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 AMIN vs Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM and others1986 MLD 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs ALLAH RAKHA And Other1986 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a landlord's eviction application filed against the tenant in respect of rented shops on the grounds of personal requirement and sub-letting. The Rent Controller dismissed the personal requirement ground but ordered eviction from one shop for sub-letting, which decision was upheld by the first appellate court. However, upon a second appeal by the landlord, the Lahore High Court reversed the concurrent findings and ordered vacant possession of the entire premises on the ground of bona fide personal use. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact and whether the landlord's need could be satisfied by a part of the premises. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was competent to interfere in second appeal as the lower courts had omitted to consider the record correctly and misapplied the law, and further held that the plea regarding partial need could not be raised for the first time before the apex court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below in a second appeal regarding personal requirement of a landlord?
- Can a plea that the landlord's need is satisfied by only a part of the rented premises be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the landlord proved bona fide personal requirement for shifting back and establishing business in the disputed shops?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs ALI AHMAD1986 CLC 2356 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises out of a summary suit instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 based on a pronote and receipt. The trial court dismissed the defendant's application for leave to defend as time-barred under Article 159 of the Limitation Act and decreed the suit. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend in a summary suit commences when the summons is served without a copy of the plaint. The Lahore High Court held that proper service under Order XXXVII requires the summons in the prescribed form to be accompanied by a copy of the plaint so the defendant is fully aware of the claim. The ratio is that limitation under Article 159 does not begin to run if the summons is not served along with a copy of the plaint, rendering any dismissal of a leave application on the ground of delay unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure commence if the summons is served without a copy of the plaint?
- Is a defendant entitled to have the delay condoned or treated as non-existent when the prescribed summons lacks a copy of the claim?
- Can penal provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure be applied to shut out a defendant's defense when proper service has not been effected?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs AFZAL AHMAD Alias AFZAAL AHMAD And ANOTHER1986 CLC 126 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit for specific performance where the trial court partially rejected the plaint, citing the bar of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 and the existence of alternative claims. The core legal questions were whether a plaint could be rejected in part under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether a court may consider the defendant's written statement when determining if the plaint discloses a cause of action. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part; if grounds for rejection exist under Order VII, Rule 11, the entire plaint must be rejected. Furthermore, the Court established that when assessing whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must rely exclusively on the averments contained within the plaint, disregarding any defences raised by the defendant. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's order of partial rejection and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected in part under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Should the court consider the defendant's written statement when determining if a plaint discloses a cause of action?
- Does an appeal lie to the District Judge or the High Court when the value of the suit exceeds fifty thousand rupees?
- Is an order returning a memorandum of appeal appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH vs HAJI MUHAMMAD1986 MLD 2747 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN BHATTI vs FINANCE MANAGER, SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS Ltd.1986 PLC 464 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 782(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN And Another vs ALLAH WASAYA And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN And 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another1986 SCMR 1790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 15-10-1984, which set aside an order regarding the land allotment and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision after hearing the concerned parties. The core legal question involved the validity of the High Court's interference in writ jurisdiction on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and whether a vendor had locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction without joining the vendee. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order suffered from no infirmity as the learned Judge properly addressed the questions involved and distinguished relevant authorities. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the remand order for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can set aside an administrative order in writ jurisdiction on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice?
- Does a vendor have locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without impleading the vendee?
- Can questions of fact regarding presence and service recorded by a Settlement Commissioner be investigated in writ jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Alias MINA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2261 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Alias MAHNA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2293 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALIM vs AHMED MIAN1986 MLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD alias MAMM vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD Alias JUMMA And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2168 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD Alias JHARI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2535 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs The MANAGING DIRECTOR, LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS And Another1986 PLC 1149 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs Mst. HABIBA and 6 others1986 MLD 1291 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs LYALLPUR CHEMICAL & FERTILIZERS LIMITED JARANWALA1986 PLC 1114 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DADU and 2 others1986 MLD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs D.S.C. and others1986 MLD 659 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1962-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the removal of the Secretary of the Municipal Committee, Kamoke, from service. The appellant was removed following a recommendation by a Screening Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner under the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether the Screening Committee was validly constituted and whether the removal complied with the statutory requirement of being ordered by the appointing authority. The Supreme Court held that the Central Government had delegated the power to constitute Screening Committees exclusively to the 'Heads of Corporations.' The Provincial Government's attempt to delegate this power to the Deputy Commissioner was ultra vires, as the Deputy Commissioner did not qualify as the Head of the Corporation. Consequently, the Screening Committee was invalidly constituted, rendering the removal order based on its recommendation bad in law. The Court established the principle that delegated statutory powers must be exercised strictly within the limits defined by the delegating authority, and subordinate governments cannot expand the scope of such delegation to include unauthorized officials.
Questions settled- Can a Provincial Government delegate the power to constitute a Screening Committee to a Deputy Commissioner when the Central Government's mandate only authorized delegation to the 'Head of the Corporation'?
- Does a Deputy Commissioner exercise the powers of a 'Head of the Corporation' over a Municipal Committee under the Punjab Municipal Act?
- Is a removal order based on the recommendation of an invalidly constituted Screening Committee legally sustainable?
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 170(1) · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs AMJAD ALI And Another1986 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI MUTLAQ vs Mst. ANWAR FATIMA And 5 Other1986 SCMR 1674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which held that an order by a Rent Controller dismissing a landlord's application to strike out a tenant's defense under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance is not appealable. The petitioner challenged this finding, noting a conflict of judicial decisions regarding whether such an order constitutes an interim order subject to appeal under Section 21 of the same Ordinance. Recognizing that this legal question is recurring and requires an authoritative resolution to ensure consistency in rent litigation, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court determined that the matter necessitates a definitive ruling to settle the conflicting interpretations regarding the appealability of orders passed under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. Consequently, the Court admitted the petition for regular hearing to resolve this significant question of law.
Questions settled- Is an order of a Rent Controller dismissing an application to strike out a defendant's defense under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance an appealable order?
- Does an appeal lie under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance against an order refusing to strike out a tenant's defense?
- MUHAMMAD ALI And Others vs FAIZU Alias SAD BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute over inheritance governed by custom and subsequent statutory amendments under Muslim Personal Law. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondents inherited agricultural land under custom prior to the enactment of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1948. Litigation ensued regarding the calculation of shares and ownership rights, culminating in concurrent decrees in favour of the petitioners. Upon a regular second appeal being filed in the High Court, it was dismissed as having abated pursuant to section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act Amendment Ordinance (XIII of 1983). The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioners' suit and subsequent appeal fell within the ambit of abatement provisions under section 2-A(c) of the amended 1962 Act where the dispute relates to the calculation of shares rather than an alienation or challenge to a male heir's acquisition under custom. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the matter requires detailed consideration regarding the scope of abatement under section 2-A.
Questions settled- Whether suits relating purely to the calculation of shares under Muslim Personal Law abate under section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act Amendment Ordinance (XIII of 1983)?
- Does section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1962 apply to cases where there is no allegation of alienation or delivery of possession of agricultural land inherited by a male heir under custom?
- MUHAMMAD ALI And 10 Others vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F.P. Through Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI alias LALAand 2 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALAM And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1827 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALAM and 2 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs The STATE1986 SCMR 564 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1947 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE and others-1986 P Cr. L J 2408(2) · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SULTAN AHMAD and 6 others1986 MLD 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs PUNJAB PROVINCE Through SECRETARY SERVICES And 4 Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 904 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN and others vs THE SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY1986 MLD 2094 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Others vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ And Another1986 SCMR 1113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the High Court, where one petition was filed by the accused convict seeking reversal of conviction and the other by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence from imprisonment for life back to death. The core legal question addressed was whether the Supreme Court should reappraise the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts and whether interference was warranted for the reduction of sentence. The Supreme Court held that it is not a fit case for the reappraisal of evidence as no substantial legal contention was raised to warrant departure from concurrent findings, and further held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment were valid and proper. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, affirming the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence to reverse concurrent findings of fact of lower courts without a valid legal contention?
- Whether the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing a sentence from death to imprisonment for life warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Others vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND OTHEES1986 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had accepted an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and restored a private complaint after setting aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge passed in revision. The core legal question raised was whether an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is barred when a second revision is barred under Section 439(4)(a) of the same Code. The Supreme Court noted conflicting judicial views on whether invoking Section 561-A circumvents the bar against second revisions, and observed that restricting the High Court might leave parties without a remedy against patently unjust orders and prevent it from securing the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions and stayed further trial proceedings while directing an early hearing.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is barred when a second revision is barred under Section 439(4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does invoking Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to circumventing the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court interfere under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice where a revisional remedy is barred?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 207 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another vs THE STATE and another1986 MLD 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of a Magistrate's order issuing notices to the accused persons to face trial after a challan was submitted following further police investigation, notwithstanding an earlier discharge order. The core legal questions were whether the police possess the authority to conduct a fresh investigation and submit a subsequent challan after the discharge of the accused by a Magistrate, and whether the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance and summon the accused based on such a fresh challan without the prior discharge order being set aside. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an order of discharge is essentially administrative in nature, and the police retain the power to re-investigate a matter and submit a fresh report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without needing to have the initial discharge order formally set aside, thereby rendering the Magistrate competent to summon the accused for trial.
Questions settled- Does the police have the authority to conduct a fresh investigation after an accused has been discharged by a Magistrate?
- Can the police submit a fresh challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the presence of a prior order of discharge?
- Is an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate an administrative order that does not require formal revision before further proceedings?
- Is a Magistrate competent to summon an accused to stand trial upon a fresh police report following a discharge?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Alias MATTI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 894 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKMAL KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2867 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2499 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE And Another1986 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the father of a seven-year-old victim of sodomy against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court. The Federal Shariat Court had acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, while maintaining his conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reducing his sentence. The petitioner sought the restoration of the conviction under Section 12 of the Ordinance and an enhancement of the sentence under Section 377. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that criminal liability under Section 12 of the Ordinance requires an intention or reasonable knowledge to kidnap or abduct for the specified purpose. If the primary intention is to commit the act of sodomy, and the victim is merely moved a few paces for the safe achievement of that purpose, it does not constitute an additional offence under Section 12. The Court also declined to interfere with the reduced sentence under Section 377, noting it was legally sound and passed after considering the respondent's young age and first-offender status.
Questions settled- Whether moving a victim a few paces solely to facilitate the act of sodomy satisfies the legal requirements of kidnapping or abduction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does criminal liability under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 require an independent intention or reasonable knowledge to kidnap or abduct, distinct from the intention to commit the sexual act itself?
- Can a legal sentence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be enhanced by the Supreme Court where the lower courts have already mitigated it based on the offender's young age and status as a first offender?
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD AMIR And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2802(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2711 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs The STATE1986 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Muhammad Akbar, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, with a compensation order, while his co-accused brother was acquitted. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Upon seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction of the sentence. The defense argued that the motive for the crime was rooted in family honor, specifically stemming from a false allegation regarding the pregnancy and abortion of the petitioner's sister, Mst. Sardar Begum, which caused the family significant dishonor and led to the petitioner's prior incarceration. The Supreme Court considered this mitigating circumstance regarding the motive and the preservation of family honor. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, while granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment establishes that mitigating factors, such as provocation arising from matters of family honor, can justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can a death sentence be reduced to life imprisonment based on the motive of family honor?
- Does the discovery of a false allegation regarding a family member's conduct constitute a mitigating factor for sentencing in a murder case?
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2680 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD SAEED and others1986 MLD 870 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR MALIK vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM and others1986 MLD 2030 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2900 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR And Others ABDUL QADEER vs THE STATE JAMSHED And Other1986 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2634 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs Rana MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1986 MLD 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs RAFIQ AHMAD1986 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs PAKISTAN And Another1986 PLC 788 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 287 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL, S.H.O. vs ABDUL HAFEEZ QAZI And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1651(2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 206 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1986 PLC 447 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIES), PUNJAB And OTHER1986 CLC 2816 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the death sentences of the petitioners, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Khan, for the murders of Shah Nawaz and Yaqoob. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with two female co-accused, killed the victims following a dispute over a shared path. The trial court convicted all four, but the High Court acquitted the two female co-accused, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative regarding the specific roles played by the petitioners, particularly Muhammad Afzal. The core legal question is whether the conviction and death sentence of the petitioners remain sustainable in light of the acquittal of the co-accused and the doubts raised regarding the timing of the First Information Report and the specific evidentiary basis for the petitioners' involvement. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the evidentiary sufficiency and the appropriateness of the death sentence required further examination to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice, and consequently granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of doubt necessitate a re-evaluation of the conviction of the remaining accused?
- Is leave to appeal justified when there are significant doubts regarding the timing of the First Information Report and the specific roles attributed to the accused?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2736 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RASHID AND 9 ortmis1986 PLD Azad J & K 196 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN vs LAL DIN AND 5 OTHERS1986 PLD SC (A I & K) 84 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ADAM vs THE STATE and 10 others1986 MLD 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1839 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs REHMAT ULLAH And Another1986 SCMR 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against an order of ejectment. The respondent landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner from a shop on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement for his son. While the Rent Controller initially rejected the landlord's plea, the Additional District Judge, on appeal, accepted the claim and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The High Court subsequently upheld the appellate order. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the appellate court and the High Court regarding the bona fide personal need of the landlord warranted interference. Upon reviewing the record and hearing counsel, the Supreme Court held that the order of the Additional District Judge was correct and proper. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for a rented shop?
- Is an appellate order for ejectment based on bona fide personal need subject to interference when upheld by the High Court?
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA And Other1986 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that declared an allotment of urban agricultural land by a Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether a Settlement Commissioner possessed the appellate authority to reverse a final determination made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the classification of land as a 'potential building site'. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner acted without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that once the Chief Settlement Commissioner had made a final determination on the status of the land, the Settlement Commissioner could not sit as an appellate authority to review or reverse that decision. The Court emphasized that the Settlement Commissioner lacked the statutory power to entertain an appeal against the implementation of an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the High Court's decision to set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order was upheld, and the petition for leave to appeal was refused, leaving the underlying questions regarding the respondents' locus standi and the validity of their transfer deeds to the appropriate authorities.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner exercise appellate jurisdiction to reverse a final determination made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the statutory power to entertain an appeal against the implementation of an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Is the power to declare land as a potential building site exhausted after it has been exercised once?
- MUHAMMAD ABDUL RASHEED vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1986 PLC 446 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS. ANWAR vs DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 143 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-08-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD 1RSHAD KHANAccused vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMAD IDREES vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And OTHER1986 CLC 590 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUHA4MAD IBAD ALI KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE1986 CLC 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mufti ABDUL GHANI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from review petitions and miscellaneous applications seeking review and correction of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 concerning the ownership and transfer of property associated with a nationalised school. The core legal questions involve whether third parties and family members claiming an interest could challenge the judgment through review, whether the property transfer was in favour of a private individual or the nationalised school, and whether grounds for review of the prior judgment were established. The Supreme Court held that the applicants, having full knowledge of the prior protracted litigation wherein the ownership issue was squarely contested, failed to make out any valid case for review, as their shifting stances were mere afterthoughts designed to deprive the nationalised school of its due benefit. The Court dismissed the review petitions, laying down that belated claims by third parties aware of ongoing proceedings cannot be entertained to reopen settled ownership determinations.
Questions settled- Whether a third party aware of ongoing litigation can subsequently seek review of a judgment under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party alter its stance regarding ownership of property in review proceedings as an afterthought?
- Whether a transfer of property by the Settlement Department is deemed to be in favour of the nationalised school or an individual based on contemporaneous documents?
- Mufti ABDUL GHANI SHAH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUDDASAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA1986 PLD Lahore 140 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- MUBASHIR vs BADSHAH HUSSAIN1986 MLD 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUBARIK vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2643 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- MUBARIK SHAH vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner's earlier pre-arrest bail had been cancelled by the Supreme Court with the observation that he could move for post-arrest bail on merits. The Sessions Court and the High Court both rejected the post-arrest bail application, noting that apart from being attributed the role of raising a fatal lalkara, the actual motive for the crime and leadership of the co-accused were also attributed to the petitioner. The Supreme Court heard the counsel, found that both lower courts had duly considered the submissions and formed a prima facie view of the material on record which did not warrant interference, and consequently refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a person attributed with a fatal lalkara and motive entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the attribution of a lalkara alone preclude the courts from denying bail when other aggravating factors like motive are present?
- MUBARIK HUSSAIN and 2 others vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT and another1986 MLD 526 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUAZZIZ AHMED vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 857 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mst.BILQEES BEGUM vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 133 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM vs ALLAH DITTA1986 CLC 855 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 268 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBAIDA KHATOON And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) And Other1986 SCMR 1548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 28-4-1976, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition challenging the orders of the Settlement Commissioner dated 5-11-1973 and 20-12-1973. The disputed land, measuring 8 kanals and 6 marlas, was initially allotted to the respondents, cancelled for default in payment, and subsequently allotted to the petitioners before being restored to the respondents by the Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the restoration of the land to the original transferees despite delays in payment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing interference as the respondents were the rightful original transferees against a duly verified claim, and the impugned order was substantially just and fair. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, laying down the principle that discretionary constitutional remedies may be withheld where the ultimate order secures substantive justice to the rightful original transferee.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing constitutional interference against the restoration of land to an original transferee despite a default in timely payment?
- Does a delayed deposit of payment by an original transferee automatically disentitle them to the restoration of allotted land under settlement laws?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against a High Court order that declines to interfere with a substantially just and fair administrative decision?
- Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI And Others vs THE STATE and 5 others-1986 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM vs WILAYATULLAH and 4 others1986 MLD 99 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM vs SHABBIR AHMAD alias BHOLA and another1986 P Cr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZEBA And 12 Others vs MEMBER III BOARD OF REVENUE BALUCHISTAN And 2 Other1986 CLC 233 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, which set aside lower revenue court orders that had dismissed a suit as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed years after the mutation of land, was barred by limitation and whether the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the case for decision on merits. The High Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred. The ratio of the decision is that Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 is mandatory, obliging courts to dismiss time-barred proceedings even if the limitation defense is not pleaded. The Court established that a plaintiff seeking to exclude time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 must explicitly plead the necessary facts in the plaint, including due diligence and good faith. Consequently, the Board of Revenue acted without lawful authority by ignoring the clear limitation bar and remanding the matter, as the lower courts had correctly applied the law in dismissing the suit.
Questions settled- Is a court or tribunal required to dismiss a suit as time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 even if the defense of limitation is not explicitly raised?
- Does the mere prosecution of other legal proceedings automatically entitle a plaintiff to the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a revenue authority remand a case to a tribunal when the suit is clearly time-barred on the face of the plaint?
- What are the pleading requirements for a plaintiff to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Mst. ZARINA vs WAZIR and others-1986 P Cr. L J 2500 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZARINA BANG And Others vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd.1986 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions challenging the jurisdiction of a Special Court, specifically regarding the issue of retrospectivity and other legal grounds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to grant leave to appeal, determining instead that the petitioners should raise these jurisdictional objections directly before the Special Court. The Court directed that the Special Court must adjudicate these jurisdictional challenges, alongside any applications for acquittal under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as a preliminary matter before proceeding further. Pending the resolution of these issues, the Court granted the petitioners protection from arrest, provided they continue to attend all scheduled hearings. The Supreme Court further emphasized the special nature of the case and requested the Special Court to expedite the decision-making process, ideally within two months. The holding establishes that jurisdictional challenges and acquittal applications should be addressed as threshold issues by the trial court, ensuring procedural fairness while maintaining the continuity of the trial process.
Questions settled- Can objections regarding the jurisdiction of a Special Court be raised before that court even if they involve complex legal questions like retrospectivity?
- Should a Special Court decide applications for acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before proceeding with the merits of the case?
- Can an accused be granted protection from arrest pending the resolution of jurisdictional challenges by a Special Court?
- Mst. ZAINAB BIBI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR And Other1986 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court addresses whether the appellant was in occupation of Property No. 43 and had applied for its transfer, and whether a person possessing a servant quarter can claim transfer of the main house in the absence of a contestant. The appellant's son was found to be in occupation of a servant quarter on Plot No. 43/1 rather than Plot No. 43, and the Settlement Commissioner's review order transferring the property was set aside by the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that possession of an outhouse, garage, or servant quarter does not entitle a person to claim the transfer of the main building, as outhouses are appurtenances to a house and not vice versa. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a person in possession of a servant quarter can claim the transfer of the main house?
- Can the occupation of an outhouse or garage be considered occupation of the main house for the purpose of property transfer?
- Whether the finding of fact regarding possession by settlement authorities can be interfered with when based on inconclusive reports?
- Mst. ZAINAB BIBI Alias JANIA vs KHUDA BAKHSH And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAINAB BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD ANIS and 2 others1986 MLD 2593 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →