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.
- NAMATULLAH KHAN vs 1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND RENT CONTROLLER and 21985 CLC 1675 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
- NAJIBULLAH vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM1985 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where an interim order had previously been granted in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment due to illness. The Court called upon the Advocate-on-Record to argue the case in the absence of the lead counsel, but the Advocate-on-Record expressed an inability to do so. Finding no valid justification for this inability and noting that an adjournment would cause a significant delay of nearly one month due to the conclusion of the current court session, the Court declined to extend the interim relief. The Court held that where an interim order operates to the prejudice of a respondent, it cannot be maintained indefinitely when the petitioner fails to prosecute the matter or provide adequate representation. Consequently, the Court vacated the interim order dated 16-7-1984 and adjourned the hearing to a date in office, emphasizing that the interest of justice requires the prompt resolution of matters where interim relief is sought.
Questions settled- Can an interim order be maintained when the petitioner fails to provide representation to argue the case?
- Is an adjournment justified when it would cause a significant delay in the court's schedule?
- Does the court have the authority to vacate an interim order if the petitioner's counsel is unavailable?
- NAJFI BOTTLERS WORKERS' UNION vs NAJFI BOTTLERS LABOUR WORKER'S1985 PLC 241 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAJA AND 2 OTHERS vs SHAMAND AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 607 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit for declaration instituted by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 claiming 2/3rd share in land left by the deceased co-sharer, which had been transferred in third succession following an illegal mutation made entirely in favor of the deceased's mother. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the respondents to be co-sharers and rejecting the defendants' plea of being bona fide purchasers for value without notice, as well as their limitation defense. The District Judge affirmed these findings in appeal. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision in limine, affirming the concurrent findings of fact. The High Court held that a mutation entry is merely evidence of a transaction and cannot substitute independent proof of payment of consideration to establish bona fide purchaser status. Furthermore, unsupported entries in Khasra Girdawari do not create estoppel or displace concurrent findings of fact regarding possession, and possession of one co-sharer endures to the benefit of all co-sharers absent proof of ouster.
Questions settled- Whether a mutation entry by itself serves as sufficient proof of payment of consideration to establish a plea of bona fide purchaser for value?
- Whether unsupported entries in a Khasra Girdawari are sufficient to displace concurrent factual findings regarding co-sharership and possession?
- Whether the possession of one co-sharer in joint property endures for the benefit of all other co-sharers in the absence of proof of ouster?
- NAIK MUHAMMAD and another vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI and 51985 CLC 1969 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- NAFEES-UD-DIN vs Mst. SABAN and others1985 MLD 1523 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- NAEEMUL HASSAN alias HASAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2486 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
- NAEEM MANSOOR CHAUDHRY vs HABIB BANK Ltd., KARACHI and 3 others1985 PLC 176 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- NADIR vs MIRZA1985 MLD 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- NADIR and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 247 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application arises out of a bail plea filed by three accused persons facing trial for murder and other offences under sections 302, 307, 458, and 171/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the accused are entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving a cross-fight, conflicting medical evidence, and injuries sustained by the accused themselves, making the question of aggression one of further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that two of the applicants were entitled to bail due to glaring inconsistencies between the first information report and the medical report regarding the use of firearms, while the third applicant, assigned the fatal blow, was also granted bail on the principle that the presence of multiple injuries on the accused persons established a cross-fight and a counter-version, rendering the question of who was the aggressor open to further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where a cross-fight is established by injuries on the persons of the accused, and there are rival versions as to who was the aggressor, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether accused persons are entitled to bail when there is a glaring inconsistency between the ocular account in the F.I.R. and the medical report?
- Does the presence of multiple injuries on the persons of the accused establish a cross-fight requiring further inquiry into who was the aggressor for the purpose of bail?
- Is the absence of a counter-F.I.R. or counter-case fatal to a plea of self-defense and cross-fight at the bail stage when the accused have sustained injuries?
- NADIR ALI and another vs MUHAMMAD ADAM KHAN1985 CLC 373 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had decreed the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 7,000 based on an alleged friendly loan and a dishonored cheque. The core legal questions concerned whether the plaintiff proved the loan transaction despite material contradictions between his pleadings and evidence, and whether the lower courts erred in their method of comparing signatures to establish liability. The High Court held that the lower courts' findings were based on a misreading of evidence and an omission to consider material testimony, specifically the bank manager's evidence regarding the forged nature of the cheque. Furthermore, the court held that the lower courts acted improperly by conducting a signature comparison without expert assistance, without notice to the parties, and in their absence, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments, emphasizing that courts must not rely on subjective, unguided comparisons of handwriting while ignoring expert or material evidence on record.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on its own subjective comparison of signatures without expert assistance or notice to the parties?
- Does a judgment based on evidence that contradicts the pleadings constitute a misreading of evidence?
- Is a court required to consider the testimony of a bank manager regarding the authenticity of a cheque signature?
- Does conducting a signature comparison in the absence of parties and their advocates violate the principles of natural justice?
- NADEEM UL HAQ KHAN And Others vs The STATE1985 SC M R510 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a fatal altercation between two inimical families. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of the defence version and whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was rendered doubtful by the significant injuries sustained by one of the appellants, which contradicted the narrative of a one-sided attack. The Court observed that the lower courts misread the medical evidence by dismissing the accused's sharp-edged injuries as accidental. Relying on the principle established in Safdar Ali v. Crown, the Court held that if the defence version is plausible, it creates a reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, finding that the appellants had not exceeded the right of private defence, and ordered their immediate release.
Questions settled- Does a plausible defence version create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to explain the injuries sustained by the accused?
- What is the effect of a delayed First Information Report in a case of alleged one-sided aggression?
- NADEEM AHMAD vs THE PRINCIPAL/CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD, K.E.1985 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals filed by brothers challenging the cancellation of their provisional admissions to the M.B.,B.S. program at King Edward Medical College, Lahore. The appellants had previously passed the Intermediate Examination from the Sargodha Board but subsequently appeared for the same examination as fresh candidates under the Rawalpindi Board without disclosing their prior qualification, despite a mandatory requirement to do so in their permission forms. Upon applying for medical college admission, they submitted affidavits that failed to disclose these additional attempts. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to relief against the cancellation of their admissions, given their conduct. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had purposely suppressed material facts in their affidavits to both the examination board and the medical college. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of their writ petitions, holding that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and should not be exercised in favour of individuals who do not approach the court with clean hands, particularly when they have secured or attempted to secure benefits through misrepresentation.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction can be exercised in favour of a petitioner who has obtained a benefit through misrepresentation?
- Does the suppression of material facts in an affidavit submitted for educational admission disentitle a candidate to relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Is a candidate who conceals prior examination attempts in admission forms entitled to challenge the cancellation of their provisional admission?
- NABI BAKHSH and others vs NIAZ DIN and others1985 MLD 465 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Irrigation and Public Health Engineering1985 CLC 726 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- N.W.F.P. Through Collector, Abbottabad Land Acquisition And Others vs Haji1985 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the determination of market value for land acquired for the construction of Ayub Medical College. The core legal question involved the appropriate method for calculating compensation for acquired land, specifically whether sales in adjacent areas formerly part of the same village should be considered when determining market value. The Supreme Court held that when determining the market value of acquired land, it is appropriate to consider sale transactions from neighboring areas that were historically part of the same village, as these reflect the true market potential and value of the land at the time of the acquisition notification. The Court found that the lower courts had erred by restricting their consideration solely to transactions within the newly designated village boundaries. Consequently, the Court enhanced the compensation rate from Rs. 20,000 per Kanal to Rs. 25,000 per Kanal, acknowledging the upward trend in land prices and the relevance of comparable transactions in the historically unified village area.
Questions settled- Can sale transactions from adjacent areas that were historically part of the same village be considered when determining the market value of acquired land?
- Does the potential use of land for building purposes necessitate ignoring its original soil classification in compensation assessments?
- Is it appropriate to consider the upward trend in land prices between the date of the acquisition notification and the announcement of the award when fixing compensation?
- N. C. C. JUNA BUNDER JOINT VENTURE WORKER UNION vs NATIONAL1985 PLC 728 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- M/S. Universal Brushes Ltd. vs The Superintendent, Central Excise And 2PTCL 1985 (CL.) 167 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- M/S. Swat Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry OfPTCL 1985 (CL.) 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- M/S. Sterling Engineering Corporation vs Collector Of Customs And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 319 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-13Read full judgment →
- M/S. Shahi Bottlers Ltd., Lahore. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs AndPTCL 1985 (CL) 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the classification of imported concentrates used in the manufacture of the beverage R.C. Cola for sales tax purposes under the Pakistan Customs Tariff. The core legal question is whether the imported concentrates fall under head 21.07 as food preparations and concentrated extracts, or under head 33.04 as mixtures of odoriferous substances used as raw materials. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, holding that the concentrates constitute the chief ingredients of the beverage rather than mere odoriferous substances intended to impart a pleasant smell, and are thus correctly classifiable under head 21.07. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a modification permitting the petitioner to substitute a bank guarantee with a cash payment of the additional sales tax within a stipulated period of one month.
Questions settled- Whether imported beverage concentrates fall under head 21.07 or head 33.04 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
- Do beverage concentrates containing cola extracts, phosphoric acid, and caffeine qualify as mixtures of odoriferous substances under head 33.04?
- M/S. Pakistan Oil Mills Limited, Hyderabad vs The Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1985 (CL.) 277 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
- M/S. Novitas International Other vs Income Tax Officer (Film Circle) AndPTCL 1985 (CL.) 421 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- M/S. Moonlite (Pak) Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan And 4 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 424 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- M/S. Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Director General/Commissioner, ExcisePTCL 1985 (CL.) 213 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Firduos Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited, And Other vs FederationPTCL 1985 (CL.) 10 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Fauji Foundation vs Central Board Of Revenue Etc.PTCL 1985 (CL) 104 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- M/S. Crescent Pak. Soap & Oil Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1985 (CL) 73 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Burhan Engineering Co vs Income Tax Officer, Companies LimitedPTCL 1985 (CL.) 394 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- NASIR MAHMOOD KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 159 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes on remand from the Supreme Court following a bail-granting order in favor of the petitioner, Nasir Mahmood, who stands accused alongside others under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance, 1979 for sodomy. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the incriminating photographs, confession, and the principle of consistency with co-accused who were already enlarged on bail. The Balochistan High Court held that the heinousness of an offense alone does not warrant withholding bail as punishment, particularly where co-accused facing similar allegations have been released and the prosecution's evidence requires thorough trial scrutiny. The court reaffirmed that bail should not be refused as a punitive measure when unjust incarceration is irreparable, maintaining the earlier order releasing the accused on bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the alleged offence?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused charged with the same allegations have already been granted bail?
- Should an accused be kept in pre-trial detention when the prosecution's evidence requires thorough trial scrutiny?
- M/S. Arag Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax (West) Karachi AndPTCL 1985 (CL.) 211 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Abdul Ghaffar I. Davera vs The Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969, where the petitioner imported a consignment of cutch block (Katha) from India, which was subsequently alleged by the customs authorities to have been short-levied due to under-valuation. The Deputy Collector of Customs ordered the payment of a short levy and imposed a personal penalty, which was later modified on appeal by the Director of Vigilance Wing, upholding the short levy but setting aside the penalty. The Central Board of Revenue dismissed the subsequent revision, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a reliable basis existed for the department to reject the petitioner's documentary evidence regarding the price, and whether the finding that the value was not deflated with mala fide intention brought the case within the four-month limitation period under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, rendering the notice issued after nearly one year illegal.
Questions settled- Whether any reliable basis existed with the respondent department to insist on a higher valuation and ignore the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner?
- Whether the absence of deliberate deflation or mala fide intention brings the case within the purview of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, rendering a notice issued after four months illegal?
- M/S, Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd, Karachi. vs Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1985 (CL) 479 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S Maqbool & Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Karachi.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 36 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- MUZAMMAL DIN And Another vs NUR HUSSAIN And Other1985 SCMR 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the conviction of the petitioners under sections 302/34, 307/34, and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing their sentence of death to life imprisonment. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding a fatal altercation and whether the failure to establish the alleged motive warranted interference with the conviction or the reduced sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no ground existed for interfering with the judgment. The key principle laid down is that where the immediate cause or motive for an attack is shrouded in mystery or not fully established, while the core ocular testimony establishing guilt remains reliable, the appellate court may properly maintain the conviction while extending the benefit of a lesser sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to establish the alleged motive warrants setting aside a conviction for murder?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of death to life imprisonment when the immediate cause of the incident is shrouded in mystery?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of ocular testimony?
- MUZAFFAR KHAN vs ALLAH YAR KHAN1985 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of a disputed house, originally instituted by the respondent, Allah Yar Khan, based on a 1932 sale deed. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit in the respondent's favor. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the sale deed by invoking Section 17(1)(b) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, arguing that the document could not confer title. The Supreme Court declined to entertain this legal contention, noting that it had not been raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that a new legal argument, not previously agitated in the lower forum, could not be introduced at the appellate stage. Finding no merit in the challenge to the High Court's dismissal, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the appellate decree.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new legal contention before the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
- Does a failure to raise a legal argument in the High Court preclude its consideration in a petition for leave to appeal?
- MUZAFFAR ALI KHAN vs SIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING AUTHORITY and 21985 CLC 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA Prestressed by R.C.C. Pipe Works Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES1985 PTD 399 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUSSADDIQ HUSSAIN SHAH And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK PROGRESSIVE UNION vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL1985 PLC 759 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., FAISALABAD vs S. KHALID ALI1985 PLC 247 (1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-22Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD AMMAR KHAN1985 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-21Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE KUNDAN1985 PLC 383 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs Maj. (Rtd.) SAEED AKHTAR HASSAN and others1985 MLD 504 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. through its Zonal Office Gujrat and another1985 PLC 180 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUSIITAQ AHMAD vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others1985 CLC 2771 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAMSI vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 535 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ And Others vs RABIAN BIBI And Other1985 SCMR 1719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, defendants in a partition suit, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their regular second appeal. The dispute arose from a compromise decree in the first appellate court, where the petitioners were granted the right to acquire the plaintiff-respondent's one-sixth share of a property upon payment of twenty-two thousand rupees by a specified date. Upon failing to make the payment by the deadline, the petitioners applied for an extension, which the plaintiff-respondent refused. The first appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether a court has the authority to unilaterally extend a time limit established by a compromise agreement between parties. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that where parties agree to a specific timeframe for the performance of a duty within a compromise, that timeframe cannot be altered or extended without the mutual consent of the parties involved. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the lower courts correctly applied the law.
Questions settled- Can a court unilaterally extend a time limit for performance established by a compromise agreement between parties?
- Is the consent of all parties required to alter a timeframe set in a compromise decree?
- MUSHTAQ ALI vs The SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, KASUR and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 28 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 666 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and another1985 PLC 320 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD MAKHAN vs RAO IFTIKHAR AHMAD And Other1985 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition, declared an Election Tribunal's decision without lawful authority, and dismissed the petitioner's election petition as time-barred. The dispute arose from local council elections where the respondent was notified as the returned candidate on 5 October 1983, and the petitioner filed an election petition on 15 November 1983. The Election Tribunal initially overruled the limitation objection, but the High Court held that the thirty-day limitation period under the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 ran strictly from the notification date and Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal itself was not properly constituted until 1 November 1983 due to administrative defects in earlier notifications. The Supreme Court held that the question raised was one of general application and public importance—specifically whether limitation runs when no forum is available—and accordingly granted leave to appeal for an authoritative pronouncement.
Questions settled- Does the period of limitation for filing an election petition start to run when the Election Tribunal has not yet been established or made available?
- Can Section 5 of the Limitation Act be invoked to condone delay in filing an election petition where the relevant rules do not make it applicable?
- Whether an election petition filed beyond thirty days from the notification of the returned candidate is liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHOKHAR AND ANOTHERs vs ISHFAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 418 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Khokhar And Another vs Ishfaq Ahmad And AnotherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 419 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD CHEEMA (through his Legal Heirs) vs KHURSHEED BEGUM1985 CLC 150 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentences of the appellants for a double murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involved whether the evidence disclosed a case for the exercise of the right of private defence or whether the incident constituted a sudden fight falling within Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was untenable as the accused sustained no incised injuries while inflicting several on the deceased, and Exception IV was inapplicable due to the cruel manner of the attack. However, considering the young age of one of the appellants and the possibility of him acting under the influence of elders, his death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life with an enhanced fine. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of sudden fight or self-defence cannot be invoked where the nature of injuries and the manner of the assault negate such pleas.
Questions settled- Does a physical altercation arising from a minor dispute constitute a sudden fight under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the attack is carried out in a cruel manner?
- Can the plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused persons suffer no incised wounds but inflict multiple incised injuries on the deceased?
- Is the younger age of an accused and the possibility of acting under the influence of elders a ground for mitigating a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- MUSHARAF KHAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in cancelling bail after a significant delay of over six months, where the petitioner argued that such an application, treated as a revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was time-barred according to the established practice of the High Court requiring filing within 90 days. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the High Court's interference with the Sessions Judge's valid exercise of discretion in granting bail. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the limitation period and the propriety of the High Court's interference with the lower court's discretion required further consideration. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to remain on bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to a limitation period when treated as a revision under Section 439?
- Can the High Court cancel bail granted by a Sessions Judge if the application for cancellation is filed after an inordinate delay?
- MUSA vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 3 others1985 MLD 996 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUSA and others vs FAQIRIA and others1985 CLC 2929 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- MURID HUSSAIN vs RAZA ALI and others1985 P Cr. L J 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
- MUREED vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 265 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
- MUREED AHMAD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 997 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- MURAD BUX vs MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN1985 PLC 669 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- MURAD and others vs Mst. IZZAT and others1985 CLC 2848 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
- MURAD and others vs HABIB and others1985 MLD 352 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for assaulting a woman to outrage her modesty, which was upheld in appeal. The core legal question is whether the failure of the trial court to append the requisite certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 342/364 vitiates the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the omission to provide the mandatory certificate is not a mere curable irregularity but an illegality that cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Court accepted the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for retrial commencing from the stage of examining the accused in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to give the requisite certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the conviction unsustainable?
- Is the omission to provide the certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity or an illegality?
- What is the appropriate order when a trial court fails to properly record the statement of the accused under Section 342 and Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Munshi MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 670 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- Munshi ABDUL AZIZ and others vs Mst. NOOR MAI1985 CLC 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUNIR Hussainand Others vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Another1985 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over a pre-emption suit where the underlying sale deed was subsequently declared void by a competent court. The petitioners sold land to Respondent No. 2, which Respondent No. 1 sought to pre-empt. During the pendency of the pre-emption suit, the petitioners obtained a decree under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 declaring the original sale deed void. Despite this decree being brought to the attention of the court hearing the pre-emption suit, that court proceeded to decree the pre-emption suit in favour of the pre-emptor. The District Judge and the Lahore High Court upheld the pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily addressing whether a pre-emption suit can survive when the foundational sale deed has been judicially declared void. The Court's holding implies that once a sale deed is declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the basis for a pre-emption suit ceases to exist, rendering subsequent proceedings in the pre-emption suit legally misconceived and unsustainable.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit proceed if the underlying sale deed has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does a decree declaring a sale deed void under the Specific Relief Act 1877 nullify the basis for a pending pre-emption suit?
- MUNIR AKHTAR vs ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK Ltd., RAWALPINDI1985 PLC 72 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 80 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD HOTIANA vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB AND OTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 555 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-08-21Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD and 25 others vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another1985 PLC 230 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD and 25 others vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS)1985 PLC 232 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUNIR A HMAD vs FATEH MUHAMMAD and 2 others1985 CLC 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SIALKOT vs MU H A MM A D SH A FI1985 CLC 50 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LALAMUSA vs Mst. SOSAN BIBI1985 PLC 698 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LALAMUSA vs CHIRAGH MASIH1985 PLC 652 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BAHAWALPUR vs GHULZAR AKHTAR1985 CLC 2385 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUNEER AHMAD And Another vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Another1985 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the first appellate court's judgment decreeing the respondent's suit for specific performance and possession of a half share in a disputed shop. The core legal question concerned whether an agreement to sell executed prior to the issuance of a permanent transfer deed was enforceable, and whether a notice making time the essence of the contract could be raised without prior pleadings or issues. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the non-establishment of the service of notice and the enforceability of the agreement did not warrant interference, especially as no plea had been taken in the written statement nor any issue framed, and evidence could not be re-appraised without the relevant record. The key principle laid down is that a new plea involving the re-appraisal of evidence or matters not pleaded in the written statement and unrepresented by specific issues cannot be entertained at the leave stage before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement to sell entered into before the issuance of a permanent transfer deed is specifically enforceable?
- Can a party raise a plea regarding a notice making time the essence of the contract without having pleaded it in the written statement or framed an issue thereon?
- Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal when the copy of the evidence has not been furnished?
- MUNAWAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1985 PLC 321 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, HOUSING & PHYSICAL PLANNING, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 576 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN MEMON vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2803(1) · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Munawar Ali petitioned for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing his appeal against conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the validity of his conviction for forgery after proceedings originated from an application under the Punjab Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1979, and subsequent action under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the Additional District and Sessions Judge rightly proceeded under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice amounted to a clear admission of guilt. The key principle laid down is that where a court initiates inquiry into forgery committed in relation to proceedings before it, a conviction based on an unequivocal admission in the reply to the show-cause notice is legally sustainable and warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Whether an Additional District and Sessions Judge can initiate proceedings under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during proceedings arising from an application under the Punjab Wakf Properties Ordinance 1979?
- Does a reply to a show-cause notice under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amounting to an admission of guilt sustain a conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction for forgery?
- MUNAWAR ALI KHAN vs FARHAT ULLAH And Other1985 SCMR 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a disputed house. The property was originally transferred to respondent No.1 in 1960. The petitioner claimed to have filed a form for its transfer in 1966. Although the transfer to respondent No.1 was temporarily cancelled and the property resumed in 1968, the cancellation was subsequently revoked and the property restored to respondent No.1. The petitioner contended that a vested interest had accrued to him upon resumption and that his pending application ought to have been considered. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether a subsequent applicant acquires a preferential claim or vested right when a prior transfer and resumption order is set aside by settlement authorities. The Court held that the resumption was not irrevocable, settlement authorities possessed the jurisdiction to restore the property to the original transferee, and the petitioner had no preferential claim. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that the setting aside of a property resumption revives the original transfer without creating independent vested rights for subsequent applicants.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent applicant acquire a vested interest in a property when an earlier transfer order is cancelled and later restored?
- Do settlement authorities possess the jurisdiction to set aside a property resumption and restore it to the original transferee?
- Does a subsequent claimant have a preferential right over an original transferee when a resumption order is revoked?
- MUNAWAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2990 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- MUNAMMAD JUMMAN vs MUHAMMAD BACHAL1985 CLC 48 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 6 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2751 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN SHAH and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN FALAK and another vs DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION1985 PLC (C.S.) 1090 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN and others vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE1985 MLD 211 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ H.USSAIN SHAH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mumtaz Hussain Shah against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his criminal appeal and upheld his conviction. The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, was accused alongside a contractor of fabricating official records regarding repair work performed on 49 tube wells in the Mianwali Section. The trial court had convicted both individuals for offences under Section 218 and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing each to six months of rigorous imprisonment. While the High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused contractor, it maintained the petitioner's conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the petitioner was sustainable given the evidence presented and the acquittal of his co-accused. Upon reviewing the impugned judgment and the arguments presented, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's guilt was clearly established by the evidence. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the case did not warrant interference with the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused in a case of fabrication of records?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court judgment if the guilt of the accused is clearly established by the record?
- MUMTAZ AND 4 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER (1985 PLC (C.S.) 938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ Alias KUNDAL vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Mumtaz alias Kundal, who was tried alongside six co-accused for the murder of two individuals. The trial court convicted the appellant under sections 148, 302, and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to various terms of imprisonment. While the co-accused appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court and were subsequently acquitted on the grounds that the ocular testimony regarding their identity and participation was unreliable and contradictory to medical evidence, the appellant did not initially seek leave to appeal and remained incarcerated. The core legal question before the Court was whether the benefit of acquittal granted to co-accused persons, whose cases were based on the same unreliable evidence, should be extended to a non-appealing convict to ensure complete justice. The Supreme Court held that since the evidence against all accused was identical and had been found to be in a state of serious doubt, the appellant was entitled to the same relief. The Court laid down the principle that in the interest of complete justice, the benefit of an acquittal in a joint criminal trial should be extended to a non-appealing co-accused when the evidence against them is identical to that of the acquitted co-accused.
Questions settled- Can the benefit of an acquittal granted to co-accused persons be extended to a non-appealing convict in a joint criminal trial?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to acquit a non-appealing convict when the evidence against them is identical to that of acquitted co-accused?
- MUMTAZ ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1348 · Special Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →