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 SHAFI KHAN vs THE STATE and 5 others1985 P Cr. L J 1539 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Others vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS1985 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05
  ejectmentbona fide personal needlegal representativesdeath of landlordleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the eviction of the respondent-tenant. The original landlord, Ghulam Muhammad, sought the ejectment of the respondent from a shop on the grounds of default, damage to property, and bona fide personal need. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original landlord died, and his legal heirs, the petitioners, were impleaded, subsequently filing an amended ejectment petition explicitly pleading their own bona fide personal need for the shop. While the Rent Controller dismissed the petition and held that personal need died with the original petitioner, the appellate authority accepted the plea of personal need. However, the High Court allowed the tenant's writ petition under the erroneous impression that the petitioners were solely relying upon the personal need of their deceased father rather than their own. The Supreme Court found force in the petitioners' contention that evidence regarding their independent personal need was duly led and considered, granting leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bona fide personal need of a landlord abates upon his death during the pendency of ejectment proceedings?
  • Can legal representatives of a deceased landlord amend an ejectment petition to plead their own personal need?
  • Whether the personal need of the legal heirs can be considered when they are impleaded in ongoing ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Others vs Maulvi ABDUL AZIZ And Another1985 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY and others1985 CLC 3005 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFFI CHUNDRIGAR vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and another1985 PLC 428 · Labour Court · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 3011 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs NIAZ AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 78 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1985 PLC 554 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL And1985 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-24
  election petitionre-electiondisqualification of proposerdrawing of lotsmaterially affected electionlocal council electionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against an Election Tribunal's order directing re-election for the office of Chairman of a Local Council. The petitioner initially secured 10 votes against the respondent's 9 votes. However, it was discovered that the petitioner's proposer was disqualified, leading the Tribunal to exclude his vote, resulting in a 9-9 tie. The Tribunal concluded that the election result was materially affected and ordered a fresh election rather than determining the winner by drawing lots. The petitioner contended that under Rule 59 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979, the defect in the proposer's qualification did not materially affect the election outcome and lots should have been drawn. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that whether an election result is materially affected is a factual determination for the competent forum. The Court noted that a proposer's influence on other voters could not be discounted, justifying the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the disqualification of a candidate's proposer necessarily renders an election materially affected to warrant a re-election?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with an Election Tribunal's factual finding that an election result was materially affected?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR And 2 Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16
  grave and sudden provocationmurdersudden quarrelmitigation of sentencecommon intentionself-defencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Three brothers appealed their conviction and sentence for the murder of a father and his son. The incident stemmed from a minor schoolyard quarrel between the younger brother of the appellants and the deceased son, which prompted the appellants to arm themselves with lethal weapons, proceed to the victims' Dera, and inflict fatal injuries. The trial court convicted all three appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing two to death and one to life imprisonment, which the High Court confirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants did not challenge their participation but sought mitigation of the sentence on the grounds of grave and sudden provocation and a sudden quarrel, citing earlier precedents. The Supreme Court held that a minor schoolyard dispute involving slaps between children does not constitute grave and sudden provocation capable of mitigating a deliberate murder committed after arming and traveling to the victims' location, nor was it a sudden mutual fight. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the convictions, while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the youngest appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor schoolyard dispute between children constitute grave and sudden provocation for elder brothers to commit murder?
  • Whether the principle of sudden quarrel applies when an attack is a one-sided retaliatory action following an earlier ended dispute?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be subjected to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, FAISALABAD DIVISION1985 PLC (C.S.) 762 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARDAR KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER (ESTABLISHMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1985 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-20
  civil servantremoval from servicecriminal convictionacquittal on benefit of doubthonourable acquittalreinstatementnatural justicedisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the removal from service of an Assistant in the Board of Revenue, Punjab. The appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which formed the sole basis of his removal under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 without a formal inquiry. He was subsequently acquitted on appeal by the High Court based on benefit of doubt. The departmental authorities and the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld his removal, invoking Rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Vol. I, Part I, and citing adverse service record entries and lack of an 'honourable' acquittal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 7.3(a) governs pay and allowances upon reinstatement, not substantive grounds for penalty. Once the conviction was set aside, the substratum of the removal order disappeared, rendering it ineffective, and it could not be sustained by importing fresh grounds without violating natural justice and statutory disciplinary procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of removal from service based solely on a criminal conviction under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 survives once the conviction is set aside on appeal?
  • Does Rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, Part I provide a substantive ground for imposing penalties on a civil servant or does it apply only to pay and allowances upon reinstatement?
  • Can a departmental authority or Service Tribunal sustain a removal order by introducing additional grounds, such as bad service record, that were not part of the original disciplinary charge?
  • Is the requirement of an 'honourable acquittal' applicable when determining the validity of a civil servant's removal from service based on a conviction that has been set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARDAR and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAQLAIN and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SANAUDDIN SIDDIQUI vs GHULAM NABI1985 PLC 1065 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALIM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2923 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE-1985 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE ST ATE1985 MLD 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CANTT. DIVISION, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 321 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY SIND AT KARACHI1985 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-15
  constitutional petitionelection disputeinvalid ballot papervoter intentionalternate remedytown committee election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the election of the Chairman of the Mir Wah Town Committee, where the petitioner secured six votes and respondent No. 3 secured five votes. The Presiding Officer declared one of the petitioner's votes invalid because the cross mark was placed in the serial number column rather than the designated marking space, and subsequently declared respondent No. 3 elected through a draw of lots. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition when an alternative remedy by way of an election petition was subsequently enacted, and whether a vote can be rejected on technical grounds when the voter's intention is manifest. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was maintainable since no adequate alternative remedy existed at the time of filing, and that a vote cannot be rejected on technicalities if the voter's intent is clear. The court laid down the principle that superior courts will prefer to hold a vote valid rather than invalid on a technical ground, and that the High Court may entertain a writ petition in election matters involving pure questions of law or statutory interpretation despite the availability of an election tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an election result when no adequate alternative remedy existed at the time of its filing?
  • Can a vote be rejected on technical grounds if the intention of the voter is manifest from the ballot paper?
  • Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition in an election matter involving the interpretation of statutory rules without forcing the petitioner to file an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM IQBAL And Another vs MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD And 21985 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-06
  writ petitionrent matterreappraisal of evidencefindings of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition in a rent matter. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could be called upon to reappraise evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held, relying on settled precedent, that a petition seeking reappraisal of evidence and reversal of factual findings is incompetent in writ jurisdiction. The Court accordingly refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact rendered by rent tribunals or lower courts cannot be reopened or reappraised through a constitutional petition under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is competent for the reappraisal of evidence and reversal of findings of fact in a rent matter?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts and tribunals in rent disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM BHATTI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 26 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR vs THE DIRECTOR, FOOD PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 203 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others1985 MLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MULTAN RANGE, MULTAN and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 230 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM (MINOR) Through His Father vs ZAHOOR AHMAD And Another1985 SCMR 139 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 21985 PLC (S.C.) 1108 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-07-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-12
  plea of guiltydrugs actleave to appealsubstandard drugscriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction and sentence under section 27 of the Drugs Act on the basis of his plea of guilty before the Drug Court. The core legal question was whether a conviction based on a plea of guilty could be set aside on the ground that the petitioner allegedly made the statement without awareness of the judicial proceedings or that the admission did not constitute an offence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea of guilty and admission that the recovered drug was substandard were correctly recorded by the Drug Court, and the contention that he was unaware of the formal nature of the proceedings was untenable. Consequently, the Court ruled that no interference was warranted and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that a voluntary plea of guilty and admission of the charge before a trial court forms a valid basis for conviction and precludes subsequent challenge regarding the lack of awareness of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction based on a plea of guilty be set aside on the ground of unawareness of judicial proceedings?
  • Whether a voluntary admission of guilt before the Drug Court is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Drugs Act?
  • Does a plea of guilty coupled with an admission that the recovered drug was substandard justify the refusal of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs KHAWAR RAFI QURESHI and 4 others1985 CLC 2125 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN1985 PLC 790 · Labour Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, CHINIOT SUB-1985 PLC (C.S.) 314 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 MLD 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED SHEIKH vs The DIRECTOR OF REMOUNTS VETERINARY &1985 CLC 769 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED JAVED vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOT1985 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED BHATTI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs SADIQ AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-11
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationabscondencefurther inquirymurderfugitive from lawdiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant's applications for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in a murder case registered under section 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the proper interpretation of 'further inquiry' under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the effect of an accused's prolonged abscondence on their entitlement to bail. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly evaluated the merits regarding further inquiry, it failed to consider the crucial legal effect of the respondents' six-month unexplained abscondence, which generally disentitles a fugitive from law to bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders granting bail, and cancelled the bail, while granting the respondents liberty to approach the Sessions Judge afresh to satisfactorily explain their abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct interpretation and scope of the phrase 'further inquiry' occurring in subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the submission of a final challan or report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a court from granting bail under subsection (2) of section 497?
  • What is the legal effect of unexplained abscondence by an accused for a prolonged period on their right to obtain bail in a non-bailable offence?
  • Can an accused person who is a fugitive from law be released on bail notwithstanding their abscondence if they provide a satisfactory explanation or fall within exceptional categories?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs Mian MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs Haji ABDUL MAJID and another1985 CLC 522 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTIES, MULTAN1985 CLC 369 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ Through His Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ And Other1985 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-11
  constitutional petitionnecessary partysuo motu revisionsettlement schemepermanent transfer orderfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examines whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a constitutional petition solely due to the failure of the petitioner to implead a third party who had moved the Martial Law Authorities against the transfer of a property. The dispute concerns the allotment and transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The Supreme Court held that the third party, who merely triggered the inquiry leading to suo motu revisional powers, was neither a necessary nor an indispensable party to the constitutional petition since no relief was claimed against her and her absence did not stultify the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the Settlement Authorities lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the concluded transfer after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Order, except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suo motu revision was based on incorrect factual assumptions regarding the non-filing of a transfer application. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the property transfer in favour of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person who merely moves an authority to initiate suo motu proceedings a necessary party to a subsequent constitutional petition?
  • Can Settlement Authorities reopen a concluded property transfer and interfere with a Permanent Transfer Order in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Does the absence of a proper party rather than a necessary party result in the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHOKHAR vs PUNJAB PROVINCE through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 256 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHOKHAR vs ENGINEER IN CHIEF PAKISTAN ARMY, G.H.Q. And Another1985 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-03
  service matterwrit jurisdictionArticle 212Service Tribunaldouble jeopardymisconduct inquirysuspension
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his suspension and the initiation of a fresh inquiry into misconduct charges following his reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service-related grievances, specifically suspension and disciplinary proceedings, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's grievance regarding his terms and conditions of service fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the non-obstante clause in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 grants the Service Tribunal overriding jurisdiction, thereby ousting the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of double jeopardy, noting that the initial removal was revoked due to procedural defects, not an acquittal on merits, thus allowing for a fresh, procedurally correct inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition regarding service-related grievances?
  • Does the initiation of a fresh disciplinary inquiry after the revocation of a previous removal order constitute double jeopardy?
  • Does the non-obstante clause in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters falling within the purview of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs THE STATE and others1985 P Cr. L J 2590 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ And Others vs THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Administrator1985 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-26
  leave to appealallotment cancellationtube-well schemecivil revisionservice of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding the cancellation of land allotment. The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest were allotted land under the Tube-well Scheme by the respondent Development Authority in 1955. Following non-fulfillment of conditions, the allotment was cancelled after notices were allegedly issued to dead persons. The trial court and the district judge dismissed the petitioners' civil suit and subsequent appeal, and the High Court dismissed their civil revision. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation notice issued against deceased predecessors-in-interest. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked force because record observations showed some petitioners were actually present before the authority during cancellation proceedings, and the point was not pressed or framed as an issue before the trial court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment cancellation order is bad in law if notices were issued against a deceased person when the successors were present before the authority?
  • Can a party raise a factual contention regarding lack of notice if they failed to press the point and get an issue framed at the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ And Others vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1985 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-14
  Muslim Personal Lawinheritanceland allotmentretrospective effectrevenue authoritieswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the remand of a revenue matter regarding land allotment and inheritance. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities had jurisdiction to re-open a final allotment order made in 1968 on the basis of a miscellaneous application filed in 1974, in light of subsequent legislation. The Supreme Court held that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction because sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975 applied retrospectively from 15-3-1948, making Muslim Personal Law applicable to the inheritance in question and allowing pending applications to be decided accordingly. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revenue authorities have jurisdiction to re-open a final allotment order on the basis of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975?
  • Does the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975 apply retrospectively?
  • Can a miscellaneous application filed before the enactment of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975 be decided in accordance with it if pending?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ And Others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-23
  limited estateinheritance rightscompromise decreereversionary heirsdeclaratory suitmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment affirming a trial court decree in a civil suit regarding inheritance rights. The dispute arose following the death of one Fazal Din in 1946, whose property was initially mutated in the name of Mst. Hussain Bibi. A subsequent compromise between Mst. Hussain Bibi and Bulanda, the brother of the deceased, divided the property. The plaintiffs, collaterals and descendants of the deceased's daughters, challenged this compromise. The core legal question was whether the compromise decree between the limited estate holder (Mst. Hussain Bibi) and a claimant (Bulanda) could bind the reversionary heirs after the termination of that limited estate. The Supreme Court held that the compromise could not outlast the life or limited interest of Mst. Hussain Bibi. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' declarations that the compromise did not affect the plaintiffs' inheritance rights upon the termination of the limited estate. The Court refused leave to appeal, noting that the limited estate had terminated upon the death of Mst. Hussain Bibi.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise decree entered into by a limited estate holder bind the reversionary heirs after the termination of that limited estate?
  • Does a compromise regarding property inheritance survive the death of a limited estate holder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE vs Mian AMIR KHISRO And Two Other1985 SCMR 1848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-20
  service lawlimitation periodservice tribunaldepartmental appealseniority disputemandatory waiting periodtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had set aside a promotion order in favor of the appellant. The core legal question concerned the correct interpretation of the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, particularly where a departmental appeal or representation remains undecided. The Service Tribunal had erroneously held that once the mandatory ninety-day waiting period for a departmental decision expires, there is no further terminal point of limitation for filing an appeal. The Supreme Court rejected this view, holding that the statutory limitation period of thirty days commences immediately after the expiry of the ninety-day waiting period, providing a total of 120 days from the filing of the departmental appeal. Applying this principle, the Court found that the respondent’s appeal before the Service Tribunal, filed nearly two years after the impugned order, was hopelessly time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and dismissed the respondent's appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does the mandatory ninety-day waiting period for a departmental decision remove the terminal point of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • When does the thirty-day limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal commence after the expiry of the mandatory ninety-day waiting period?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADDAQ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2794 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAAD SHIBLI vs COMMISSIONER/APPELLATE ELECTION AUTHORITY,1985 CLC 2190 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ROSHAN vs SAEED ALI1985 MLD 208 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE1985 MLD 876 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others1985 MLD 413 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs INTERNATIONAL CERAMICS Ltd., MURIDKE1985 PLC 235 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ QAMAR vs UMAR DIN and 3 others1985 CLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-28
  specific performancepreliminary decreeextension of timeconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedyrescission of contractconsent decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a suit for specific performance in which a consent decree was originally passed without any conditional time limit for depositing the sale consideration. Subsequently, on an application by a party, the trial court amended the decree to insert a peremptory period for depositing the balance amount and later dismissed the suit for non-compliance, despite an unconsidered pending compromise application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court reviewed the legal nature of a decree for specific performance, holding that such a decree is preliminary in nature and the trial court retains jurisdiction to enlarge the time for deposit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or rescind the contract under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, unlike a pre-emption decree governed by Order XX, Rule 14. However, the High Court refused to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy by way of a regular appeal under the ordinary law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree passed in a suit for specific performance preliminary in nature allowing the trial court to enlarge time for depositing the purchase price?
  • Does a trial court retain jurisdiction to extend the period for payment of sale consideration under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a decree for specific performance?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be entertained when an adequate remedy of appeal is available under ordinary law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ And Others vs Mst. SURRIYA JABEEN And Other1985 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ and 6 others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 159 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD REHMAN vs GUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1985 PLC 398 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZZAK vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 977 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZAQ vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 298 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZAQ And Another vs Mst. GAITE MAJEED And Another1985 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28
  civil revisionnon-joinder of necessary partyamendment of plaintappellate discretionejectment suitmultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision in an ejectment and recovery of rent suit. The core legal question concerned whether an appellate court properly exercised its discretion in allowing a co-owner, who was a necessary party, to be impleaded as a plaintiff through an amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the appeal, thereby curing a defect of non-joinder. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court rightly exercised its discretionary power to implead the necessary party to ensure the complete and effective adjudication of the matter and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, notwithstanding that a procedural defect or lacuna existed in the original plaint. The key principle laid down is that procedural lapses and defects regarding necessary parties can be corrected by the appellate court in the interest of justice and to prevent multiplicity of litigation, and the mere fact that a procedural correction affects a defendant's technical defense does not render the exercise of such discretion improper.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the discretionary power to implead a necessary party through an amendment of the plaint during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Can the correction of a procedural defect by an appellate court be challenged merely because it affects a technical defense or accrual of a right regarding a non-joinder?
  • Is a suit liable to fail irrevocably for non-joinder of a necessary party when such defect can be cured to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2145 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs NATIONAL HOSIERY FACTORY Ltd. and another1985 PLC 527 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs MUHAMMAD IRFAN And Another1985 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-28
  suspension of sentencebail after convictionvicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal appealSupreme Court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the complainant challenging an order of the High Court suspending the death sentence of the respondent and releasing him on bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the propriety of suspending a sentence and granting bail to a convict held vicariously liable for murder under section 302 read with section 34 and section 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where firearm injuries were attributed to a co-convict. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no case was made out for interference with the discretionary order passed by the High Court and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by the High Court in granting bail and suspending a sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless strong grounds are shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretionary order suspending a sentence and granting bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a convict held vicariously liable under section 302 read with section 34 and section 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to suspension of sentence and bail when firearm injuries are attributed to a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs YAQUB AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 158(1) [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. JAHANIAN and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12
  First Information Reportcognizable offencemandatory registrationpolice powersstatutory obligationcriminal investigationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a criminal case regarding an alleged murderous assault. The S.H.O. had previously refused to register the First Information Report (F.I.R.), contending that the allegations were incorrect and relying on his discretion to refuse investigation under Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a police officer has the discretion to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. concerning a cognizable offence based on their assessment of the information's veracity. The Court held that the police officer is under a mandatory statutory obligation to register an F.I.R. upon receiving information of a cognizable offence. The Court clarified that while Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants discretion regarding the conduct of an investigation, it does not permit the refusal to record the F.I.R. under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that the registration of an F.I.R. is a mandatory ministerial act, and the truthfulness of the information is a matter to be determined only after investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police officer have the discretion to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. for a cognizable offence based on their belief that the information is incorrect?
  • Is the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory duty or a discretionary act?
  • Does the power to refuse investigation under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to the refusal of registering an F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03
  leave to appealcriminal revisionidentification of accuseddaylight occurrenceconvictionsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction and sentence regarding an incident of causing injury. The petitioner was originally tried and convicted by a Magistrate under sections 325 and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal trespass and causing injury. Following an appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence. Subsequently, the High Court altered the conviction to section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and further reduced the sentence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt, particularly given the complainant's ability to identify the assailant during a daylight occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the guilt was squarely established and that the petitioner had already been dealt with leniently by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding it devoid of merit, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence as modified by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior friction between parties regarding house evacuation constitute sufficient motive for a complainant to falsely implicate an accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained where the occurrence took place in daylight, allowing the injured party to identify the assailant?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs RENT CONTROLLER (VIII), KARACHI and another1985 CLC 553 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES1985 PLC 65 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Mst. NASIM AKHTARPLD 1985 Lahore 404(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs HOSHNAK and 2 others1985 CLC 1629 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs HMI ARIF AND ANOTHERPLD 1985 Rev. 72 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ABDUL HANAN1985 SCMR 2082(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-05
  evictionpersonal useresidential buildingcommercial useconversionrent restrictionbaithak
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside the Rent Controller's eviction order against the respondent tenant. The appellant landlord sought eviction of a 'Baithak'—which formed part of his residential house—on the ground of personal bona fide need, whereas the tenant resisted on the ground that the premises were used for commercial purposes. The core legal question was whether the commercial use of a residential building, with the tacit consent or acquiescence of the landlord, alters its legal character to a non-residential building and bars the landlord's right to seek eviction for personal residential use in the absence of statutory conversion permission. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the eviction order, holding that under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a residential building cannot be converted into a non-residential building without the written permission of the Rent Controller, regardless of the landlord's consent. The key principle laid down is that the unauthorized commercial use of a residential building does not change its essential character, and a landlord is not barred from seeking eviction for personal residential use.

  Questions settled

  • Does the commercial use of a residential building with the tacit consent of the landlord change its legal character to a non-residential building without formal permission under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is a landlord barred from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a part of a residential house on the ground of personal bona fide need merely because it has been used for commercial purposes?
  • What is the effect of converting a residential building into a non-residential building without the written permission of the Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Others vs HAJI And Another1985 SCMR 1334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17
  ex parte dismissalrehearing of appeallimitationsufficient causeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' application under Order XLI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rehearing of a regular second appeal that had been dismissed ex parte. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause was shown for the non-appearance of the petitioners' counsel and whether the delay in filing the rehearing application was condonable under Article 169 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioners' counsel himself, lack of knowledge regarding the date of hearing was not proved, and the application was rightly dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that the assertion of non-appearance due to a defective cause list must be substantiated by the personal affidavit of the counsel concerned to satisfy the requirements of sufficient cause and limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for rehearing of an ex parte appeal is barred if filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 169 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is the personal affidavit of a counsel mandatory to prove lack of knowledge of a hearing date when seeking condonation of delay for non-appearance?
  • Does the omission of a case from a cause list constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without supporting evidence from the counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2734 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAHIM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAMPLD 1985 Rev. 91 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1973-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1985 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Other1985 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23
  election petitionlocal council electionworkers seatleave to appealmisreading of evidencesuspension of operation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a challenge to an election from a workers' seat in the Local Council Election held on 29-10-1983, where the petitioner was declared successful. Respondent No.2 challenged the election through an election petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a 'worker', but rather the owner of a bakery. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election void, and the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner also failed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the findings of the Election Tribunal regarding the petitioner's status as a 'worker' on the relevant date were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the evidence established that the petitioner was not a 'worker' and was indeed the owner or manager of the bakery, consequently suspending the operation of the impugned judgment of the Election Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the findings of an Election Tribunal regarding a candidate's status as a worker are vitiated by the misreading of testimony and documents?
  • Can an election be declared void on the ground that the returned candidate does not qualify as a worker for the contested seat?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the appreciation of evidence by the lower tribunal requires further consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD1985 PLC (C.S.) 331 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI1985 PLC (C.S.) 172 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-09-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., FAISALABAD1985 PLC 119 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Messrs KOHINOOR COTTON MILLS Ltd.1985 PLC 112 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 838(1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs JUDGE, FAMILY COURT LAHORE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs HABIB BANK LTD., HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 800 · Labour Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs FAZLOO and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE SHAH BAIG vs SHAH BAIG MUHAMMAD RAFIQUEPLD 1985 Rev. 25 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09
  criminal appealprocedural irregularityretrialrecording of evidencemandatory procedureanti-corruptionSection 364 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves six consolidated criminal appeals challenging the convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, against the appellant, Muhammad Rafiq, under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's procedure—specifically the recording of verbatim witness statements across multiple cases and the failure to provide a handwritten certificate for the accused's statement—vitiated the trial. The Court held that the trial court's procedure was highly illegal and constituted a non-curable irregularity. The Court set aside the convictions and sentences, remanding the cases for retrial. The key principle laid down is that where the law prescribes a specific procedure for performing a judicial act, such as the certification of an accused's statement under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it must be strictly followed. The mere affixation of a stamp cannot substitute for the mandatory requirement of a certificate in the hand of the court, as strict adherence to procedural mandates is essential for the validity of criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of verbatim witness statements across multiple cases constitute a curable irregularity?
  • Can the affixation of a stamp satisfy the requirement of a certificate in the hand of the court under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal consequence of a trial court failing to certify the examination of an accused in its own hand?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR and 11 others1985 MLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Exercising The Powers Of Collector, Kasur And 2 Other1985 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23
  leave to appealmaintenanceconstitutional petitionright to fair hearingappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a Constitutional Petition challenging maintenance orders passed in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought leave to appeal on two primary grounds: whether he was afforded an adequate opportunity to defend the case, and whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 500 per mensem was correctly fixed. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court and determined that both points had been adequately addressed and adjudicated upon by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference with the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the Court declined to grant permission for the petitioner to raise new points not previously argued. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment regarding maintenance orders when the lower court has already adequately addressed the issues of fair hearing and quantum of maintenance?
  • Can a petitioner raise new points for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs ATAULLAH And Other1985 SCMR 1226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18
  writ petitionsettlement disputeres judicatafrivolous litigationSupreme Court Rulescosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had refused to interfere with an earlier settlement revision order that had already attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is competent against an order previously passed by the High Court itself, and whether a separate civil suit is maintainable to reagitate matters already concluded by final judicial determinations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a writ petition cannot be issued against the High Court as it is not a 'person' under Article 199, and that initiating subsequent civil litigation or writ proceedings on questions already concluded is barred and constitutes frivolous litigation. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court cannot issue a writ against its own orders, and that vexatious attempts to reopen finally adjudicated matters through fresh litigation will attract the imposition of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against an order passed by the High Court itself?
  • Can a party initiate civil litigation or writ proceedings to reagitate questions already concluded in previous rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court?
  • Is the imposition of costs justified in cases involving frivolous and vexatious litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LABOUR DEPARTMENT and 3 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 472 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK And Others vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 2047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-20
  mortgageprovisional transfer orderpromissory noteinterestnegotiable instrumentsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The National Bank of Pakistan filed a suit for recovery and sale of mortgaged property based on the deposit of a Provisional Transfer Order as a title document. The Single Judge held that no valid mortgage was created but awarded the principal sum with interest. On appeal, the Division Bench held the Provisional Transfer Order was a valid document of title and granted a preliminary decree including interest from the date of the promissory note. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the award of interest from the date of the promissory note and the validity of the mortgage created by a Provisional Transfer Order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a promissory note is payable on demand from its date, triggering interest, and that Rule 37 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 permits the holder of a Provisional Transfer Order to mortgage the property. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Provisional Transfer Order operates as a valid document of title for creating a mortgage?
  • From what date is interest payable on a promissory note payable on demand?
  • Is presentation for payment necessary for a promissory note payable on demand under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2675 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFI And Others vs MUHAMMAD MALIK And Other1985 SCMR 1351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-10
  refugee allotmentdouble allotmentsettlement authoritieswrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning double allotments obtained by a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir in Sialkot District. The petitioners had applied for cancellation of the double allotment held by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Chiragh Din, which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who cancelled Chiragh Din's land in village Sahowali and allotted it to the petitioners. The Settlement Commissioner dismissed the respondents' revision. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition, holding that the allotment pertained to Jammu and Kashmir refugees and was governed by a scheme precluding cancellation. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in interfering with the discretionary orders of the settlement authorities regarding the cancellation of allotments under the relevant scheme. The Supreme Court held that the submission regarding the High Court's error is supported by precedent, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the discretionary orders of settlement authorities regarding refugee land allotments?
  • Does a refugee scheme for Jammu and Kashmir immigrants bar the cancellation of double allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASIM vs Mst. AKHTARI BEGUM1985 CLC 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →