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 QASIM vs MESARA ULBRICHT'S PAKISTAN LTD1985 PLC 296 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASIM THAHEEM vs DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, HYDERABAD REGION, HYDERABAD and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 68 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-07-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PARWEZ vs BADIUZZAMAN KHAN and others1985 P Cr. L J 3007 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-26
  pre-arrest bailmurdermala fidescriminal revisionocular evidenceinvestigationbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Sessions Judge granting pre-arrest bail to the accused respondents in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge correctly exercised discretion in granting pre-arrest bail despite the existence of direct ocular evidence and the absence of established mala fides. The High Court set aside the order and cancelled the bail. The Court held that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, not a rule, and is reserved for cases where the prosecution is motivated by mala fides or ulterior motives to falsely implicate the accused. The Court emphasized that in pre-arrest bail matters, the accused must demonstrate that the intended arrest is motivated by mala fides and that they are not involved in the offence. Furthermore, the Court must ensure that granting such relief does not frustrate the investigation. Since the accused were charged with a serious offence supported by direct evidence, the Sessions Judge’s order was unjustified, and the accused were ordered to be taken into custody to facilitate the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of pre-arrest bail a rule or an exception in criminal cases?
  • Must an accused demonstrate mala fides on the part of the prosecution to obtain pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail where the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment and is supported by direct ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PARIAL vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through D.C., SUKKUR and 41985 CLC 2824 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PARIAL vs GAB KHAN AND 3 OTHERssPLD 1985 Rev. 160 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PANJAL vs Syed NISAR AHMED Through His Legal Heirs1985 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29
  ejectmentreconstructionrented premisesretrospective operationbuilding controlnon-objection certificaterent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which affirmed an order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the petitioner from shop premises on the grounds of reconstruction. The core legal question was whether the respondent's ejectment application, filed in 1981, was invalidated by the petitioner's subsequent argument regarding non-compliance with Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, which was introduced in 1982. The Supreme Court held that the amendment introducing Section 6-A was not retrospective and did not nullify the approval of the construction plan or the sanction already granted by the relevant authority prior to the amendment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding the contention meritless, particularly as it had not been raised before the High Court. The Court granted the petitioner three months to vacate the premises upon a voluntary undertaking to surrender possession without execution proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment introducing Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, have retrospective effect on pending ejectment proceedings?
  • Can a party raise a new legal contention in the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
  • Is a landlord required to comply with Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, for an ejectment application filed prior to the enactment of that section?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD OMAR GILL vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1985 PLC 726 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NOOR alias NORAK vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-30
  criminal law special provisionsharaabahhudood ordinancedouble punishmentjurisdictionmurderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing a constitutional petition against the petitioner's conviction for murder. The petitioner was tried and convicted for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code by a Tribunal constituted under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968, following an incident where he shot and killed the victim during an attempted robbery. Simultaneously, another challan was submitted under the Offence against the Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for attempted robbery/haraabah, though no action had been taken on it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's trial and conviction under the 1968 Ordinance was without jurisdiction given the filing of a challan under the Hudood Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence under the Penal Code were not per se void or coram non judice, as no inconsistent order had actually been passed under the Hudood Ordinance to attract its overriding effect, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial and conviction of an accused under the Pakistan Penal Code via the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 is void when a separate challan under the Offence against the Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 remains pending?
  • Does the overriding provision of section 3 of the Offence against the Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 invalidate a conviction under another law before any inconsistent order under the Hudood Ordinance has actually been passed?
  • Can an offender be punished twice for the same act or omission constituting an offence under two or more enactments?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 1653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-28
  criminal appealmurderacquittalocular testimonycontradictionrecovery evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and acquitted them of charges relating to murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in disbelieving the ocular testimony, doubtful recovery evidence, and motive, and in concluding that the true genesis of the crime was suppressed by the prosecution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the approach of the High Court in appraising the evidence was fair and proper, particularly in light of an earlier undisclosed incident wherein the injured witness sustained injuries. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal order based on a plausible and correct appraisal of evidence, especially where material contradictions and suppression of the true facts are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction on the basis of doubts surrounding the ocular testimony and recovery evidence?
  • Can a previous contradictory statement made by an injured witness during police investigation be used to confront him under the law?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NIAMET ULLAH PATWARI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and 491985 PLC (C.S.) 198 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs Mst. KANIZ FATIMA1985 P Cr. L J 2840 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs KARAMAT BEGUM AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 140 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs HE STATE1985 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22
  murderdeath sentenceocular evidencecriminal appealwitness credibilityknife attack
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of an Assistant Lineman, Falak Sher, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a Chowkidar, had attacked the deceased with a knife following a dispute over the use of office lavatory facilities. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the case was concocted due to internal office politics and election rivalries, claiming he was falsely implicated. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by three disinterested witnesses, finding their testimonies consistent and credible. The Court held that there was no evidence of bias or conspiracy against the petitioner and that the brutal, unprovoked nature of the attack, involving multiple knife injuries, warranted no leniency. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of disinterested ocular witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does a prior dispute regarding office union elections constitute a valid ground to discredit eyewitness testimony in a murder trial?
  • Can a death sentence be upheld where the accused commits an unprovoked, brutal attack with a lethal weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2875 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 953 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND 4 OTHERS vs ABDUL LATIF AND 15 OTHERS1985 PLD SC(AJ & K) 97 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZEER vs THE STATE1985 MLD 58 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25
  leave to appealillegal gratificationreappraisal of evidencecorruptioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction for an offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted for the mere reappraisal of evidence concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it is not a fit case for grant of leave for reappraisal of evidence when the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the courts below overlooked any material portion of the record. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not re-appraise evidence in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of material evidence by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the reappraisal of evidence?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be interfered with without showing that material evidence was overlooked?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JACOBABAD AND 21985 PLC (C.S.) 689 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs SARDAR KHAN and others1985 CLC 796 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, ISLAMABAD1985 PLC 536 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MEHRAM And Other1985 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-14
  murderinjured witnessinterested witnessvicarious liabilitycriminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder and injury case. The core legal question concerns whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased or inimical to the accused, can be rejected solely on the grounds of being "interested" or "partisan" witnesses, and whether vicarious liability applies when evidence is consistent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the testimony of injured witnesses. The Court established that the presence of injured witnesses provides strong corroboration, and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for being "interested" if it remains consistent under cross-examination. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that in cases of vicarious liability, consistent evidence allows for the conviction of accused persons based on their respective roles in the commission of the crime. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, convicted one respondent, maintained sentences for others, and upheld the acquittal of one respondent based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be rejected solely on the ground that they are interested or partisan witnesses?
  • Is the presence of injured witnesses sufficient to corroborate the prosecution case in a murder trial?
  • Can an appellate court convict accused persons based on consistent evidence of vicarious liability despite a trial court's acquittal of co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs DISTRICT MANAGER, P. U. T. C., ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 741 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAIKH vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 395 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 4 OTHERS vs ALTAF RASUL AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 353 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-05
  fatal accidentscompensationnon-earning minorpecuniary lossreasonable expectationnegligent drivingdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 for the recovery of compensation following the fatal accident of an eight-year-old child caused by the rash and negligent driving of a taxi. The core legal question before the court was whether compensation can be awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of a non-earning minor child where there is no actual proof of current earnings, and how to distinguish between a speculative possibility and a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage. The Sindh High Court held that it is not a condition precedent for the maintenance of an action under the Act that the deceased must have been actually earning money at the time of death; a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is sufficient, particularly given the societal and religious norms in Pakistan where children are expected to support their parents. The court laid down that assessment of damages involves a degree of guess-work based on evidence rather than mere speculation, and accordingly awarded a decree of compensation to the parents.

  Questions settled

  • Is actual earning by the deceased a condition precedent for maintaining an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Can compensation be claimed under the Fatal Accidents Act for mental worry, physical pain, and suffering of the family?
  • What constitutes a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage versus a mere speculative possibility in cases involving the death of a minor child?
  • How do societal and religious norms regarding the maintenance of parents by children influence the assessment of damages in fatal accident claims?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAVED alias BILOO vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2414 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD JANAN KHAN1985 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIM vs PALM FERTILIZERS COMPANY AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 656 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEER vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 3000 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEEM SIPRA vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT , ,1985 PLC (C.S.) 1093 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM. BUTT vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER, ABRESHAMGRAN CHOWK BRANCH, PESHAWAR1985 PLD Supreme Court 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-20
  limitationmutual open and current accountacknowledgment of paymentbanking companyrecovery of loanauthorized agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether a suit for recovery of a balance due on a mutual, open, and current account was barred by limitation under Article 85 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied to the disputed credit entry. The appellant contended that a cash deposit entry of Rs. 24,000 made within the limitation period was unauthorized and unsigned by him, thus failing to save limitation. The Supreme Court held that the strict requirements of section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 regarding signed acknowledgments were inapplicable because the suit was governed directly by Article 85, where time runs from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered. The Court found on the evidence that the deposit entry was genuine and made with the authority and privity of the appellant through his authorized agent. Furthermore, even if section 20 were applicable, the requirements were fully satisfied as the agent was duly authorized. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to a suit for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account governed by Article 85 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can the authority of an agent under the Contract Act, 1872 be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the parties rather than an express written document?
  • Whether a disputed credit entry in a bank account is sufficient to save limitation when proved to be made with the consent and privity of the account-holder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 477 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSTAQEEM KHAN vs PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE1985 PLD Karachi 326 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21
  cooperative housing societyallotment cancellationnon-member allotmentconstitutional petitionbye-laws interpretationbona fide actionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several constitutional petitions challenging the cancellation of residential plot allotments by the Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioners, who were employees of the Society, had been allotted plots in the 1970s. In 1983, the Society cancelled these allotments, alleging they were illegal because the allottees were not members of the Society, as required by its bye-laws. The core legal question was whether the Society possessed the authority to cancel these allotments on the ground that the allottees were non-members. The Court held that while bye-laws restricted Society membership to government employees, there was no express prohibition against the Society allotting plots to non-members. The Court found that the allotments were made in good faith to protect land from encroachment and that the Society had a history of such allotments. The Court established the principle that membership eligibility is distinct from the right to be allotted a plot, and in the absence of a specific prohibition, such allotments are not inherently illegal. Consequently, the cancellation orders were declared to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a cooperative housing society have the legal authority to allot plots to non-members in the absence of an express prohibition in its bye-laws?
  • Is there a legal distinction between eligibility for membership in a housing society and eligibility for the allotment of a plot?
  • Can a housing society cancel an allotment of land on the ground that the allottee was not a member, if such allotment was made in good faith to protect land from encroachment?
  • Does the power to cancel an allotment under society bye-laws extend to grounds not explicitly provided for in the bye-laws or the sub-licence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2906 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs NOT1985 CLC 2552 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25
  ejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantbona fide needrent appealSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent filed an ejectment case against the appellant seeking possession of a shop on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The appellant contested the proceedings, claiming various shifting stances including being a sub-tenant or the purchaser of the business, but ultimately admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller and appellate forums evaluated the evidence regarding the landlord's intent to return from abroad and establish a business in Pakistan, alongside the conduct of the parties since 1980. The court held that the landlord had sufficiently established his bona fide requirement for the premises, supported by consistency in his pleadings and the statutory safeguards under the relevant rent legislation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession within two months, thereby maintaining the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord returning from abroad seeking to establish a business in Pakistan sufficiently establishes bona fide personal requirement for ejectment?
  • Does the mere statement of a landlord regarding personal requirement suffice when viewed alongside consistent conduct and legal safeguards?
  • Can a tenant who has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant subsequently challenge the existence of such relationship in ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ BHUTTA and 2 others vs SPENCER & CO. PAKISTAN1985 PLC 124 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MURTAZA vs COMMISSIONER., MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 611 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR-UL-HAQ BUTT vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 488 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs THE COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA DIVISION and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 265 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR BUTT vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1985 PLC 213 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND 118 OTHERS vs BASHIR TANNERIES LTD.1985 PLC 610 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZUL HASAN vs ATA ULLAH MEHAR And Other1985 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05
  service rulesappointmentphysiotherapisteducational qualificationsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a writ petition challenging the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Physiotherapist (Grade-18). The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the qualifications prescribed under Item No. 14 of the Schedule to the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981, specifically whether a diploma-holder with extensive practical experience was eligible despite lacking a Bachelor's degree in Physiotherapy. The High Court and the Intra-Court Appeal bench held that the rules required a degree and treated qualifications and experience separately, thereby disqualifying the petitioner. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found that the High Court may have erred in law in its interpretation, granted leave to appeal, and ordered an expedited hearing given that the post remained vacant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate holding a diploma in physiotherapy with practical experience is eligible for appointment as a Physiotherapist under Item No. 14 of the Schedule to the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981 without possessing a B.Sc. degree in Physiotherapy?
  • Do the clauses in Item No. 14 of the Schedule to the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981 treat qualifications and experience separately?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs The JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SHAHPUR SADAR, DISTRICT SARGODHA and another1985 CLC 1808 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HIGHWAY CIRCLE, SARGODHA AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 841 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR and another1985 CLC 415 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE FEDERAL LAND1985 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 87 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR and others vs MUHAMMAD JAVED and others1985 CLC 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN vs Messrs AHMAD TRADERS1985 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOHSIN vs RENT CONTROLLER AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05
  ejectment applicationrent restrictionres judicatapersonal requirementlandlord and tenanturban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a rent dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant from a shop in Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether a second ejectment application filed by a new landlord (the son of the previous owner) was barred by Section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, given that a prior application filed by his mother for the same premises had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the second application was not barred. It reasoned that the circumstances had materially changed: the property ownership had been transferred to the son, and the passage of four years indicated a genuine, independent need for the premises. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the statutory requirement regarding the landlord not occupying another suitable building in the same urban area refers to occupation in one's own right, not merely by the courtesy of a relative. The principle established is that a second ejectment application is maintainable if a new cause of action arises or if circumstances have altered sufficiently to justify a fresh claim, notwithstanding the dismissal of a prior application.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second ejectment application barred by Section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance if the circumstances have materially changed?
  • Does the term 'occupying' in the context of personal requirement under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance include occupation by the courtesy of a family member?
  • Can a landlord file a fresh ejectment application for personal need after a previous application filed by a predecessor-in-interest was dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANZOOR and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 59 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANSHAH vs ALI INDUSTRIAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE1985 PLC 604 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK and another vs Raja MUHAMMAD NAJIB KHAN and others1985 CLC 2972 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK and another vs Raja MUHAMMAD NAJIB KHAN and 21985 CLC 1650 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 44 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD MUBASHIR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 859 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LIAQUE vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 671 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE And Other1985 SCMR 1877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03
  election petitionelection tribunalsecrecy of ballotsuo motu jurisdictionleave to appealpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of an Election Tribunal which declared the election of the petitioner, Muhammad Latif, void. The petitioner had been declared successful in a union council election in District Sialkot, which was subsequently challenged by the respondent, Abdur Rehman, on the grounds of an illegal voter list. Although the Election Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove the allegations regarding the voter list, it proceeded to declare the election void suo motu. This action was based on the Tribunal's finding that the polling staff had recorded Identity Card Numbers on the ballots, thereby violating the secrecy of the ballot as mandated by the Election Rules, 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether an Election Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to declare an election void based on grounds not raised or pleaded in the election petition. Finding this to be a significant question of law requiring authoritative determination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Tribunal's suo motu powers in election disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to declare an election void based on grounds not raised in the election petition?
  • Can an Election Tribunal exercise suo motu powers to invalidate an election based on violations of the secrecy of the ballot not pleaded by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others1985 MLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs KOH-I-NOOR OIL MILLS LTD.1985 PLC 778 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and others1985 CLC 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF KARDAR and others vs THE PRESIDENT, LAHORE1985 CLC 2845 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AND OTHERS vs FAZAL HAQ AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 233 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 334 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AND ANOTHER vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1985 PLC 788 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATEEF and 5 others vs MUHAMMAD ARIF1985 P Cr. L J 1315 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHURSHID and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 691 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 958 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs STATE THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NASIRABAD1985 PLD Quetta 217 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 799(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs KHAN BIBI AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 105 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALIL AND ANORTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KAZAM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS vs Mst. JANAT BIBI1985 PLD Lahore 637 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09
  mortgage by conditional saleabsolute saleagreement to repurchasecontemporaneous documentsdebtor and creditor relationshipsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for declaration and alternate redemption of a mortgage concerning a residential house. The appellant claimed that a transaction ostensibly constituting a sale-deed and a contemporaneous agreement to re-transfer was in reality a mortgage by conditional sale executed to secure a loan of Rs. 2,000 without incurring usury. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the transaction to be a mortgage, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding it to be an absolute sale with a right of repurchase that had since expired. The core legal question is whether two contemporaneous documents—an absolute sale-deed and a separate agreement for re-transfer—constitute a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of the sale-deed established an absolute transfer of title, and mere contemporaneous execution of a separate repurchase agreement does not transform an absolute sale into a mortgage where no debtor-creditor relationship is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an absolute sale-deed coupled with a separate agreement for re-transfer constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale?
  • Does the contemporaneous execution of a sale-deed and a repurchase agreement necessarily establish a mortgage?
  • Can an unregistered document be used to modify or limit the terms of a registered absolute sale-deed?
  • What is the effect of the expiration of the stipulated time limit in an agreement for re-purchase on the vendor's right to recover the property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KAMIL and another vs Mst. HAMEEDAN BEGUM1985 MLD 424 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JUMAN vs ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SHAH MURAD SUGAR MILLS1985 PLC 904 · Labour Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others vs SHAH WALI1985 MLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAWAID vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 17 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVID IQBAL and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 520 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED WATTOO vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-16
  criminal appealocular testimonymedical evidenceasphyxiastomach contentsidentification at nightcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioners were convicted by the trial court under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which the High Court subsequently modified to Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the alleged conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of death—specifically, whether the presence of digested food in the stomach and the medical finding of strangulation contradicted the eyewitness accounts—and the reliability of identification at night. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and upheld the High Court's findings. The Court held that the medical evidence regarding asphyxia was consistent with the injuries sustained, and the High Court correctly resolved the alleged discrepancies regarding stomach contents and visibility. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirming that the assailants acted in concert, and dismissed the leave to appeal, noting that the petitioners had already received the benefit of a lesser penalty due to the motive involved.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a perceived conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of death?
  • Does the presence of digested food in the stomach necessarily contradict eyewitness testimony regarding the time of the occurrence?
  • Is identification of known assailants by eyewitnesses reliable during the night of the fifth lunar month?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 673 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMSHED vs THE STATE1985 MLD 66 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs HABIB BANK Ltd., KARACHI and 4 others1985 PLC 135 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL Represented By His Legal Heirs vs AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN1985 SCMR 1701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-09
  allotment of landindustrial concernbrick-kilnrehabilitation commissionerproperty disputeadministrative order interpretationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a property dispute regarding the allotment of a brick-kiln situated on land designated as Khasra No. 396. The core legal question was whether an earlier order by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, directing the allotment of the Khasra to sitting allottees, constituted a final rejection of the appellant’s pending claim for the transfer of the brick-kiln as an industrial concern. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interpreting the Commissioner's order as a final rejection, as the order explicitly reserved the appellant's claim for future consideration. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment, which treated the entire land as agricultural and excluded the appellant, was set aside. The Court established the principle that administrative orders must be interpreted in their entirety, and a general direction to allot land does not automatically extinguish specific, reserved claims regarding industrial concerns situated within that land unless expressly adjudicated upon. The matter was remanded for a factual determination regarding the status of the appellant's application and the actual size of the brick-kiln.

  Questions settled

  • Does a general order for the allotment of land to sitting allottees automatically extinguish a pending claim for an industrial concern located within that land?
  • Can an administrative order be interpreted as a final rejection of a claim when the authority explicitly reserves that claim for future consideration?
  • Is a party estopped from challenging a transfer when they have previously objected to the factual basis of that transfer in related proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL PIRACHA vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION and another1985 PLC 60 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL ASGHAR vs DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 582 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL AHMAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Lahore and 3 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 317 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1985 CLC 2353 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-04
  pre-emptiontenant pre-emptorcantonment limitsburden of proofbest evidence ruleconstitutional petitionPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arises from a pre-emption suit filed by a tenant claiming a superior right of pre-emption over agricultural land sold via a registered sale deed. The vendee resisted the suit, asserting that the land was situated within cantonment limits and was therefore not pre-emptible under section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, and raising a plea of estoppel. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the land was not utilized for defence purposes and that the price was genuinely fixed. On appeal, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the suit, holding that cantonment areas were excluded from pre-emption, a view upheld in revision by the Board of Revenue. The plaintiff challenged these orders through a constitutional petition. The High Court examined the evidence regarding the cantonment limits and held that a certificate from the Cantonment Executive Officer and a revenue patwari note, without producing the official notification, site plan, or author of the certificate, constituted 'no evidence'. The Court ruled that while Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 grants tenants a preferential right of pre-emption, the basic right and pre-emptibility of the transaction are regulated by the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The constitutional petition was allowed, the appellate and revisional orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh finding on the issue of cantonment limits after fresh evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a certificate issued by a Cantonment Executive Officer and a patwari's note in the revenue record are sufficient evidence to prove that land is situated within cantonment limits for the purposes of exemption under section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Does paragraph 25(3)(d) of Land Reforms Regulation (Martial Law Regulation 115) of 1972 create an independent right of pre-emption or does it merely provide a preferential status to tenants within the framework of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • What is the nature and extent of proof required to establish that agricultural land falls within exempted cantonment limits so as to bar a suit for pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL vs MUHAMMAD SHA RIFPLD 1985 Rev. 142(2) [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL ANJUM and another vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION1985 MLD 1567 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMALUDDIN vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1985 PLC 304 · Labour Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMAL vs Messrs GHULAM HUSSAIN H1DAYATULLAH TEXTILE MILLS1985 PLC 269 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →