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 HANIF MASOOD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1587 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF KAYANI vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., RAWALPINDI1985 PLC 207 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1338 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1985 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-20
  evacuee propertysettlement caseconstitutional jurisdictionquestion of factdemarcationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed constitutional petitions filed by rival contesting parties in a settlement case concerning the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question involves the challenge to the transfer orders and the classification of the disputed property as partly agricultural and partly residential. The Supreme Court held that the classification of property as agricultural or otherwise is a question of fact based on findings that do not merit interference in constitutional jurisdiction, noting that the real dispute pertained to demarcation rather than the validity of the transfer orders. The Court dismissed the petitions with the observation that the parties may approach the competent forum for demarcation. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the nature of property are binding and cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, and disputes limited to property identity should be resolved through demarcation before a competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of whether a property is agricultural or residential constitutes a question of fact immune from constitutional interference?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by a Settlement Authority?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when the real dispute between parties relates to the demarcation and identity of transferred evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF and others vs Mst. SHIRIN BAI and others1985 CLC 2688 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-16
  murdercompromisemitigating circumstancesdeath sentencesentence reductioncriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of two appellants for the murder of their step-mother under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court sentenced both to death, which the High Court upheld, though it reduced the sentence of one appellant to life imprisonment. Following a compromise between the appellants and the heirs of the deceased, the core legal question was whether a compromise between parties in a murder case, even in the absence of monetary compensation, constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction was fully justified, the compromise reached between the parties served as a significant mitigating factor. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that a compromise, even without monetary compensation, is a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions but reduced the death sentence of the remaining appellant to life imprisonment, while granting both appellants the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of their sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the accused and the heirs of the deceased be considered a mitigating circumstance in a murder case?
  • Is the payment of monetary compensation a mandatory requirement for a compromise to be accepted as a ground for reducing a death sentence?
  • Does a compromise between parties justify the acquittal of an accused person whose conviction for murder is otherwise fully justified?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAJI GANI Ltd. vs PAKISTAN and another1985 CLC 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs ISMAIL1985 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ RIAZ vs KHALID ANWAR and another1985 MLD 791 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GUL and another vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2U5 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-08-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR vs AMJAD RASHID And Other1985 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25
  ejectment petitionwithdrawal of petitionfinal orderstatutory appealrent restrictionres judicataconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of an appeal against a Rent Controller's order permitting the withdrawal of an ejectment petition with leave to file a fresh one. The core legal question was whether such an order constitutes a final order, thereby triggering the right of appeal under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court held that an order allowing the withdrawal of an ejectment petition effectively terminates the proceedings and must be treated as a final order of dismissal, rendering an appeal competent under Section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. However, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's refusal to set aside the order, reasoning that the petitioner was not prejudiced. The Court established that the petitioner could adequately protect their interests by invoking Section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in the subsequent proceedings to seek summary rejection of the new petition if it raised substantially the same issues as the former, thereby rendering the challenge to the initial withdrawal order unnecessary and academic.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order by a Rent Controller allowing the withdrawal of an ejectment petition with permission to file a fresh one considered a final order?
  • Does an order permitting the withdrawal of an ejectment petition constitute an appealable order under Section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a party seek the summary rejection of a fresh ejectment petition under Section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if it raises issues already decided in a former proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FEROZE vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FEROZE KHAN vs Ch. WAHEED AHMAD ADVOCATE and another1985 MLD 811 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 882 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD YUSUF and another1985 CLC 614 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-14
  bona fide personal needrent evictionconstitutional jurisdictionappellate interferencelandlord and tenantconjectural findingsstatutory safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an appellate order reversing a Rent Controller’s decision that granted eviction of a tenant on grounds of the landlord’s bona fide personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in reversing a finding of fact based on conjectures and extraneous considerations, such as the landlord's lack of business experience or alleged desire for higher rent. The High Court held that the appellate court’s decision was legally flawed, as it relied on superficial reasoning and ignored the statutory safeguards provided under the rent laws to prevent mala fide eviction claims. The Court emphasized that while constitutional jurisdiction is limited, it is appropriate to intervene when findings of fact are capricious, arbitrary, or based on non-existent evidence. The principle established is that a landlord’s stated need, supported by oath, must be evaluated objectively, and the existence of statutory provisions penalizing false claims serves as a check against mala fide, rendering the appellate court's dismissal of the claim on speculative grounds unsustainable. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact by an appellate court in rent matters under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the existence of statutory safeguards against mala fide eviction claims support the genuineness of a landlord's personal need?
  • Is a landlord's lack of prior business experience a valid ground to reject a claim for bona fide personal use of premises?
  • Can an appellate court reverse a Rent Controller's finding of fact based on conjectures and extraneous considerations?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs Mirza MOOR HUSSAIN And Another1985 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-19
  bailmurderfurther inquirypolice investigationjudicial discretioncancellation of bailunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court granting bail to several accused persons charged with murder and attempted murder under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting bail, particularly where conflicting police reports existed regarding the innocence of one accused and where no specific overt acts were attributed to others. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion was based on plausible reasoning. Regarding the accused whose innocence was disputed by different police officers, the Court affirmed that the matter constituted a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the other accused, the Court held that the absence of specific allegations of effective firing justified the grant of bail. The principle laid down is that where there is a genuine conflict in investigation findings or a lack of specific attribution of criminal acts, the grant of bail remains a matter of judicial discretion not to be lightly interfered with by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a case where police investigation reports are conflicting regarding an accused's innocence a fit case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court granting bail if the reasoning is plausible?
  • Does the absence of specific allegations of effective firing against co-accused justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-09
  murderculpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden fightheat of passionpremeditationprivate defencesentence reductionappealException IV to Section 300 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, granted leave by the Supreme Court, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that had reduced the appellant's death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant's act, involving a single knife blow during an altercation, fell under Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code, thereby constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances, including an exchange of abuses, grappling, and a solitary blow inflicted without premeditation during a sudden fight in the heat of passion, fully satisfied the conditions of Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code. The Court emphasized that it is immaterial which party offered the provocation or committed the first assault in such cases. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304, Part-I, Pakistan Penal Code, receiving a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation?
  • What are the conditions for applying Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Is it material which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault when considering Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does a solitary blow inflicted during grappling and an altercation without premeditation fall under Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs Mst. ANIS ,JEHAN BEGUM and 13 others1985 MLD 173 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1985 MLD 443 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs SPECIAL COURT (BANKING) OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FARID vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 683 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-15
  jail petitionmurderdeath sentenceeyewitness accountred-handed arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a jail petition filed by Muhammad Din against his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of Mst. Hamidan Bibi. The prosecution case states that the petitioner, who was residing in the complainant's house, attacked and fatally injured the deceased with a razor following a dispute over his continued stay in the house after the complainant's marriage. Eyewitnesses apprehended the petitioner red-handed at the spot with the weapon and subsequently lodged an FIR. The trial court and appellate forums found the evidence reliable, noting the prompt FIR, ocular testimony, medical evidence, and injuries sustained by the accused. The core legal question examined was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the guilt of the petitioner was established to the hilt by direct ocular testimony, immediate apprehension at the scene with the weapon, and supporting medical evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ocular testimony supported by immediate apprehension at the scene is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the presence of injuries on the accused corroborating the assault support the prosecution case?
  • Whether unexplained delay in filing a jail petition can be condoned when a sentence of death is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs The ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), DISTRICT GUJRANWALA and another1985 MLD 298(1) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs KOURO and 2 others1985 CLC 2275 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) And Other1985 SCMR 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-01
  evacuee landsettlement commissionerspecial jamabandiinheritance disputewrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from evacuee agricultural land disputes in Gujranwala. The core legal question revolves around whether the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court correctly barred the re-examination of the inheritance of Makhu based on official special Jamabandi entries from 1947, and whether oral evidence could override documentary records. The Supreme Court held that official records exchanged between India and Pakistan regarding land entitlements take precedence over oral statements, and previous binding judicial determinations foreclosing the inheritance question cannot be reopened. The key principle laid down is that rehabilitation and settlement entitlements must be determined strictly with reference to official special Jamabandi entries rather than contradictory oral testimonies, and matters finally concluded by competent courts cannot be relitigated under the guise of fresh material.

  Questions settled

  • Whether oral statements can override official special Jamabandi entries prepared regarding evacuee property?
  • Can a question of inheritance finally decided by the High Court be re-opened before a Settlement Commissioner?
  • Does an entitlement for evacuee land in Pakistan depend on official documents exchanged between India and Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN and 10 others vs BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, LAHORE and another1985 CLC 519 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DAWOOD vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUKHSH vs Haji RASUL BUKHSH1985 CLC 2538 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2717(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND ANOTHER vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, MULTAN1985 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1955-11-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOT A vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1378 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIRs vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 391 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIRDecreeHolder vs M. A .F00TWEA R--Judgment-Debtor1985 CLC 460 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs STATE AND OTHERS1985 PLD Azad J & K 221 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Mst. SHAMA BEGUM alias SHAMA PERVEEN1985 CLC 2250 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs M.A. FOOTWEAR1985 CLC 2698 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 616 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 831 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER And Another1985 SCMR 655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionno-confidence resolutionlocal bodyprocedural irregularitymajority vote
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging a no-confidence resolution passed against the petitioner as Chairman of a local body. The core legal question concerns whether alleged procedural irregularities committed before and during the meeting convening the no-confidence resolution vitiate the outcome. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal must be refused, determining that minor procedural technicalities should not be used to impose the leader of a thin minority on a body, especially when twelve out of seventeen members voted against the petitioner. Furthermore, the court held that factual inquiries into procedural irregularities are not warranted at this stage. The key principle laid down is that substantive democratic expressions of a clear majority in local bodies will not be overturned on the basis of minor procedural technicalities or require extensive factual inquiries without compelling grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a no-confidence resolution passed by a clear majority be set aside on the ground of minor procedural technicalities?
  • Will the Supreme Court conduct a detailed factual enquiry to determine procedural irregularities in a no-confidence meeting at the leave to appeal stage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR SHEIKH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 758 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR SHAHEEN vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1985 P Cr. L J 794 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN vs Messrs STEELFABS Ltd.,.KARACHI1985 CLC 38 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR JAVED vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 21985 PLC (C.S.) 581 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHEER AND 9 OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 643 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 2411 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, LAHORE and others1985 MLD 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MASTUNG AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 255 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 158 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 506 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH H. SAHAR vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND1985 PLC (C.S.) 897 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Alias MUHAMMADI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-11
  solitary eye-witnessconvictionleave to appealsentence computationcriminal appealmurdertheft
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, Muhammad Bakhsh, for the murder of Ahmad Bakhsh and the theft of his mare. The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge under sections 302 and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving life imprisonment and one year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently. The Lahore High Court maintained these convictions and sentences. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction, based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, was sustainable and whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief regarding his sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of the courts below. The Court held that the testimony of a solitary eye-witness is sufficient for conviction when the witness is credible and lacks enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused. Furthermore, the Court granted the petitioner the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of his sentence, while otherwise upholding the lower courts' judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness?
  • Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a convict serving a life sentence?
  • Does the absence of enmity between a witness and an accused strengthen the reliability of a solitary eye-witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BACHAL and 3 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, .SIND1985 MLD 584 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BABOO KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZIM vs PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY1985 PLD Karachi 481 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-25
  allotment of commercial plotcooperative housing societyagreement to leasedoctrine of indoor managementcancellation of allotmentpart performancejurisdiction of civil courtspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil judgment resolves multiple suits regarding the ownership and possession of a commercial plot ('Nursery Plot') allotted by the Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society (PECHS) to plaintiff Muhammad Azim, which was later cancelled and re-allotted to United Bank Ltd. The main legal questions addressed were whether the initial allotment order and receipt of full consideration constituted a binding agreement to lease; whether the subsequent cancellation on grounds of alleged fraud, forgery, or request was lawful; whether the doctrine of indoor management protected the purchaser; and whether civil court jurisdiction was barred under Sections 54 and 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 or Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The High Court held that the allotment order was a valid agreement to lease, protecting the plaintiff's possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The doctrine of indoor management applied to protect the plaintiff who dealt in good faith. The cancellation was ruled illegal, rendering the subsequent allotment to the bank void. The Court further held that Section 54 does not bar suits involving non-members and a plaintiff in possession is not required to seek specific performance under Section 42.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment order issued by a cooperative housing society upon payment of full consideration constitutes an enforceable agreement to lease?
  • Does the doctrine of indoor management protect an allottee acting in good faith from internal procedural irregularities of a cooperative housing society?
  • Is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by an allottee in physical possession barred under the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 for omitting to claim specific performance?
  • Does Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in a dispute involving non-members of the society?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZHAR KHAN vs ABDUL MATIN1985 MLD 184 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others1985 CLC 2912 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, QUETTA1985 PLC 1108 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 940 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM JAVAID and others vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 188 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-01
  murdercircumstantial evidencelast seen togethercriminal appealconvictionacquittalSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a taxi driver whose body was found with a slit throat. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence, specifically the 'last seen' theory and recovery of the victim's car, was sufficient to maintain the convictions and death sentences. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish the identity of one appellant who was not properly identified, it was fully sufficient as to the remaining two appellants who were last seen with the deceased and found in possession of the victim's vehicle. The court laid down the principle that the 'last seen' evidence coupled with the recovery of the deceased's property from the accused constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a murder conviction under Section 302/34.

  Questions settled

  • Whether circumstantial evidence consisting of the 'last seen' theory and recovery of the victim's vehicle is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the conviction of an accused be sustained where his identity as the person last seen with the deceased is not established beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM and 4 others vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB FOOD DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 128 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM and 33 others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD1985 PLC (C.S.) 20 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM ALI And 35 Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1985 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23
  ad hoc appointmentcivil judgestermination of servicecompetitive examinationservice tribunalregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were appointed as ad hoc Civil Judges after failing to qualify in the aggregate of the 1980 competitive examination, sought leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's dismissal of their appeal against termination. Their ad hoc appointments were subject to the condition that they must qualify in the next competitive examination to secure regular appointment, failing which their services would be terminated. The petitioners failed the subsequent 1981 examination, leading to their termination. They contended that their appointments should be treated as regular under Section 2(2) of the Civil Servants Act and that the rules were impliedly modified. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prescribed rules for recruitment were neither relaxed nor changed. The appointments were explicitly ad hoc and made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed rules. Consequently, the termination of their services was lawful, in accordance with the terms of their appointment, and did not violate any vested rights. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad hoc civil servant can claim a vested right to regular appointment or continuation in service despite failing to qualify in the prescribed competitive examination?
  • Does an ad hoc appointment made outside the prescribed rules of recruitment automatically convert into a regular appointment under the Civil Servants Act?
  • Can the terms of an ad hoc appointment, which mandate termination upon failure to pass a subsequent competitive examination, be legally enforced?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYYUB vs MUHAMMAD YOUNAS1985 CLC 937 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYYUB and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYYAZ KHAN vs DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, PUNJAB and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 515 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1430 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs The ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others1985C L C 2922 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 983 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1985 PLC 868 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 21985 CLC 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN and another vs Maulana RI AZUL HA SS AN1985 CLC 619 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB CHANDIO vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLC 872 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 412 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYAZ AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Peshawar 82 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHAHID vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 787 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHAHID vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11
  quo warrantolocus standijudicial appointmenteligibility criteriaex officio functionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a serving Civil Judge, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of two constitutional petitions by the Lahore High Court. The first petition challenged his exclusion from competing for Additional District and Sessions Judge vacancies reserved for practising lawyers. The second petition sought a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court regarding the constitution of a selection committee for these judicial appointments. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, while serving as a Civil Judge, was ineligible to apply for positions specifically reserved for practising lawyers. Regarding the second petition, the Court ruled that the selection committee members were performing functions ex officio as High Court Judges, not holding a separate public office, and thus a writ of quo warranto was inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court determined the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the selection process due to his ineligibility. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitions and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a serving Civil Judge eligible to compete for judicial vacancies reserved for practising lawyers?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued against High Court Judges performing selection committee duties?
  • Does a candidate lacking eligibility for a post have locus standi to challenge the selection process for that post?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2821 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES (PAKISTAN) LTD.1985 PLC 806 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 551 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND 15 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 632 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LOCAL1985 PLC (C.S.) 780 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1985 PLC 592 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs PUNJAB PROVINCE through Secretary Local1985 PLC (C.S.) 124 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD, And Other1985 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-04
  pre-emption suitlimitation periodmutation of salepossession of landKhasra Girdawarileave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the suit for pre-emption was barred by limitation, specifically regarding the date of the completion of the sale and the subsequent taking of possession. The petitioner argued that the suit was filed beyond the statutory period of one year, contending that possession had transferred on an earlier date. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts, which had consistently held that the change of possession was not reflected in the Khasra Girdawari and that the plaintiff-respondent had only learned of the sale when the vendee demanded a share of the produce. The Court held that since the attestation of the mutation occurred after the suit was filed and the claim of possession transfer was not effectively proven, the suit was not time-barred. The principle laid down is that the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commences from the date of taking possession or the attestation of mutation, and factual findings regarding the date of possession by lower courts will not be disturbed absent effective rebuttal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 commence from the date of possession or the attestation of mutation?
  • Can a suit for pre-emption be considered timely if the plaintiff institutes the action within one year of learning about the sale, despite the vendee's claims regarding an earlier date of possession?
  • Are findings of fact regarding the date of possession, when consistently held by trial and appellate courts, subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MURREE BREWERY COMPANY1985 PLC 146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1985 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03
  specific performancefraudulent misrepresentationilliterate partyburden of proofconcurrent findingscontract to sellKhasra Girdawari
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land, which was dismissed by the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court. The respondent had successfully contended that the petitioner fraudulently obtained his signature on an agreement to sell, misrepresenting it as a lease deed. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in finding the agreement to sell tainted based on the evidence presented, specifically regarding the respondent's illiteracy and the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the respondent was an illiterate simpleton and that the Khasra Girdawari entries identified the petitioner as a lessee, not a vendee. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove that the agreement was read out, explained, and understood by the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that relief for specific performance can be denied where the underlying document is tainted by fraud and the petitioner fails to establish the validity of the transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Can specific performance be refused if the underlying agreement to sell is tainted by fraud?
  • Is a contract binding if an illiterate party was not provided with an explanation of the document's contents?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD LATIF PIRACHA and another1985 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MESSRS BISVIL SPINNERS LTD., MURIDKE1985 PLC 627 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Other1985 SCMR 2103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07
  election petitionnomination papersappointment of agentconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his election petition regarding an election to a Municipal Committee. He contended that the successful respondent's nomination paper was invalid because the respondent was not present in Gujrat on the filing day and his agent was a minor. The Election Tribunal and subsequently the Lahore High Court in constitutional jurisdiction dismissed his claims, holding that any irregularity in appointing an agent that did not materially affect the result could not disenfranchise voters, and that the nomination papers validly filed by the proposer were in order. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was in full accord with well-settled principles of law, as there was no illegality or lack of jurisdiction by the Tribunal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a candidate from the municipality on the day of filing nomination papers invalidate the nomination?
  • Whether the appointment of a minor as an agent invalidates election nomination papers when the papers are duly proposed, seconded, and accepted?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked against the decision of an Election Tribunal in the absence of illegality or lack of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM TAUQIR vs Messrs AWAMI AUTOS LIMITED1985 PLC 445 · Labour Court · 1984-07-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 753 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM MALIK vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 167 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM MALIK vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SGA&I DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM EJAZ vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE and another1985 PLC 500 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2738 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →