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.
- MUNAWAR ALI and another vs NOOR AHMED M. TOORAWA1984 CLC 2578 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR ALA vi MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 576 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR AHMED MALIK vs ABDUL QADEER SUHARWARDY1984 CLC 2556 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
- MUNAW AR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 767 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1316 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ N A NGI A N A vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2462 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-04Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 407 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs TkiE DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision against the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The petitioner had initiated a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of the disputed property based on adverse possession, while simultaneously and inconsistently claiming to have purchased the property. The trial court dismissed the suit after deciding the issue of adverse possession against the petitioner, and the lower appellate court affirmed this decision. The core legal question before the High Court and the Supreme Court was whether findings of fact regarding adverse possession could be re-examined in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below were rightly found by the High Court to be outside the purview of revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that pure questions of fact and concurrent factual determinations cannot be disturbed by a revisional court.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession be challenged in revisional jurisdiction?
- Whether a revisional court can interfere with findings of fact determined by the courts below?
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs The DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition filed by the petitioner. The underlying litigation originated from a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession, wherein the petitioner inconsistently claimed to have purchased the disputed property. The respondent contested the claim, asserting that the petitioner was merely a tenant and that the suit was a retaliatory measure against pending ejectment proceedings. The trial court decided the issue of adverse possession against the petitioner and dismissed the suit, a decision subsequently upheld by the District Judge in appeal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision application on the grounds that the contentions raised involved findings of fact, which were not amenable to interference under revisional jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the controversy pertained strictly to questions of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that no grounds existed for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can findings of fact be challenged in revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession maintainable when the plaintiff also claims title through purchase?
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1984 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal against an order of ejectment. The ejectment was sought on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge reversed the findings and ordered ejectment, which the High Court upheld. The core legal question was whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement and whether default in rent justified ejectment. The Supreme Court held that the landlord sufficiently proved personal requirement and a 13-month default in rent, and clarified that the statutory reference to occupation of another building pertains to a building owned by the landlord rather than rented accommodation. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower appellate and high courts, while granting the tenant four months to vacate upon continued payment of rent.
Questions settled- Whether occupation of another building under the relevant rent restriction law refers to a building owned by the landlord or rented accommodation?
- Does a proven default in rent for a significant period preclude the exercise of discretion in favour of the tenant?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in a rent matter?
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs FEROZE DIN1984 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition against concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and default in rent, concurrently reached by the lower forums, could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings, arrived at after affording full opportunity to lead evidence, were unexceptionable and declined to interfere. The key principle laid down is that the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction will not disturb concurrent findings of fact of rent forums unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect or perversity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of rent forums in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a claim of adverse possession against the landlord negate the relationship of landlord and tenant in rent proceedings?
- MUMTAZ HASSAN KHAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS ,1984 PLC 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a marketing representative, challenged his dismissal by the respondent company and the subsequent findings of the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that he did not qualify as a "workman." The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s duties, primarily involving sales promotion, satisfied the definition of "workman" under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower forums' findings. The Court held that the definition of "workman" under the Standing Orders Ordinance requires that an employee be engaged in manual or clerical work. Where an employee's primary responsibility is sales promotion, any manual or clerical tasks performed are merely incidental to that main function and do not satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court further established that an employer’s prior treatment of an employee as a workman does not legally alter the employee's actual statutory status if their duties do not meet the legal definition of a workman.
Questions settled- Does an employee whose primary duty is sales promotion qualify as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Are manual or clerical tasks performed incidentally to a primary non-manual job sufficient to classify an employee as a 'workman'?
- Does an employer's prior treatment of an employee as a workman legally estop the employer from later asserting the employee is not a workman?
- MUMTAZ AND 3 OTHERS vs MANSOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' criminal revision against the trial court's order summoning them as accused in a private complaint case under Sections 148, 302, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following a police report placing several initial accused in Column No. 2 and introducing two new accused, the complainant filed a private complaint, leading to the petitioners being summoned after an inquiry. The core legal question was what procedure a trial court must adopt when a private complaint case and a police challan case arise out of the same occurrence with differing accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's direction that the private complaint case be tried first. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Nur Elahi v. State, holding that where the versions or accused differ between a challan case and a private complaint, the complaint case should be taken up first, with witnesses from the challan case summoned as court witnesses to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether a private complaint case and a police challan case arising out of the same occurrence must be tried jointly or sequentially?
- What is the proper trial procedure to be followed when the police challan and a private complaint contain different sets of accused persons?
- Whether a trial court has the lawful authority to summon accused persons named in a private complaint even if they were placed in Column No. 2 of the police challan?
- MUMTAZ AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ alias MANGTA and 2 otherss vs NIZAMUDDIN1984 CLC 2826 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for declaration of ownership of agricultural land. The respondent claimed half-ownership of a survey number based on an alleged sale agreement executed by the widow of the original allottee. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the alleged alienation under land reform laws and the evidentiary requirements for proving documents executed by an illiterate Pardahnashin lady. The High Court held that the purported sale was ab initio void, as it violated Paragraph 25(4) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959, which prohibits the alienation of any part of a holding that is less than a subsistence holding. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the lower courts misapplied the law regarding the burden of proof; the burden lies squarely on the party relying on a document executed by a Pardahnashin lady to prove its due execution, which the respondent failed to satisfy. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and the lower courts' judgments were set aside.
Questions settled- Does the alienation of a part of a holding that is less than a subsistence holding violate the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a document is executed by an illiterate Pardahnashin lady?
- Can a sale agreement be enforced if it violates the statutory prohibition against alienating parts of a subsistence holding?
- MUMTAZ AHMAD vs THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD, KARACHI1984 PLC 1305 · Labour Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ AHMAD vs KHYBER VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD., LAHORE1984 PLC 1438 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ AHMAD alias TAJI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUMAMMAD ABBAS vs THE STATEPLD 1984 Federal Shariat Cou · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Mulla ABDULLAH BHAI vs Mst. HUSAINA BAI and another1984 CLC 3525 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-24Read full judgment →
- MULAZIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2740 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIAR AHMAD vs MEMBER (RELIEF AND SETTLEMENT) BOARD OF REVENUE, HYDERABAD AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1724 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-11Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIAR AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BADIN and others1984 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR alias MUKHA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 375 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special lease arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the convictions and sentences of the respondents. Leave was granted to consider whether the High Court acted on correct judicial principles in concluding that the incident constituted a free fight and that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The dispute originated from a property dispute and prior bad relations leading to a violent clash resulting in the death of Muhammad Sadiq and injuries to multiple individuals. The trial court had convicted various respondents under murder and related charges, imposing capital punishment and prison sentences. Upon appeal, the High Court re-appraised the evidence, found the eyewitness testimony to be of a partisan nature, and partly relied on the accused's statement that a sudden fight had broken out without premeditation, thereby altering the murder conviction to one under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code and adjusting individual liabilities. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree with the High Court's findings, noting also that the convicts had already served their sentences. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court acted on correct judicial principles in concluding that the incident was a free fight entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can individual criminal liability be substituted for vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of corroboratory evidence in a sudden fight?
- Whether an appellate court is justified in reappraising evidence and altering convictions from murder to culpable homicide based on admissions in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 512 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD AND 5 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 52 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-09Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHM A D AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUJEEB AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SERVICES GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 676 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- MUJA HID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for unnatural offences. The petitioner was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon appeal, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of the offence under the Ordinance but maintained the conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution's case was rendered doubtful due to the negative report regarding semen presence in rectal swabs and the failure to produce the victim's shalwar. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sufficiently supported by the victim's testimony and corroborating medical evidence, despite the forensic report's findings. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that where evidence is consistent and corroborated, the absence of specific forensic confirmation does not necessarily invalidate a conviction for unnatural offences.
Questions settled- Does a negative report regarding the presence of semen in rectal swabs automatically render a prosecution case for an unnatural offence doubtful?
- Can a conviction for an unnatural offence be sustained based on the victim's testimony corroborated by medical evidence despite the absence of forensic confirmation?
- Is the failure to produce a victim's clothing as evidence fatal to a prosecution case for an unnatural offence?
- MUHMMAD HANIF vs CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND 21984 PLC 832 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHMMAD AFZAL BAJWA vs SHAH TAJ SUGAR MILLS1984 PLC 885 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
- MUHARRAM ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal in limine on the preliminary ground that he was not a civil servant and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant remained a Government servant entitled to protections despite the abolition of his college cadre and subsequent drawing of pension, and the legal effect of a later government notification restoring the cadre and declaring employees to be on deputation. The Supreme Court held that the initial notification abolishing the cadre contravened statutory provisions under the governing ordinance, and the subsequent cancellation of that paragraph restored the employees' continuous status as Government servants by operation of law without requiring individual applications. The Court laid down the principle that statutory guarantees protecting the status and terms of service of government employees transferred to educational institution boards cannot be overridden by administrative notifications, and restoration of a cadre automatically revives the government service status of affected personnel.
Questions settled- Whether an employee transferred to a Board of Governors under the West Pakistan Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960 ceases to be a Government servant upon the abolition of his college cadre?
- Does the cancellation of a notification that purported to abolish a college cadre automatically restore the affected employees' status as Government servants without requiring them to individually apply for restoration?
- Whether the receipt of pension and gratuity following the purported abolition of a cadre strips a person of their statutory status as a Government servant once the cadre is legally restored?
- MUHAMMMAD JEHANGIR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD NIAZUDDIN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMD RASHID vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMD HASIL vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1984 PLC (C. S.) 464 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST)1984 PTD 239 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD, SAEED QURESHI AND OTHERS vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1984 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon leave to appeal being granted to consider whether the Department was justified in denying back and future benefits to the petitioners after designating them as Upper Division Clerks in 1972, and whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioners' appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the impugned order was passed prior to 1969. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the grievance pertained to the denial of pay under scales revised by rules framed in 1949. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the decision was made before 1969 and the appeal was also time-barred. Consequently, the order granting leave to appeal was recalled and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing an appeal as not maintainable when the impugned order was passed before the year 1969?
- Can an appeal regarding service pay revision dating back to rules framed in 1949 be maintained before the Service Tribunal?
- Whether leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court can be recalled upon discovering the appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred?
- MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR SHAKIR vs MANAGER, PUNJAB SEED CORPORATION1984 PLC 812 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZARIF KHAN vs MESSRS N. R. HOLDINGS LTD.1984 PLC 1500 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZARAIT vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AMIN1984 PLC 457 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs ABDUL GHAFFAR and others1984 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from concurrent orders of ejectment passed against the appellant tenant on the ground of bona fide personal use of the shop by the landlord. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was willing to surrender vacant possession of the premises and not press the appeal, provided reasonable time was granted to vacate. Counsel for the respondents agreed to grant time until the 1st of May, 1984, for the appellant to make alternative arrangements. The appellant personally undertook to vacate the premises voluntarily by the stipulated date, without necessitating execution proceedings, and agreed to continue paying monthly rent during the interim period. The Supreme Court found the amicable settlement acceptable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, while allowing the appellant to retain possession until the agreed date subject to the strict observance of the terms of the settlement.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an ejectment order can be dismissed as not pressed upon an amicable settlement between the landlord and tenant?
- Can the Supreme Court grant extended time to a tenant for vacating commercial premises based on a voluntary undertaking?
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN vs SHER AFZAL KHAN AND 8 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 138 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN alias MANA vs ASLAM AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR vs MUSARRAF IQBAL and others1984 SCMR 1473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court order directing the petitioner to vacate a shop. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of an earlier ejectment petition, which involved a dispute over the landlord-tenant relationship, operated as res judicata against subsequent ejectment proceedings initiated by the successors-in-interest of the original transferee. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of the evacuee property to the original owner created a statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the occupant. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the previous ejectment petition, which was withdrawn following a compromise, did not result in a determination of the relationship issue; thus, the principle of res judicata did not apply. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the statutory relationship persisted after the property's sale to the respondents. The key principle laid down is that the withdrawal of an ejectment petition pursuant to a compromise, without a judicial determination of the contested issues, does not bar subsequent litigation on those same issues under the doctrine of res judicata.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of an ejectment petition pursuant to a compromise operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings?
- Does the transfer of evacuee property create a statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the occupant?
- Can a successor-in-interest initiate ejectment proceedings if the original transferee's previous petition was withdrawn?
- MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR and another vs LAL MUHAMMAD and 2 others1984 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that entertained a constitutional petition against an order passed by an Additional District Judge in a civil revision under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court had permitted the amendment of a reply to an application regarding an issue of unsoundness of mind. The Additional District Judge set aside that amendment on the basis that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied only to pleadings. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, declared the Additional District Judge's revisional order illegal. The petitioners contended that Section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 specifically bars further revision proceedings in the High Court against revisional orders of the District Court, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent legislative intent or review orders of ordinary civil courts of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether judgments and orders of courts of general jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be challenged through constitutional petitions in the High Court where further appeal or revision is statutorily barred.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a District Court under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be challenged in the High Court through a constitutional petition despite the bar in Section 115(4)?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be exercised to review orders of ordinary civil courts of general jurisdiction when further remedies of appeal or revision are statutorily barred?
- MUHAMMAD ZAHEER CHAUDHRY vs HABIB BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 950 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 417 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZA MAN vs Syed ABDUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Yusuf against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence and whether the testimony of the prosecutrix and panchayat witnesses could form the basis of a conviction when co-accused were acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the credibility of the prosecutrix and the involvement of the petitioner were unexceptionable, and that the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt does not vitiate the conviction of the petitioner where the evidence against him is severable and reliable. The key principle laid down is that reappraisal of evidence will not be undertaken by the Supreme Court unless a provision or principle of law has been violated or ignored by the courts below.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons necessitates the acquittal of the remaining accused whose role is proven?
- Can a conviction for Zina be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if her statement is found credible by the courts below?
- Does the Supreme Court undertake a reappraisal of evidence in petitions for leave to appeal where no principle of law has been violated?
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 29 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF alias YUNUS vs Mst. KAISAR JAN1984 CLC 1465 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSAF vs REHMAT KHAN AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 378 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUNIS vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 827 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 622 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs PAKISTAN OIL EXPELLER AND STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS, LAHORE THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR ,1984 PLC 1191 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1984 P Cr. L J 2325 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs MASROOR KHAN1984 CLC 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD1984 PLC 875 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF ISHAQUI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs ABDUL MAJID1984 CLC 243 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of agricultural land. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 1 executed an agreement of sale and handed over possession of the suit land, but subsequently attempted to sell it to other respondents. Respondent No. 1 contested the suit, claiming fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence, and the subsequent purchasers claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision. Upon second appeal, the High Court held that the execution of the sale agreement was duly proved and that the allegations of fraud and undue influence were unsubstantiated, particularly as respondent No. 1 failed to enter the witness-box. The Court further held that subsequent purchasers bear a heavy burden of proof to establish that they acted in good faith without notice, which they failed to discharge. The High Court consequently set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Whether verified statements in a written statement can be treated as substantive evidence when the party does not enter the witness-box?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a subsequent transferee is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice in a suit for specific performance?
- Can a contract for the sale of immovable property be specifically enforced against a subsequent transferee who acquired title with notice of the original agreement?
- Whether failure of a defendant to testify in court undermines an unverified plea of fraud and misrepresentation?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1584 SCMR 1967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for murder and related offenses. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding individual participation in a group assault and the correct determination of the nature of the offense where multiple injuries contributed to the fatal result. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the participation of one appellant, Nazir Ahmad, was established by consistent ocular testimony and corroborative injuries, the medical evidence did not support an intention to cause death or the specific fatal injuries attributed to him, reducing his conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The second appellant, Muhammad Yousaf, was granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. The key principle laid down is that where multiple blows contribute to a fatal result and individual attribution for the fatal injuries is uncertain, the legal intention cannot be elevated to murder under Section 302 without clear proof of common intention or specific fatal acts, warranting a conviction under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when multiple injuries contribute to a skull fracture and the specific fatal blow cannot be definitively attributed to the accused?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused whose role in an assault is not conclusively established by the prosecution, warranting his acquittal?
- Whether the intention to cause death can be inferred from a single blow with a blunt weapon when the overall circumstances and nature of the injuries negative a preconcerted plan to commit murder?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a criminal appeal by a former foot-constable against his conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for assisting a police sub-inspector in accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether sufficient evidence existed to establish that the appellant had the requisite knowledge of the illicit nature of the transaction and was a privy to the crime, or whether he was merely an innocent subordinate acting under orders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts establishing the appellant's complicity, based on his presence during incriminating conversations and the recovery of tainted currency notes from his possession, were legally sound and supported by creditworthy evidence. The conviction was upheld, but the Supreme Court laid down the principle that the absence of personal gain and the role of a subordinate acting at the behest of a superior officer are relevant mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction in sentence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a modification to the sentence.
Questions settled- Whether a subordinate police official who picks up tainted bribe money at the behest of a superior officer can be convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of personal gain?
- Does the absence of personal financial gain in a corruption transaction operate as a mitigating circumstance in determining the quantum of sentence for an accomplice?
- Can concurrent factual findings regarding a public servant's knowledge of an illegal gratification transaction be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of a legal error?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1984 PLC 1511 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs IMRAN ISHTIAQ-UR-RAHMAN and others1984 MLD 399 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN ENGINEERING1984 PLC 1074 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF RATHORE vs G. H. BOKHARI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER1984 PLC 1293 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises out of a land settlement case concerning land allotted to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee under a Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The core legal question is whether the subsequent allotment of the disputed land to the petitioners during the original allottee's incarceration was valid, and whether the challenge by the original allottee was barred by delay. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent allotment made without notice to the original allottee was rightly set aside by the Settlement Authorities, and the delay in challenging the same by the respondent during his imprisonment was sufficiently explained and repelled on facts. The Court also affirmed that the reservation of rights for Jammu and Kashmir refugees under the Scheme holds. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of land made to a third party during the original allottee's incarceration is valid without notice to him?
- Whether a challenge to a land allotment made by an incarcerated person is barred by delay under the circumstances?
- Does the reservation of Jammu and Kashmir refugees' rights regarding land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme carry validity?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others vs GHULAM HUSSAIN through his Legal1984 MLD 1069 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS KHAN 3 others vs KARACHI ROAD TRANSPORT1984 CLC 2830 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for the recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following the fatal motor accident of their wife and mother, who was crushed under the wheels of a bus due to the driver's negligence. The defendants contested the suit, arguing inter alia that the claim was barred by res judicata and ousted by the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal since the plaintiffs had already accepted compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions revolved around whether receiving compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance bars a subsequent suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, the vicarious liability of the transport owner for the driver's negligence, and the assessment of damages. The Sindh High Court held that the civil suit is maintainable and not barred by res judicata, as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance is in addition to other legal remedies, and established that the employer and driver are jointly and severally liable in tort for the fatal accident. The Court laid down that receiving statutory tribunal compensation does not oust jurisdiction under the Fatal Accidents Act but remains a relevant factor in determining the quantum of damages.
Questions settled- Does receiving compensation under section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 bar a subsequent civil suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Whether the owner of a transport vehicle is vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of its employee acting in the course of employment?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act after compensation has been awarded by a Claims Tribunal?
- What is the standard method for determining life expectancy and assessing quantum of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 820 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS AND ANOTHERS vs Mst. 1NAY AT BEGUM1984 CLC 3279 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS alias Mushtaq vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2188 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1984 PLC 835 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs CHAIRMAN MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES, SAHIWAL AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Thirty constitutional petitions were filed challenging demands by Income-tax Authorities requiring local bodies to collect advance income-tax under Section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 from contractors awarded leases through public auctions for collecting octroi duty, toll tax, and other municipal fees. The central legal issue was whether auctioning the rights to collect statutory octroi, tolls, and fees levied under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 or the Cantonments Act 1924 constitutes a 'sale of property by public auction' within the meaning of Section 50(7-A). The High Court held that delegating or leasing the right to collect statutory taxes and fees does not amount to an absolute transfer or sale of property belonging to a local body. The court reasoned that local revenues forming part of the local fund cannot be equated with property, and the arrangement merely delegates collection powers under strict local authority supervision. The High Court further held that an alternative statutory remedy under Section 138 does not bar constitutional jurisdiction when the impugned demand is patently without jurisdiction. The petitions were accordingly accepted.
Questions settled- Whether auctioning rights to collect octroi duty, toll tax, and municipal fees constitutes a sale of property under Section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
- Whether contractors awarded collection leases by local councils are liable to pay advance income-tax under Section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
- Whether the existence of an alternative revision remedy under Section 138 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 bars constitutional jurisdiction where an order is passed without jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Younas And Other vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, ShiwalPTCL 1984 (CL) 343 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOU NIS vs Mst. SALMA KHATOON1984 CLC 1981 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAUSAF alias BABU vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1984 PLC 532 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs Hakim ABDUL MOIN KHAN1984 CLC 1756 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs DEWAN BASHIR AHMED KHAN and 2 others1984 MLD 550 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN AND ANOTHERS vs FAJAR ALI (REPRESENTED BY 7 LEGAL1984 CLC 3428 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN AND ANOTHER vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 62 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN vs THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS, JUDGE, D.G.KHAN and others1984 MLD 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL LAND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a constitutional petition arising from a land reform case. The core legal question concerned whether a landowner, having initially failed to claim an orchard in his declaration forms and having failed in his initial challenges before the land authorities, could re-open the matter of retaining land as an orchard after the disputed land had been sold to the cultivating tenants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the retention of the orchard had already been finally settled and permitted by the High Court in an earlier round of litigation pursuant to a consent order upon remand, precluding the appellants from challenging it again. The key principle laid down is that a matter conclusively adjudicated and consented to in earlier remand proceedings between the same parties cannot be re-litigated in subsequent proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a landowner can re-open the question of retaining an orchard after failing to indicate its existence in initial declaration forms and after the land has been sold to tenants?
- Can matters finally settled and consented to in earlier remand proceedings by the High Court be re-litigated in subsequent rounds of litigation?
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs SHAMSUL HAQ AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3312 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought specific performance of an agreement dated 12th May 1960, under which the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents agreed to re-transfer a shop within five years upon payment of the price paid to the Settlement Department. The petitioner initially disputed the amount payable, arguing for a lower sum based on claim valuations, but later offered to pay the full amount. Both the trial court and the first appellate court rejected the suit. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the suit was filed on 13th May 1965, one day after the five-year period expired, and that time was of the essence of the contract. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that in contracts for immovable property, time is not normally of the essence, relying on precedent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly determined that time was of the essence in this specific agreement and whether the suit was time-barred despite the petitioner's subsequent offer to pay the full amount.
Questions settled- Is time considered the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property by default?
- Does the expiration of a stipulated period in a re-transfer agreement bar a suit for specific performance if filed immediately thereafter?
- Can a party to a specific performance suit cure a defect in the offered payment amount by offering the full amount during appellate proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND ANOTHERS vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 CLC 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB alias AYYUB vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Muhammad Gul, M. S. KHAN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD1984 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs ABDUL HAQ1984 CLC 2207 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →