi to challenge the Government's decision to revert them, as ad hoc appointees have no vested right to continue in a post. The petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad hoc promotion made as a stopgap arrangement confer a vested right to the post?
  • Can an employee challenge the cancellation of an ad hoc promotion on the grounds of lack of opportunity of hearing?
  • Does an employee holding a provisional appointment have the locus standi to challenge their reversion?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others1986 MLD 1904 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM and others1986 MLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2212 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And 4 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2786 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2703 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2873 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others vs Khawaja SAEED-UL-HASSAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAHIMYAR KHAN and another1986 MLD 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALI MUHAMMAD SHOAIB vs MUHAMMAD NASEER And 21986 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-27
  statutory delegationnatural justiceestoppelconstitutional jurisdictionallotment cancellationadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals concern the management and allotment of shops in the Saddar Co-operative Market, Karachi, governed by the West Pakistan Co-operative Board (Dissolution) Act 1966. The core legal questions were whether the Administrator appointed under the Act could delegate statutory powers to subordinates in the absence of an enabling provision, and whether a party is estopped from challenging the Administrator's jurisdiction after consenting to a remand. The Supreme Court held that the Administrator lacked the power to delegate his authority, rendering orders passed by subordinates void. In the first appeal, the Court ruled that the respondent was estopped from challenging the Administrator's jurisdiction, having consented to the remand. In the second appeal, the Court held that the cancellation of allotment was invalid due to a breach of natural justice, as the affected party was not given notice. The key principle laid down is that statutory powers cannot be delegated unless the statute expressly provides for such delegation, and parties cannot challenge a forum's jurisdiction after consenting to a remand to that forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority delegate its powers in the absence of an express enabling provision in the governing statute?
  • Is a party estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of an authority if they previously consented to a remand of the case to that same authority?
  • Does an order of cancellation of allotment passed without notice to the affected party violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs The STATE1986 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptionbenefit of the doubtcredibility of witnessraid witnesssentence modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of the appellant, a Consolidation Patwari, under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for accepting illegal gratification. Leave to appeal was initially granted to examine whether the courts below ignored the cardinal principle of extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, given that the principal prosecution witness made concessions in cross-examination. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, noting that the testimony of the raiding magistrate corroborating the recovery of tainted money was reliable and that the defense's explanation lacked plausibility. The Court held that minor or favorable concessions made in cross-examination by a witness do not discredit the consistent and corroborated ocular testimony of the raiding official. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on merits while modifying the substantive sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, considering the passage of substantial time since the commencement of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions or concessions in cross-examination by a principal witness are sufficient to discredit reliable corroborative testimony regarding a corruption raid?
  • Does the failure of an accused to offer a plausible explanation during examination support the prosecution's case in a corruption matter?
  • Can the Supreme Court modify a substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone due to the protracted passage of time during appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 841 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1030 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs Ch. IMDAD ALI And Other1986 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-03
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantleave to appealidentity of propertyconcurrent findingssubletting
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had concurrently upheld concurrent ejectment orders passed against him by the lower authorities. The core legal controversy centered on the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, disputed through the identification of the property transferred at an auction and subsequently sold to the respondents, alongside allegations of subletting and procedural grievances regarding lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower forums regarding the identity of the property and the landlord-tenant relationship suffered from no legal or jurisdictional defect, and that the petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunity to prosecute his case. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that concurrent factual determinations supported by elaborate inquiries do not warrant further examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be interfered with in second appeal?
  • Does failure to avail opportunities to prove a case at lower stages constitute a valid ground for leave to appeal?
  • Whether a dispute over the identity of transferred property affects the establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 186 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR MALIK vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1986 CLC 2136 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 5 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 432 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2443 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE Respondent1986 P Cr. L J 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LIVESTOCK1986 PLC (C.S.) 506 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE And 4 Others1986 PLC 437 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SHAMI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SAEED vs PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-22
  service tribunalsenioritycivil servantpromotionleave to appealpolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant in the Police Group, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding his placement in the provisional seniority list. The core legal questions involved whether initial seniority could be antedated prior to actual selection, whether future promotion prospects formed part of terms and conditions of service, the legality of lateral entries and quota promotions, and the validity of the five-year service requirement in Grade-17 for promotion to Grade-18. The Supreme Court held that seniority cannot be antedated to a date prior to actual selection, promotion prospects are not part of service terms and conditions, and appointments made by the competent authority under the applicable rules were valid. The Court concluded that none of the petitioner's grounds were tenable and consequently refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim seniority from a date prior to their actual selection and entry into service?
  • Whether future prospects of promotion form part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Are appointments made by the competent authority from the Armed Forces and Provincial Police violative of the rules if made in accordance with applicable Federal rules?
  • Is the requirement of five years minimum service in Grade-17 for promotion to Grade-18 consistent with the civil service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WASEEM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2275 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD BUTT vs Mrs. A BI DA SA LA HUD DIN alias BENISH H1986 MLD 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 127 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 315 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 656 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2265 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF BUTT vs LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD1986 PLC 331 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF and others vs BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION and others1986 MLD 749 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AQEEL Alias BILLA vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-05
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancecompromisereduction of sentenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Muhammad Aqeel alias Billa, was tried and convicted of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving the death sentence, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. Upon a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel informed the court that the parties had reached a compromise to live in peace and amity, with the accused party paying one hundred thousand rupees to the legal heirs of the deceased, who acknowledged receipt in court. The core legal question addressed was whether a compromise between the parties and payment of compensation can constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that, in light of the precedent in Muhammad Bashir v. The State PLD 1982 SC 139, the compromise constitutes a mitigating circumstance entitling the appellant to a lesser sentence. The court accordingly accepted the appeal, reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life, and granted the benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, establishing that a genuine compromise between the parties in a murder case can serve as a valid mitigating factor for sentence reduction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence?
  • Can the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted upon the reduction of a sentence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life based on a monetary settlement and compromise between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2364 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE-.1986 P Cr. L J 1150 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MUHAMMAD ALI Etc.1986 SCMR 1511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-30
  criminal petitionspecial leave to appealacquittalconvictionlimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court. The first petition, Criminal Petition No. 274 of 1982, was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of eight accused respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the said respondents. The second petition, Criminal Petition No. 341 of 1982, was filed by two convicts against their conviction and sentences, suffering from a question of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusion regarding the acquittal was correct and dismissed the first petition on merits. Furthermore, the Court held that the second petition was time-barred without sufficient grounds shown for condonation of delay and dismissed it accordingly. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's proper acquittal order, and time-barred petitions without sufficient cause for delay are liable to dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's judgment acquitting the accused?
  • Whether a time-barred petition for special leave to appeal can be entertained without sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. And Other1986 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-10
  Section 20 Arbitration ActArbitration AgreementConcluded ContractReference to ArbitrationFiling Agreement in Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from an application filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a direction to the respondents to file an arbitration agreement in court and refer their dispute to arbitration. The respondents contested the application, denying the existence of any arbitration agreement. A Single Judge of the Sindh High Court dismissed the application on finding that no concluded agreement or arbitration agreement existed between the parties, supported by a certificate confirming the alleged contract was not approved or confirmed by the foreign government involved. A Division Bench of the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court, observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any contract containing an arbitration agreement. Finding no question of law arising for consideration, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 be allowed when the existence of a concluded contract containing an arbitration agreement is not established?
  • Whether an unapproved or unconfirmed contract can constitute a valid arbitration agreement for reference to arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie before the Supreme Court when concurrent findings establish the absence of an arbitration agreement and raise no question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, STORES AND1986 PLC 459 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR SIRAJWAL vs Messrs UNITED INDUSTRIES Ltd. FAISALABAD1986 PLC 652 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR MINHAS vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 237 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs THE STATE1986 PCr. L J 2638(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR CHOUHAN vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GUJRANWALA And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 152 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2164 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Home Department and 2 others1986 MLD 1440 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-18
  constitutional petitiondisputed questions of factvehicle seizureinterim custodycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the release of a motor vehicle seized by the police following a dispute over its ownership and possession between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. The core legal question was whether disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership and seizure of a vehicle can be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction when a civil suit and a magistrate's application are already pending. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition raises disputed questions of fact that cannot be enquired into under Article 199, especially when the title of the vehicle is the subject-matter of a pending civil suit and an application for interim custody is already before the criminal court. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction will not be invoked to resolve disputed factual controversies regarding property ownership or to direct the delivery of possession when alternative remedies through civil and criminal courts are available and pending.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership and seizure of a vehicle be resolved under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether a constitutional petition for the recovery of a seized vehicle is maintainable when a civil suit concerning its title is already pending?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to grant possession of property through a constitutional petition when rival claims of custody are raised by private parties?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR And 3 Others vs ALLAH BAKHSH And Another1986 SCMR 1575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-28
  pre-emptionamendment of pleadingslimitationcause of actioncivil procedurepreferential right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute regarding a pre-emption suit where the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to include an additional ground for their preferential right to acquire suit land after the limitation period had expired. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor can be permitted to amend their plaint to introduce a new ground for pre-emption after the expiry of the limitation period. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to allow the amendment. The Court held that the law does not impose a strict limitation bar on amending a plaint to add a new ground for pre-emption, provided the amendment does not alter the fundamental character or cause of action of the suit. The Court emphasized that under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts are mandated to allow amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, and that the delay in filing such an application is not a sole determining factor, as the primary objective is to resolve the actual dispute between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor be allowed to add a new ground in a plaint after the expiry of the period of limitation?
  • Does the delay in applying for an amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, automatically bar such an amendment?
  • What is the primary condition for allowing an amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar & Other vs The StatePTCL 1986 CL. 150 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANIS QURESHI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, ISLAMABAD And 2 Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 664 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs ZAHID HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 156 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD YAR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-02
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionorder of successionsuperior pre-emptive valueinheritancevendee as heir
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the order of succession under section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and whether a vendee who is a potential heir (grandson) can defend a pre-emption suit despite the existence of an intervening living heir who has not sued. The Supreme Court held that the order of succession is examined in competition with the vendee or rival suitor actually filing the suit, and not in abstract with those who have not filed. The principle laid down is that a vendee who is entitled under the law to inherit the property at some stage can defend against pre-emption, as non-suing intermediate heirs do not bar the vendee's status as an heir for pre-emption purposes. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the order of succession under section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is to be examined in competition with non-suing heirs?
  • Can a vendee who is a potential heir defend a pre-emption suit even if an intermediate heir is alive and has not filed a suit?
  • Does the failure of a nearer heir to exercise the right of pre-emption act as a bar to the claim of remote or remoter heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANAYAT And 25 Other vs GHARIBWAL CEMENT Ltd.1986 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANAR Alias ANARA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 866 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD HANIF And Other1986 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27
  pre-emptionlimitation periodjoint landmutation of salephysical possessioncivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the determination of the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit, specifically whether limitation should be reckoned from the date of physical possession under the sale or from the date of the attestation of the mutation, in respect of a sale involving a share of joint unpartitioned land rather than a specific piece of land. The Supreme Court held that where the subject-matter of the sale is an undivided share of joint land and not specific land, physical possession cannot be deemed to have been taken under the sale so as to attract the limitation period under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, thereby making a suit brought within a year of the mutation attestation within time. The key principle laid down is that limitation tied to physical possession under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act does not apply to sales of undivided shares in joint land where specific physical possession is absent.

  Questions settled

  • From what point should the period of limitation be reckoned in a pre-emption suit involving joint land?
  • Does the taking of physical possession under a sale of an undivided share of joint land attract the limitation period under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Is a pre-emption suit filed within a year of the attestation of the mutation of sale considered within time when specific physical possession of joint land is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-25
  criminal leave to appealmurdermitigating circumstancesdeath sentencegrave and sudden provocationquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Amin against his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of death for the murder of Muhammad Aslam, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question is whether the hot-tempered and provocative conduct of the deceased—who rushed to remonstrate with the petitioner immediately after the petitioner had injured the deceased's brother—constitutes a mitigating circumstance sufficient to alter the sentence of death to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the question of sentence requires detailed consideration as to whether the lower courts accounted for all relevant mitigating circumstances surrounding the sudden provocation and passion in which the act was committed. The key principle laid down is that provocative conduct by a deceased person immediately following an altercation may serve as a relevant circumstance in adjudging the appropriate quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provocative conduct of a deceased person who rushed to remonstrate after an initial altercation serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence?
  • Whether the courts below failed to consider all relevant circumstances while awarding the sentence of death for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH1986 MLD 2717 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →