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 JAFFAR vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION CITY, OKARA and others1985 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISRAR NABI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 4 OTHERS , .1985 PLC (C.S.) 911 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2272 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs RAVI ENGINEERING LTD., MURIDKE1985 PLC 626 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Other1985 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28
  election petitionrecount of votesinvalid voteswrit jurisdictionlocal council electiondismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an election dispute concerning a Local Council seat in Union Council Khulal, District Sialkot. Following the election, the petitioner was initially declared successful. However, the Election Tribunal, upon an election petition filed by respondent No. 2, ordered a recount. The recount revealed that a significant number of votes cast for both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were invalid because they pertained to a different ward. Consequently, respondent No. 2 was found to have secured more valid votes and was declared the winner. The petitioner challenged this in the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the writ petition in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred by failing to recount the votes of the third candidate. The Supreme Court held that this contention was not raised before the High Court and, regardless, would not have altered the election outcome, as respondent No. 2's valid vote count remained superior to the third candidate's total votes even if all the latter's votes were valid. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to recount votes of a third candidate invalidate an election result when that candidate's total votes are insufficient to surpass the winner's valid vote count?
  • Can a petitioner raise a contention before the Supreme Court that was not pressed before the High Court?
  • Is a High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition in limine when the petitioner cannot demonstrate the invalidity of a factual finding made by an Election Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others1985 CLC 2012 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM1985 MLD 1186 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MESSRS FATIMA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 1032 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2874 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Others vs Mst. RASHIDAN BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 1268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18
  land settlementrepealed statuteSettlement Commissioner jurisdictionconstitutional petitionallotment disputestatutory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding land settlement proceedings. The core legal question was whether a Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, after the statute had been repealed. The petitioners, claiming to be informants, sought to challenge an allotment previously restored to the respondents by initiating new proceedings under the repealed Act. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner, as a creature of statute, lacked general jurisdiction akin to a civil court to declare an allotment a nullity. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, reasoning that the Settlement Commissioner's authority was limited to the specific powers conferred by the statute, which did not extend to entertaining fresh applications under a repealed law, particularly when the matter did not constitute a pending case. The principle laid down is that a statutory authority cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond the scope of the enabling statute, especially after its repeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Settlement Commissioner entertain a fresh application under a repealed statute?
  • Does a Settlement Commissioner possess general jurisdiction to declare a land allotment a nullity?
  • Is a Settlement Commissioner authorized to act outside the specific powers conferred by the enabling statute?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND OTHERS vs Mst. MUSSARAT ZAMANI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04
  specific performanceagreement to sellWest Pakistan Land Reforms Regulationalienation of holdingssubsistence holdingcontract enforcementstatutory prohibition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land is rendered void or unenforceable by the restrictions on alienation contained in paragraph 25(4) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959. The appellants argued that the agreement was hit by the statutory prohibition against alienating subsistence holdings. The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell is distinct from the actual alienation (sale) of property. The statutory prohibition applies to the act of alienation, not the preliminary agreement. Consequently, an agreement to sell is not void ab initio, provided it can be performed in a manner consistent with the law. The Court established that the crucial date for determining compliance with statutory prohibitions is the date of the actual transfer of title. Since the enforcement of the agreement in this case did not necessitate a violation of the Regulation, the decree for specific performance was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell agricultural land violate the prohibition on alienation under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959?
  • Is an agreement to sell land void ab initio if the actual sale might be restricted by statutory provisions?
  • What is the crucial date for determining whether an alienation of land violates the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959?
  • Can a court grant a decree for specific performance if the underlying agreement could potentially be performed in a legal manner?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-10
  pre-emptiontenant's right of pre-emptionjurisdiction of CollectorLand Reforms Regulation 1972agricultural landco-sharercivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a dispute concerning the pre-emption of agricultural land purchased by the appellants. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain and decide pre-emption suits where one of the plaintiffs claimed a preferential right solely on the basis of village ownership rather than tenancy, and whether a decree for pre-emption could extend beyond the actual tenancy of the pre-empting tenants. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of the suit concerning a non-tenant plaintiff to the Collector was ultra vires, rendering the Collector's decree without jurisdiction as to that part, and that a tenant's right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 is strictly confined to the land comprised in their tenancy. The Court laid down that pre-emption suits involving mixed claims must be appropriately segregated, with tenant-related claims adjudicated by the Collector and non-tenant ownership claims returned to the civil court, setting aside the judgments of the lower fora and remanding the matter back to the Collector.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Collector have jurisdiction to try a pre-emption suit where a plaintiff claims a preferential right based solely on village ownership rather than tenancy?
  • Can a decree for pre-emption in favour of tenants extend to land that is not in their cultivating possession but in the possession of other tenants?
  • What is the proper procedure when a pre-emption suit contains claims both under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and ordinary ownership rights?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND LO OTHERS vs Sh. JAMILURREHMAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Karachi 537 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 849 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISLAM and 31 others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Finance Deptartment, Lahore1985 PLC (C.S.) 88 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ And Another vs Haji FAZAL KARIM And Another1985 SCMR 1974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-26
  leave to appealproperty disputelocal commissionersettlement mapevictionconcurrent findingsboundary dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Additional District Judge regarding a property dispute. The core issue involves whether the petitioners' structures, described as Jhuggis, are situated within the specific area of 308 square yards on plot No. 396-A, Artillery Maidan Quarters, Karachi, which was transferred to the respondent. The lower courts relied upon a Settlement Map and a report from a court-appointed local Commissioner to conclude that the structures were indeed located on the respondent's plot. The petitioners challenged this finding, arguing that the evidence, including the Commissioner's sketch and report, failed to substantiate the location of the structures within the allotted area. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions raised by the petitioners deserved consideration. Furthermore, by consent of the parties, the Court appointed a new Commissioner under the Supreme Court Rules to investigate the boundaries and location of the plot and submit a fresh report, while restraining the eviction of the petitioners pending the final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court appoint a Commissioner to investigate and record evidence regarding property boundaries during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does a challenge to the factual findings of lower courts regarding property location constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1985 SCMR 1711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05
  specific performanceagreement to sellliquidated damagesabandonment of claimsubsequent vendeenotice of agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff-respondents, by serving a notice on the vendor demanding liquidated damages for a breach of contract, had effectively abandoned their right to seek specific performance against the subsequent vendees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings of fact regarding the validity of the agreement and the absence of contract alteration. The Court held that merely serving a notice demanding liquidated damages does not constitute an abandonment of the relief of specific performance, particularly when the vendor failed to comply with the notice or compensate the plaintiffs before the suit was instituted. The principle laid down is that seeking liquidated damages via notice does not automatically preclude a party from pursuing specific performance, especially where the subsequent vendees had notice of the prior agreement and the vendor did not satisfy the damages claim prior to litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does serving a notice demanding liquidated damages for breach of contract constitute an abandonment of the right to seek specific performance?
  • Can a plaintiff pursue specific performance against a subsequent vendee after having issued a notice to the original vendor demanding liquidated damages?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF ZAKI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and anothers Mst. SAFIA vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 142 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-07-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE And Another vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR And Other1985 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04
  evacuee propertyabatement of proceedingsreview jurisdictiondelegation of powersSettlement Commissionerjudicial discretionlegal representatives
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the transfer of evacuee property in Mandi Bahauddin, which was subject to conflicting claims between the appellants and respondents. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in setting aside the abatement of writ petitions following the death of the appellants, and whether a Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to review an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without express delegation of review powers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to set aside the abatement was a valid exercise of judicial discretion, as there was no evidence of lack of diligence by the respondents. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court held that a Settlement Commissioner lacks the inherent power to review orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner unless such power is explicitly delegated via an official Gazette notification under the relevant statute. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the power of review is a creature of statute and cannot be implied from the transfer of a case. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Settlement Commissioner exercise the power of review of an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without an express Gazette notification delegating such power?
  • Does the transfer of a case under Section 32-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 inherently invest a Settlement Commissioner with the power of review?
  • Is the setting aside of an abatement under Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a matter of judicial discretion based on sufficient cause?
  • Can a delegatee exercising revisional powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 claim an inherent power to review orders passed in their capacity as a delegatee?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 330 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ And Others vs SHAH MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-01
  limitationsuo motu examinationland settlementappellate forumrevisional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of a land settlement case from a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether an appellate or revisional forum is under a mandatory legal duty to examine suo motu the question of limitation regarding proceedings instituted before a lower forum when the point is not pressed or raised before it. The Supreme Court held that while a court or forum is bound under section 3 of the Limitation Act to examine limitation regarding matters instituted directly before itself, it is under no such legal obligation to examine the limitation of proceedings before a lower forum unless the plea is specifically raised and pressed. The ratio decidendi is that higher appellate or revisional forums are not legally obliged to examine suo motu the limitation of lower forums if the party fails to raise or press the issue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate or revisional court under a legal duty to examine suo motu the question of limitation regarding proceedings instituted before a lower forum when not raised or pressed?
  • Does section 3 of the Limitation Act require a higher forum to examine the limitation of matters originating before a lower forum without a specific plea?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere if the High Court fails to examine the time-bar of a lower forum's proceeding that was not agitated before it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1985 PLC (C.S.) 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN vs Malik SULTAN MAHMOOD1985 P Cr. L J 2940 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs WAZIR ZADA and others1985 P Cr. L J 2844 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 134 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD TAHIR AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-16
  criminal appealmurdercorroboration of evidencerecovery of weaponchemical examineracquittalmitigating circumstancesgrave and sudden provocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of three respondents and the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment for a fourth respondent in a murder case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, specifically regarding the corroboration of ocular testimony through the recovery of blood-stained weapons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the recovery of a blood-stained knife from respondent Muhammad Tahir simply due to a delay in submission to the Chemical Examiner, absent any evidence of tampering. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal of Muhammad Tahir, convicting him under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The acquittal of the other two respondents was upheld, and the sentence reduction for the main accused, Waheeduddin, was maintained due to mitigating circumstances involving provocation. The key principle laid down is that a delay in forensic examination does not inherently invalidate a recovery as corroborative evidence if the weapon's integrity remains unchallenged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending a recovered blood-stained weapon to the Chemical Examiner automatically invalidate its use as corroborative evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by the recovery of a weapon, even if forensic analysis is delayed?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon at the instance of an accused sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony if the accused had exclusive knowledge of its concealment?
  • Does the discovery of illicit relations between the deceased and the accused's family constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs HE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 577 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs DOABA RICE MILLS Ltd.1985 PLC 107 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL SHAH vs MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 835 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL RANA vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., FAISALABAD1985 PLC 121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL RAFI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1985 MLD 956 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL QURESHI vs UNITED BANK LTD.1985 PLC 614 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN vs Messrs COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD1985 PLC 431 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL FAROOQ vs THE PUNJAB PROVINCE through Secretary1985 PLC (C.S.) 295 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHATHA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2207 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LANDS and others1985 CLC 575 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 MLD 309 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1985 CLC 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER ,1985 PTD 649 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2774 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1771 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Another vs MUHAMMAD ALAMGIR And Other1985 SCMR 1935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22
  limitationfraud and misrepresentationcivil procedurearbitration awardsupreme court leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a dispute over Property No. 138-Anarkali, Lahore, which was referred to arbitration and culminated in a rule of court judgment. Respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the judgment on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application as barred by time relying on Article 173 of the Limitation Act 1908, but the High Court subsequently held that such applications are governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, following a conflicting view from another High Court. The petitioners challenged this view before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerns the appropriate period of limitation applicable to an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively resolve the divergence of views among the High Courts regarding the applicable limitation article.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable period of limitation for an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Article 173 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 govern an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias SALEEM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2991 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs Messrs HILTON INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE1985 PLC 41 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 469 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23
  procedural irregularitytrial de novoSection 342 CrPCSection 364 CrPCvalidity of judgmentmiscarriage of justiceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions of eight appellants under sections 148, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, primarily on procedural grounds. The appellants contended that the trial was vitiated by two major irregularities: the failure to properly record statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, including the absence of the mandatory certificate under section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the absence of the original judgment on the record, as the trial Magistrate had signed a 'rough' copy in court and a retyped version later. The High Court found that the trial Magistrate failed to record the accused's statements in his own hand, omitted necessary questions, and failed to append the required certificate, which constituted an incurable illegality. Furthermore, the court held that the existence of two separate judgments—one signed in court and another retyped and signed later—rendered the conviction legally unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and remanded the case for a fresh trial, directing the trial court to properly record the statements of the accused and allow for the recall of prosecution witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to append the certificate required by Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the statement of the accused constitute an incurable illegality?
  • Is a judgment valid if the trial magistrate signs a 'rough' draft in court but later signs a retyped version outside of court?
  • Must the statements of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be recorded in the handwriting of the trial magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ AFZAL vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others1985 MLD 385 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE1985 MLD 838 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others1985 MLD 926 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 MLD 87 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHOKHAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT AND 4 OTHERS ,1985 PLC 639 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHAN DARAKHSHAN vs MUHAMMAD and 11 others1985 CLC 964 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS And Others vs Syed SHUJAAT ALI And Other1985 SCMR 1388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-04
  Bogus claimInformer's entitlementEvacuee LawsRepealing lawsVendees' rightsLocus standiPreclusionFinality of findingsAllotmentConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned vendees from allottees of a bogus claim seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petitions by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions revolved around the entitlement of an informer to land resumed from a bogus allotment, the vendees' claim to the property under repealing Evacuee Laws, and the re-opening of settled factual findings regarding the informer's claim. The Supreme Court held that the informer's entitlement, having been finally verified before the repeal of Evacuee Laws, could not be re-opened. The Court also ruled that the vendees were precluded from raising new grounds regarding the informer's locus standi and entitlement, as these grounds were available but not raised in earlier litigation. The Court affirmed that possession follows the allotment and adjustment of a verified pending claim, and vendees from an erstwhile allottee of a bogus claim must yield to the better entitlement of the informer. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the genuineness and correctness of an informer's claim be re-opened after the repeal of Evacuee Laws if it was finally verified before the repeal?
  • Are vendees from an erstwhile allottee of a bogus claim entitled to the property under repealing Evacuee Laws as bona fide purchasers in possession?
  • Can a party raise a new ground concerning an informer's entitlement in subsequent litigation if it was available but not raised in earlier proceedings up to the Supreme Court?
  • Does possession of land follow the allotment and adjustment of a verified pending claim?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IJAZ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2941 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR TAHIR vs The STATE1985 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-20
  bailrule of consistencypolice investigationmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a pre-arrest or post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, Muhammad Iftikhar Tahir, along with co-accused, was charged with offences under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a police report finding him innocent, and whether the rule of consistency applied given that a co-accused had been granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the principle of consistency was inapplicable because the co-accused's case was distinguishable on facts, notably having been found innocent in three successive investigations and benefiting from grave doubts regarding the place of occurrence, whereas the weight of evidence in the petitioner's case, including eye-witness accounts and injuries, supported the prosecution. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key legal principle laid down is that the rule of consistency in bail matters cannot be invoked mechanically; it requires factual parity, and a police opinion of innocence must be evaluated against the overall weight of evidence collected during investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies for the grant of bail when the facts and circumstances of the co-accused's case are distinguishable?
  • Can an accused claim bail as of right merely because a police officer found him innocent during investigation?
  • Does a police opinion of innocence override the weight of eye-witness evidence and injuries at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR MALIK vs Mst. SURRAIYA SULTANA1985 MLD 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDRIS vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDREES vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 865 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDREES KHAN vs Mst. FEROZ A KHANUM1985 MLD 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1227 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and another1985 CLC 3000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs SHER MUHAMMADPLD 1985 Rev. 95 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-11-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs DISTRICT JUDGE APPELLATE AUTHORITY VEHARI and others1985 CLC 2644 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16
  constitutional petitionrelationship of landlord and tenantdocumentary evidenceRegister Haqdaran ZaminejectmentRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition directed against the orders of the lower forums directing the ejectment of the petitioner from a plot on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity, after finding the preliminary issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the courts below were justified in relying upon a document, namely a copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin, which was never formally tendered in evidence or made part of the record. The Lahore High Court held that although the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act do not apply to rent proceedings, a document cannot be treated as evidence or relied upon against an opposite party unless it is produced and brought on the file in accordance with law. The court concluded that the impugned orders suffered from a serious error of law by relying on evidence not properly part of the record, thereby setting aside the concurrent findings and remanding the matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court or Rent Controller rely on a document that has not been formally tendered in evidence?
  • Does the reliance on evidence not forming part of the record vitiate concurrent findings of lower forums?
  • What is the scope of High Court interference in constitutional jurisdiction regarding orders based on improperly admitted evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS vs SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING1985 PLD Karachi 95 · Sindh High Court
  Letters Patent Appealcustodia legisrepresentative suitburden of proof of possessionlate production of documentsdelay in judgmentrejoinderadverse possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by a Single Judge in a long-standing civil suit initially filed in 1950 by the appellant representing the Brohi Jamat of Sher Shah Village for a declaration and injunction regarding vast tracts of land. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the representative suit, the extent of land in custodia legis pursuant to an attachment order, and the proof of actual possession by the plaintiffs. The High Court held that inordinate delay in delivering judgment does not invalidate it unless prejudice is shown, that a plaintiff is not required to file a rejoinder to a written statement unless a set-off or counter-claim is raised, and that the trial court was justified in refusing to admit late documents lacking authenticity. On merits, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession over the entire claimed land, except for a specific attached piece of land measuring approximately 2,646 square yards and the land actually occupied by their huts and houses. The Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the total dismissal and remanding the matter for a decision on merits restricted to the attached land and the land in actual possession of the Jamat.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay between the hearing of arguments and the pronouncement of a judgment render the judgment invalid under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff required under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to file a rejoinder or counter-statement to a written statement when no set-off or counter-claim has been pleaded?
  • Can a court refuse to admit late-produced documents that are merely simple copies of letters and agreements rather than public records of unquestionable authenticity?
  • What is the extent of a civil court's adjudication upon remand when an appellate court directs a suit to proceed only in respect of property in custodia legis and property actually in the plaintiff's possession?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others vs MURAD ALI and others1985 CLC 53 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 970 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH And Other1985 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-23
  pre-emptionconsent decreeburden of proofsale of landconcurrent findings of factexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought to challenge a pre-emption decree obtained by respondent No. 1 against respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the suit land from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 prior to the pre-emption decree, obtaining a separate consent decree for possession. However, the petitioner failed to intervene in the original pre-emption suit or disclose the alleged purchase during those proceedings. The District Judge and the High Court concurrently found that the alleged sale was not proved, characterizing the transaction as a shady attempt to deprive the pre-emption decree-holder of his rights. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, noting the suspicious conduct of the petitioner and the vendors in failing to disclose the transaction in the proper legal forum at the appropriate time. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not stall the execution of the pre-emption decree, as the alleged sale was unsubstantiated and the petitioner's conduct lacked merit. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who fails to intervene in a pre-emption suit subsequently stall the execution of a pre-emption decree based on an unproven, undisclosed prior purchase?
  • Does the failure to disclose an alleged sale during relevant legal proceedings affect the credibility of that transaction?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-proof of a sale subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Another1985 SCMR 1349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-27
  murderacquittalself-defenseocular testimonydying declarationcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent of a murder charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's ocular testimony and dying declaration, and in accepting the respondent's admission of the act while simultaneously granting him the benefit of his plea of self-defense. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court’s appreciation of evidence was based on sound inferences and that there were no compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal. The Court affirmed that where the prosecution fails to establish the charge against an accused, the accused's statement in defense must be accepted in its entirety. Consequently, because the prosecution failed to prove its case, the respondent was entitled to the full benefit of his plea of self-defense, rendering the acquittal legally justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case require the court to accept the accused's statement in its entirety?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence if the trial court's conclusions were supported by the record?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of a plea of self-defense if the prosecution fails to prove the charge?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, MULTAN RANGE AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 585 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA1985 PLC (C.S.) 989 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN JAFFARI vs Mst. MARYAM BIBI and 2 others1985 CLC 451 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 292 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY vs THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 291 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN BHATTI vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT and others1985 MLD 563 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN BHATTI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT1985 P Cr. L J 301 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22
  religious processionsMuharramlicencePolice Act 1861constitutional petitionsectarian tensionfreedom of assemblybreach of peace
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the District Magistrate, Gujrat, refusing the petitioner's application for a licence to take out 'Zuljinah' and 'Alam' processions during Muharram-ul-Haram. The core legal question was whether the licensing authority under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, can totally prohibit or refuse a licence for a religious procession merely due to sectarian tension and apprehension of a breach of the peace. The Lahore High Court held that the licensing power under Section 30 contemplates regulation rather than total prohibition, and the likelihood of a breach of the peace cannot be used to completely ban a procession unless there is proof of lack of bona fides or ulterior motives on the part of the applicant, as settled by the Supreme Court in Sarfraz Hussain Bokhari's case. The court concluded that the District Magistrate's refusal lacked lawful authority, set aside the impugned order, and directed the issuance of the licence subject to appropriate regulatory conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the District Magistrate completely refuse a licence to take out a religious procession solely on the ground of sectarian tension and apprehension of a breach of the peace?
  • Does Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, empower authorities to impose a total prohibition on public processions?
  • What is the scope of the powers of the District Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate regarding the regulation of public assemblies and processions under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs PANU KHAN and others1985 CLC 2966 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1985 MLD 350 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs A.C./ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT1985 CLC 2935 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias PAPOO vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Alias KOOK vs The STATE1985 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-12
  criminal appealocular testimonychance witnessmurder convictionbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencefalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, in the absence of corroborative recovery evidence and amidst a credible defense plea of enmity, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s case was unsafe to rely upon. The Court observed that the primary eye-witness was a chance witness whose testimony was riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies compared to his earlier statements. Furthermore, the complainant’s admissions regarding prior police involvement in smuggling investigations supported the appellant's defense of false implication. The Court concluded that the occurrence was un-witnessed and the F.I.R. was a product of post-occurrence deliberation and consultation. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that where ocular evidence is unreliable and contradicted by the surrounding circumstances, it cannot form the basis for a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the witnesses are chance witnesses and their testimony is riddled with contradictions?
  • Does the admission by a complainant regarding prior enmity and police involvement in smuggling investigations constitute sufficient grounds to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction where the F.I.R. appears to be the result of post-occurrence deliberation and consultation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2268 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN vs THE STATE and 5 others1985 P Cr. L J 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others vs DOST MUHAMMAD and others1985 MLD 936 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT And Others vs DOST MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-12
  pre-emptionwaiver of pre-emptionfinding of factsecond appealright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal concerning a pre-emption decree granted in favour of the respondents. The petitioners, who were the vendees, challenged the decree primarily on the issue of waiver, arguing that the respondents had waived their right of pre-emption. The petitioners contended that the vendor had advertised the sale in a newspaper, made direct offers to the respondents, and announced the sale by beat of drum, all of which the respondents were aware of. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. The Court held that the High Court had already reached a finding of fact against the petitioners regarding the evidence of waiver, and the petitioners failed to produce the alleged newspaper advertisement. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that mere knowledge of an intending pre-emptor about a sale, which subsequently becomes the subject of a pre-emption suit, does not constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere knowledge of an intending pre-emptor about a sale constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
  • Can a finding of fact by the High Court be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal when it is supported by evidence?
  • Is the failure to produce evidence of an alleged newspaper advertisement fatal to a plea of waiver in a pre-emption case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 5 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT alias HAYATON vs DIRECTORGENERAL, PAKISTAN COAST1985 P Cr. L J 2460 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT alias HAYAT vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2184 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 770 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs THE COMMISIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 170 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2195 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMADPLD 1985 Rev. 163 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1974-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASIL vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 325 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON through his Legal Heirs. vs SIRAJ AHMAD KHAN1985 CLC 549 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1985 MLD 9 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs HASSAN MOHIUDDIN1985 SCMR 1975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-29
  leave to appealremand of caserelationship of landlord and tenantRent Controllerrent proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 24-2-1985, whereby the High Court allowed the respondent's appeal and remanded the rent matter to the Rent Controller to frame a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, afford parties an opportunity to lead evidence, and decide the issue afresh. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case when the Rent Controller had already determined the issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of evidence produced by the parties prior to passing an order for the deposit of rent. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel required consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the petition, directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record, and ordered that the proceedings before the Rent Controller remain in abeyance pending the final decision of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a rent case for a fresh decision on the relationship of landlord and tenant when the Rent Controller has already decided the issue upon evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court remand a matter to the Rent Controller for framing a preliminary issue?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF SHAH vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 MLD 374 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →