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 YAQOOB KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition in limine on the sole ground of laches. The case concerned the declaration and subsequent auction disposal of a commercial and residential property as a 'big mansion' under settlement laws. Although the appellant initially challenged the property's declaration in a 1971 constitutional petition, he failed to appeal its dismissal, unlike his co-petitioners who eventually secured a compromise before the Supreme Court in 1981. Following that compromise, the appellant filed a fresh constitutional petition seeking transfer of the shop in his possession. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition for laches despite the appellant being an impleaded party in intermediate litigation. Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that laches signifies not merely delay, but delay working to another's disadvantage. By reconciling himself to the 1972 dismissal and remaining a passive respondent in subsequent proceedings without seeking affirmative relief against auction purchasers, the appellant created laches barring his belated petition.
Questions settled- Does failure to challenge the dismissal of an earlier constitutional petition constitute laches barring a subsequent petition on the same cause of action?
- Whether delay amounts to laches when a party's inaction works to the disadvantage of another party who concluded compromises in interim litigation?
- Can a litigant who participated merely as a respondent without seeking affirmative relief preserve his rights to challenge a transaction after related proceedings conclude?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB alias QOOBI vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail on the ground of delay in the completion of his murder trial under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail as a matter of right due to statutory delay under Section 497(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner was himself responsible for a considerable portion of the delay in the trial due to his own absence and transfer applications, thereby justifying the refusal of bail. The Court laid down the principle that an accused person who contributes to or causes delays in trial proceedings cannot claim the statutory right to bail based on such delay, and further emphasized that trial courts must ensure expeditious conclusion of murder trials while utilizing available powers against deliberate absences or non-production by jail authorities.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right under Section 497(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay in trial is partly attributable to the accused?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the refusal of bail by the High Court when considerable delay in a murder trial is caused by the absence of the accused.
- MUHAMMAD YAQ00B vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2449 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAKOOB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 839 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD WAZIR vs HABIB BANK LTD.1984 PLC 209 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD WARIS SHAD vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION1984 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD and 3 others1984 MLD 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMER FAROOQUI vs THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE1984 PTD 116 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Muhammad Umar, and others under sections 302/34 and 394/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder and robbery of Sufi Muhammad Yusuf. The core legal questions involve evaluating the evidentiary value of an eye-witness account, the validity and force of an accomplice's testimony who turned approver after initially confessing, and the extent of corroboration required for such testimony. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the approver, corroborated in material particulars by ocular evidence, the confessional statement of a co-accused, and successful weapon recoveries, was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The key principle laid down is that an accomplice's testimony, when supported by independent corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime, forms a valid basis for conviction in capital cases.
Questions settled- What amount of corroboration is required in the case of testimony given by an accomplice or approver?
- Can the confessional statement of a co-accused be taken into consideration against other co-accused?
- What is the evidentiary value of an eye-witness account corroborated by weapon recoveries and identification parades?
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 1143 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs M/s. PARVEEN HILALUDDIN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from residential premises on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The original ejectment application was filed by the initial landlord, who subsequently sold the premises to respondent No. 1, who was joined as an applicant. The petitioner contested the default, claiming he paid the rent and adjusted expenses incurred for necessary repairs authorized by the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, concluding that default was established and the repair plea was unproven. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal in limine. The core legal question was whether the concurrent factual findings regarding default and unauthorized repairs were sustainable, and whether a new factual plea regarding the sale-deed could be raised. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were well-supported by evidence and declined to entertain a new factual question not raised before the High Court. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent factual findings regarding default in rent can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
- Is a tenant entitled to adjust repair expenses against rent without the landlord's consent and proper proof?
- Can a new question of fact regarding the effect of a sale-deed be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 5 others1984 CLC 2788 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR SAILYA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2903 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3036 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1984 MLD 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND omens vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFA IL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3055 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TASNEEM vs CONTROLLER, SECONDARY BOARD OF EDUCATION1984 SCMR 1049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous petition seeks the restoration of a civil appeal that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient ground was shown for the restoration of the appeal based on a claim of late intimation of the hearing date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since both the Advocate-on-Record and the counsel received intimation prior to the date of hearing, their failure to appear or inform the court constituted clear negligence. Consequently, the court established the principle that receipt of hearing notice by counsel or Advocate-on-Record prior to the hearing date precludes a claim of late intimation constituting sufficient ground for restoration when neither appears nor seeks an adjournment.
Questions settled- Whether late intimation of a hearing date constitutes sufficient ground for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel received notice prior to the hearing?
- Does failure of the Advocate-on-Record or counsel to appear or seek an adjournment after receiving prior notice of hearing amount to negligence?
- MUHAMMAD TARIQ BUTT vs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD.1984 PLC 519 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TAQI ALVI vs ABDUL HAKIM1984 CLC 642 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TAHIR vs THE STATE1984 PLD Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arose from a trial under Sections 302, 307, 109, 114, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner challenged the trial court's decision to examine Muslim witnesses on solemn affirmation rather than on oath. The petitioner argued that following the amendment of Section 6 of the Oaths Act 1873 by Ordinance XXVII of 1981, administering an oath to Muslim witnesses was mandatory. The High Court examined the interplay between the mandatory nature of Section 6 and the curative provisions of Section 13 of the Oaths Act 1873. The Court held that after the 1981 amendment, administering an oath to Muslim witnesses above twelve years of age is mandatory. While accidental or negligent omissions to administer the oath remain curable under Section 13, any deliberate omission after an objection is raised is not cured and invalidates the evidence. Since no form of oath had yet been prescribed by the High Court for Muslim witnesses, the Court directed that the customary form of oath commonly used by Muslims in the local area must be administered until a formal form is prescribed.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment to Section 6 of the Oaths Act 1873 makes it mandatory for a Muslim witness above twelve years of age to be examined on oath rather than solemn affirmation?
- Does a deliberate omission by a trial court to administer an oath to a Muslim witness, despite an objection, invalidate the evidence under Section 13 of the Oaths Act 1873?
- What form of oath should be administered to a Muslim witness when the High Court has not yet prescribed a specific form under Section 7 of the Oaths Act 1873?
- MUHAMMAD TAHIR vs DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION SIND and 2 others1984 CLC 2649 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TA SNEEM vs CONTROLLER, B. I. S. E., SARGODHA1984 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition is directed against an order dismissing an application for restoration of a civil appeal which was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that no legal grounds were made out for review of the court's order under the applicable rules, but highlighted the special facts and circumstances of the case and pointed to rules permitting the respondent Board to reduce punishments in cases of hardship even after original penalty orders have attained finality. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that despite the dismissal of the appeal and the restoration application, the respondent Board is not barred by the court's orders from exercising its independent power or discretion to reduce the punishment if such power legally exists under its rules. The court observed that the petitioner may approach the Board for this purpose, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a civil appeal for non-prosecution bar a statutory board from exercising its independent power to reduce a punishment under its rules?
- Can an order of the Supreme Court dismissing an appeal and a restoration application act as a legal bar to the exercise of discretionary power vested in a board regarding hardship cases?
- MUHAMMAD TA HIR vs UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs MESSRS NAQASHBANDI INDUSTRIES LTD.1984 PLC 1468 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs KOHINOOR OIL MILLS LTD. K ALA SHAH KALU1984 PLC 596 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULTAN MIR AND OTHERS vs M. YOUSUF HUSSAIN DADA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns the legality of transferring "Serai Hardit Singh," a property containing multiple residential units, as a single unit to respondents, thereby displacing refugees from occupied Jammu & Kashmir. The core legal questions were whether the deletion of Section 30(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 validated prior illegal transfers, and whether a Serai could be transferred as a single entity under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of the entire Serai as one unit was void, as a Serai comprises multiple distinct residential and commercial units that must be disposed of separately. The Court further held that the deletion of Section 30(5) did not retroactively validate the initial illegal transfer, nor did the appellants' failure to file settlement forms earlier—due to a prior statutory bar—preclude them from challenging the transfer. The key principle established is that property consisting of multiple units, such as a Serai, cannot be transferred as a single house or shop, and administrative instructions regarding such disposal are mandatory.
Questions settled- Can a Serai consisting of multiple rooms be transferred as a single house or shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the deletion of Section 30(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 retroactively validate a prior illegal transfer of property?
- Are the instructions contained in the Chief Settlement Commissioner's memorandum regarding the disposal of Serais mandatory or merely permissive?
- Does a failure to file a settlement form due to a statutory bar preclude a party from later challenging an illegal transfer of property?
- MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN vs S, D. M./TRIBUNAL, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 3193 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULEMAN MALIK vs LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) LTD., RAHIM YAR1984 PLC 594 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR and 4 others1984 MLD 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs RASOOL DUX RAHU AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION , .1984 PLC 1192 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1984 PLC 597 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs OFFICERINCHARGE, CENTRAL RECORD OFFICE, LAHORE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside an order by an Additional Settlement Commissioner, which had reduced the respondents' land allotment based on an erroneous calculation of Produce Index (P.I.) Units. The appellant, acting as an informant, had successfully challenged the respondents' allotment, arguing that the calculation should have been based on kanals rather than bighas. The High Court had invalidated the reduction on grounds of improper service and lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner could reduce an allotment due to calculation errors absent fraud. The Court held that while Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 might not apply to simple calculation errors, Section 11 of the same Act empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner to amend or vary the terms of an allotment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the administrative order, as the authority possessed the legal power to correct such errors. The appeal was allowed, and the original order was restored.
Questions settled- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner reduce an allotment of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Does Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 empower the Chief Settlement Commissioner to amend or vary the terms of an allotment due to calculation errors?
- Is an order passed by a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner liable to be set aside solely on the ground of improper service if the underlying entitlement calculation is correct?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Mst. KALSOOM BIBI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the decisions of the Family Court and the District Judge, which had dismissed a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. The High Court had concluded that the unhappy relations between the parties, evidenced by ongoing litigation, left no hope for them to live together within the limits prescribed by God Almighty, and that the wife was entitled to Khula upon relinquishing her dowry claim. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court held that the High Court's assessment of the matrimonial breakdown was sound and that the petition did not present a fit case for the exercise of the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula.
Questions settled- Can a High Court set aside a Family Court's dismissal of a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula?
- Is the existence of irreconcilable differences and ongoing litigation sufficient grounds for a wife to claim Khula?
- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan grant leave to appeal in matrimonial cases where the High Court has correctly assessed the breakdown of the marital relationship?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE CHEEMA AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1984 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals against a High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions filed by college staff whose services were terminated by an Administrator appointed under Martial Law Orders. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the retrospective application of Martial Law Orders 234 and 255, the legality of terminating services without a hearing, and whether the action was mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the Martial Law Orders were protected by Article 281 of the Interim Constitution and Article 269 of the 1973 Constitution, rendering them immune from judicial challenge. The Court rejected the allegation of mala fide, citing the deteriorated disciplinary situation at the college. However, the Court held that the Appellate Authority failed to fulfill its duty to review the severity of the punishment. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority solely to determine the quantum of punishment, establishing that appellate bodies must exercise their duty to ensure justice regarding the proportionality of penalties, regardless of whether the point was explicitly agitated by the parties.
Questions settled- Can the validity of Martial Law Orders be questioned in a court of law given the protection of Article 281 of the Interim Constitution and Article 269 of the 1973 Constitution?
- Does an appellate authority have a duty to examine the quantum of punishment even if the issue is not explicitly raised by the parties?
- Can disciplinary action taken against college staff be challenged on the ground of mala fide when the institution is in a state of disorder?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SAEED SIDDIQUE AND 161984 CLC 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM BHATTI and others1984 MLD 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs JUTE AGRONOMIST, AYUB AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH1984 PLC 1290 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions by the High Court, which had upheld the auction of houses in favour of the respondents and the subsequent issuance of Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.D.). The petitioners claimed they had filed N.C.H. Forms for the transfer of the houses in 1960, but their applications were ignored, and the properties were auctioned in 1961. The core legal question concerned the validity of challenging an auction and transfer after a lapse of sixteen years and the competence of the Settlement Department after the issuance of a P.T.D. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that the petitioners failed to produce valid proof of filing N.C.H. Forms, were guilty of gross negligence and indolence for remaining inactive for sixteen years, and that the Settlement Department had become functus officio after the issuance of the P.T.D. The key principle laid down is that unexplained, inordinate delay and gross negligence disentitle a party to equitable relief under constitutional jurisdiction, and the issuance of a P.T.D. finalizes the settlement process rendering the department functus officio.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a property auction after a delay of sixteen years?
- Does the Settlement Department become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- What is the effect of failing to produce verifiable proof of filing transfer forms?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs CONTROLLING AUTHORITY (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG) AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs ADDITIONAL CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHIAND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ MAZHARI vs ZAHOOR A HMAD1984 CLC 3076 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHER alias SHERA vs FIRST SIND LABOUR COURT AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 136 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 177 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs TEHSILDAR, BHAKKAR, REVENUE TEHSILDAR BHAKKAR1984 MLD 495 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal which is barred by 106 days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of the substantial delay in filing the petition. The petitioner sought to exclude the time consumed in obtaining a copy of a previous judgment from the High Court. The Court held that since it was neither obligatory nor necessary to file a copy of the said High Court judgment for the entertainment of the petition for leave to appeal, the time spent in obtaining it could not be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Consequently, the Court ruled that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay had been established. The key principle laid down is that time spent obtaining unnecessary documents cannot be excluded to condone a delay in filing a petition.
Questions settled- Whether time taken to obtain an unnecessary copy of a High Court judgment can be excluded for condonation of delay?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs RAHWALI SUGAR MILLS, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1275 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs PUNJAB ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2198 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another1984 SCMR 1308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit challenging the resumption of land by Revenue authorities. The petitioner, an allottee under the 'Grow More Food Scheme', sought proprietary rights to land in Tehsil Vehari. Following conflicting orders from the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, the Collector ultimately resumed the land, citing the petitioner's ineligibility due to the expiry of the allotment period and violation of cultivation conditions. The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration against this resumption, which was dismissed by the trial court and upheld in subsequent appeals on the basis that the suit was barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding that the Collector acted within his authority to scrutinize eligibility based on Board of Revenue instructions. The Court affirmed that the civil suit was barred by statute and that the High Court correctly refused to grant relief based on subsequent government notifications that the petitioner had failed to pursue through appropriate administrative channels.
Questions settled- Is a civil suit challenging a land resumption order by a Collector barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Does a Collector have the jurisdiction to re-examine the eligibility of an allottee for proprietary rights pursuant to new instructions from the Board of Revenue?
- Can a High Court in second appeal grant relief based on a subsequent government notification that the petitioner failed to pursue before the relevant administrative authorities?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others1984 MLD 297 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 10 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 101 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Mst. SUGHRA BANO AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell an evacuee house filed by the first respondent against the original owner and the appellant. The core legal question was whether a suit for specific performance of a prior agreement to sell is maintainable without seeking the cancellation of a subsequent registered sale-deed executed in favour of a third party, and whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser without notice under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court held that the suit is maintainable and that prior case law suggesting the mandatory cancellation of a registered sale-deed has been undermined by subsequent jurisprudence of this Court. Furthermore, the concurrent factual findings confirming the appellant had notice of the prior agreement were upheld, disqualifying him as a bona fide transferee without notice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a suit for specific performance of a prior agreement to sell maintainable without seeking the cancellation of a subsequent registered sale-deed in favour of another?
- Can a subsequent purchaser claim the benefit of being a transferee without notice when evidence establishes knowledge of a prior agreement to sell?
- Does the existence of an outstanding registered sale-deed bar the grant of a decree for specific performance of an earlier contract?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MESSRS PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE1984 PLC 1696 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MAQSOOD ALI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a second appeal and remanded a pre-emption case for decision on merits. The core legal question concerned whether the appellate court was justified in allowing the defendants to make good a deficiency in court-fee after the period of limitation had expired, where the initial deficiency arose due to an enhancement of court-fee rates and an erroneous office endorsement confirming proper stamping. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the deficiency and remanding the case, as the defendants were misled by the court-fee affixed on the original plaint and the registry's endorsement rather than acting merely out of inexcusable ignorance of the law. The key principle laid down is that where a party is led into a bona fide mistake regarding court-fee due to institutional endorsements and reliance on the plaintiff's valuation, appellate courts possess the discretion to allow the deficiency to be made good even after the expiry of the limitation period.
Questions settled- Whether ignorance of an enhanced court-fee law precludes a court from granting time to make good a deficiency in court-fee after the expiry of limitation?
- Can an appellate court's discretion in allowing time to make good a deficiency in court-fee be interfered with when the party was misled by an office endorsement and the plaintiff's valuation?
- Whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal on limitation grounds after having previously granted time to make good a deficiency in court-fee.
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2380 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT1984 PLC 825 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 2293 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1872 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs BASHIR AHMAD and others1984 SCMR 1547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition challenging the orders of Consolidation Authorities regarding the consolidation of land holdings. The core legal question is whether the final consolidation proceedings resulted in an increase in the number of blocks held by the petitioners, thereby violating the provisions of section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The Supreme Court holds that the petition lacks merit, finding through explanations and charts provided by the law officer that the petitioners' land was originally scattered into 13 blocks before consolidation and was ultimately reduced to 9 blocks through various appellate and revisional proceedings, rather than being increased from an intermediate 5-block arrangement erroneously relied upon by the petitioners. Consequently, no violation of the Ordinance occurred. The key principle laid down is that the evaluation of whether consolidation has reduced holdings must be measured against the landowners' pre-consolidation status rather than interim or superseded orders of inferior authorities. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the consolidation of land into nine blocks from an original thirteen blocks violates section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
- Can a party rely on an interim order of an inferior consolidation authority to claim an increase in land blocks when the ultimate appellate proceedings show an overall reduction?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Azad J & K 22 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, FOOD DEPARTMENTAND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 291 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs KHURSHID AHMAD1984 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption dispute where the lower courts upheld the respondent's preferential right of pre-emption. The core legal question addressed is whether a finding of fact regarding a preferential right of pre-emption can be sustained when it relies solely on an averment in the plaint that was explicitly controverted in the written statement, without the respondent or any witness appearing in the witness-box to support the claim or prove the supporting documentary evidence (a school leaving certificate). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the lower courts' findings appeared to be based on no evidence. Additionally, the Court addressed the petitioners' request for a stay of the decree, noting that the previous condition requiring payment of Rs. 6,000 as annual compensation for use and occupation was potentially onerous given the land's actual profitability. Consequently, the Court directed the local Tehsildar to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for use and occupation during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a finding of a preferential right of pre-emption be sustained if it is based solely on an averment in the plaint that was controverted in the written statement?
- Is a school leaving certificate sufficient to establish a relationship for pre-emption purposes if it is tendered by counsel without any witness appearing to support the claim?
- What is the appropriate procedure for determining the quantum of compensation for use and occupation when a stay of execution is granted pending appeal?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1642 · Labour Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF alias SHER JANG vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARI N vs SHAMSO QAMAR1984 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought to pre-empt the sale of land comprising two distinct blocks, asserting a superior right based on co-sharership, contiguity, and easement. The trial court decreed the suit for one block but dismissed it for the other, finding that the defendant held an equal right due to shared ownership in the contiguous shamilat land. The appellate and revisional courts upheld this decision, noting that the contiguous shamilat was recorded as ghair mumkin khata with maqbuza malikana status, implying ownership in possession. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that co-ownership in ghair mumkin khata should not constitute contiguity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where shamilat is recorded as maqbuza malikana without restriction, it is capable of exclusive possession by proprietors. Consequently, a defendant possessing such rights can successfully defeat a pre-emptor's claim based on contiguity. The Court distinguished this from cases involving ghair mumkin rasta, where no exclusive ownership exists, thereby affirming that ownership in ghair mumkin khata can effectively negate a pre-emption claim.
Questions settled- Can ownership in shamilat recorded as ghair mumkin khata be considered ownership of contiguous property for pre-emption purposes?
- Does the status of maqbuza malikana in shamilat land imply that co-sharers are owners in possession?
- Can a defendant's co-ownership in shamilat land defeat a plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity?
- MUHAMMAD SHAMOON vs MOHABAT KHAN1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 94 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAM AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2011 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAKIL vs THE QUAIDIAZAM UNIVERSITY AND STHERS1984 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a medical student, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Intra-Court Appeal, which had upheld the cancellation of his examination results and subsequent disciplinary action by Quaid-i-Azam University for using unfair means. The core legal question was whether the university’s disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice by failing to conduct a formal trial-like inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the university authorities acted in good faith and that the petitioner had been sufficiently informed of the allegations and granted a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Court affirmed that educational institutions, when dealing with disciplinary matters, are not required to adhere to the strict rules of evidence or trial procedures, such as the formal cross-examination of witnesses. Instead, the essential requirement of natural justice is satisfied if the charged individual is provided a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant material prejudicial to their case. Consequently, the Court found no legal defect in the university's decision and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is a university disciplinary committee required to follow strict rules of evidence and cross-examination when adjudicating cases of examination malpractice?
- Does the failure to hold a formal trial-like hearing in student disciplinary proceedings constitute a violation of natural justice?
- What is the standard of fairness required for university authorities when penalizing a student for using unfair means in an examination?
- MUHAMMAD SHAKIL vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND OTHERS vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and 3 others vs GULBER KHAN and another1984 CLC 2735 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ alias TEDDY vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AHMAD KHAN vs SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 376 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AMIN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from an order passed by an Additional District Judge dismissing the petitioner's appeal against an interlocutory order of a Civil Judge on the ground of non-compliance with rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an appeal preferred against an order during the pendency of a suit is entertainable and liable to be dismissed if the appellant fails to give prior notice and deliver copies of the memorandum of appeal to the respondent pursuant to rule 3 of Order XLIII, and whether such omission causes prejudice when an ex parte stay order is granted. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are mandatory, and an appeal filed without fulfilling this condition precedent is not entertainable and can be dismissed, especially where the respondent suffers prejudice due to an ex parte stay order. The key principle laid down is that prior notice to the respondent under Order XLIII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is a mandatory condition precedent for the entertainability of an appeal against an order, and failure to comply with it—resulting in prejudice to the respondent—warrants dismissal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding notice before presentation of an appeal mandatory?
- Can an appeal preferred against an order be dismissed solely for failure to comply with the notice requirements of rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does failure to give notice under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cause prejudice to a respondent when an ex parte stay order is obtained?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SARDAR NOOR AHMAD and another1984 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a property dispute between a petitioner and a respondent over the status of the petitioner as a 'refugee' versus a 'local' under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a displaced person (refugee) from Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, which would entitle him to compete for the property against the respondent, a non-claimant displaced person. While the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner initially found the petitioner to be a refugee based on electoral records and participation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Council elections, the Settlement Commissioner reversed this finding, alleging the petitioner had falsified his place of origin. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner failed to adequately consider official notifications and the statutory definition of 'refugee' under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Presidential Election Act, 1960. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the evidence of the petitioner's status as a refugee required further judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Does a person's inclusion in electoral rolls as a refugee constitute evidence of their status as a displaced person under settlement laws?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner reverse concurrent findings of lower authorities without considering statutory definitions of 'refugee'?
- Is a notification in the Government Gazette regarding election results relevant to determining a party's status as a refugee from Indian-occupied territory?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Maulvi ABDUL AZIZ and another1984 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court. The land in dispute, measuring 181 Kanals in District Sargodha, was originally confirmed in the petitioner's favour in lieu of mortgagee rights, subsequently cancelled, restored by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and finally upset by the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the allotment stood withdrawn before the crucial date of 11-4-1962 under Press Note dated 28-12-1959. The core legal question involves the correct application of the relevant law and administrative instructions governing the allotment of land in lieu of mortgagee rights, particularly regarding the effect of the restoration order and subsequent extension of time by a memorandum. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the law was correctly applied, holding that arguable questions were raised, and continued the interim stay order.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of land allotment prior to the crucial date affects eligibility under the relevant Press Note?
- Whether the restoration of an allotment by the Additional Settlement Commissioner revives the rights for the purpose of confirmation?
- Whether the subsequent Memorandum extending time supersedes the earlier Press Note regarding mortgagee rights?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs A. M. KHAN LEGHARI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1192 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another vs JALAL DIN1984 MLD 14 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND ANOTHER vs ATAULLAH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' writ petition in limine. The petitioners had previously litigated the same dispute up to the Supreme Court, failing in their civil petition and subsequent review petitions. They then initiated a civil suit and, upon its dismissal, filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to reverse the order passed in the earlier settlement revision. The core legal question was whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against an order passed by the High Court itself, and whether subsequent litigation on concluded matters is permissible. The Supreme Court held that the High Court is not a 'person' under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, making a writ petition against its own order incompetent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that civil litigation on questions already concluded in a previous round is barred. The petitions were dismissed with exemplary costs awarded to the respondents for frivolous and vexatious litigation.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be issued against an order passed by the High Court itself?
- Is the High Court considered a 'person' within the meaning of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a party initiate fresh civil litigation on questions that have already been concluded in a previous round of litigation up to the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 5 others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1305 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2827 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFEEQ vs Mst .NAYA B1984 MLD 347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 595 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HAFIZABAD DIVISION (E), WAPDA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 592 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-03-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SH A BBIR ABBASI vs ABDUR RASHID MUGHAL1984 CLC 270 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the election of a councillor to the Municipal Committee, Murree, on the ground that the respondent was disqualified due to a criminal conviction. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s conviction by a Summary Military Court for offences including assault and criminal intimidation constituted "moral turpitude" under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, thereby disqualifying him from holding elective office. The Lahore High Court held that the respondent’s conduct—assaulting a government servant and threatening him with a firearm—was sufficient to shock the moral conscience of society and was highly unbecoming of an elected representative, thus constituting moral turpitude. The Court decided that the respondent was disqualified from being a member of the local council. The key principle laid down is that "moral turpitude" is a relative term whose meaning varies with the context of the law and the circumstances of the offence. In the context of electoral law, it encompasses conduct contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals that violates the standards expected of public representatives.
Questions settled- Does a conviction for assault and criminal intimidation constitute an offence involving moral turpitude for the purpose of electoral disqualification?
- Is the definition of 'moral turpitude' fixed, or does it vary depending on the context of the law and the circumstances of the offence?
- Can a candidate be disqualified from local council membership based on a conviction by a Summary Military Court?
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs QUTAB DIN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the transfer of property under settlement laws where the petitioner initially claimed his shop was part of House No. 3822 and contested its sub-division. After failing in his appeals and revisions up to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner shifted his stance, asserting that the house measured only two marlas and seeking transfer of his shop as part of an adjoining plot. Although a Settlement Commissioner accepted his revision, the High Court accepted the respondents' writ petition, holding that the petitioner was estopped by his earlier pleadings and that the settlement authorities lacked jurisdiction to re-open the matter after the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deeds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's view, holding that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by changing its factual stance after final conclusion of proceedings, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a party can change its factual stance in subsequent proceedings after its initial claim regarding property transfer has been finally dismissed?
- Do settlement authorities have jurisdiction to re-open a concluded property transfer matter after the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deeds?
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1984 PLC 1295 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR SHAKIR vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1984 PLC 1519 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1916 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →