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 ISLAM vs Syed AMIR ALI, DIRECTOR, AUTO MACHINE TOOLS &1984 PLC 177 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 868 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2892 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another1984 SCMR 1204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05
  Ejected Tenants Schemeproprietary rightslocus standilandlord and tenantlacheswrit petitionallotment of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of proprietary rights to allottees of land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The petitioner, who had been inducted as a tenant by the allottees, sought to challenge the allotment of proprietary rights to them. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the title of his landlords, whether the challenge was barred by laches, and whether the petitioner could assail the title of the allottees under whom he entered possession. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the petitioner lacked locus standi and was estopped from challenging the title of the landlords under whom he held the land as a tenant. Furthermore, the Court agreed that the challenge to the Board of Revenue's order was barred by laches. The decision reinforces the principle that a tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord under whom they were inducted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant inducted by an allottee have the locus standi to challenge the grant of proprietary rights to that allottee?
  • Is a tenant estopped from challenging the title of the landlord under whom they were inducted?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches when challenging a long-standing order of the Board of Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs FATEH MOHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 2527 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-19
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementpremature applicationsuccessor-in-interestlandlord and tenantSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a first appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate a rented shop. The core legal questions involved whether the ejectment application was premature due to a contractual five-year tenancy period and whether the landlords established their bona fide personal requirement. The Sindh High Court held that the landlords, as successors-in-interest, were entitled to terminate the tenancy prior to five years pursuant to a specific stipulation in the tenancy agreement permitting early termination subject to purchasing the tenant's goods, and further noted that the passage of the contractual period during the pendency of proceedings cured any prematurity. The Court also affirmed the finding of bona fide personal requirement, holding that a landlord's consistent sworn statement suffices when unchallenged and that a landlord operating from a father's shop or rented premises is not precluded from seeking possession of their own property. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application filed before the expiry of a contractual tenancy period is premature when the agreement contains a clause allowing early termination upon certain conditions?
  • Does the expiry of the contractual tenancy period during the pendency of ejectment proceedings cure the defect of a premature application?
  • Can a landlord seeking premises for personal use be precluded from doing so merely because they are currently carrying on business in a shop belonging to their father or in rented premises?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of a landlord's bona fide personal requirement under rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE KUNDAN vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1984 PLC 228 · Labour Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs SARHAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS1984 CLC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-05
  locus poenitentiaevested rightsaudi alteram partemretrospective cancellationdelegated powersnatural justicepromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Sarhad Development Authority, challenged an order cancelling his promotion and redesignation as Private Secretary with retrospective effect. The core legal question was whether the authority could unilaterally rescind a promotion order that had already taken effect, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, and whether the initial promotion was within the delegatory powers of the General Manager. The Court held that the writ petition must succeed. It determined that the General Manager acted within the delegated powers granted under the Sarhad Development Authority Act, 1972. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of locus poenitentiae, holding that once an order has taken legal effect and created vested rights, it cannot be rescinded to the detriment of those rights without due process. The Court also affirmed that the cancellation order violated the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before his vested rights were curtailed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authority rescind an order of promotion that has already taken legal effect and created vested rights?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae allow the withdrawal of an order after a decisive step has been taken?
  • Is an order rescinding a promotion void if it is passed without affording the affected employee an opportunity of being heard?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE-WELL OPERATION DIVISION, IRRIGATION (SOUTH), SHEIKHUPURA1984 PLC 438 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs WAPDA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 658 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs TUE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 CLC 422 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-01
  criminal appealacquittalconvictionappellate courtprosecution caseself-defenseburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is justified in convicting an accused based on a theory of a 'scuffle' or 'self-defense' that was neither pleaded by the prosecution nor supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the High Court erred by constructing a new hypothesis of a scuffle to explain injuries on the accused, which was not the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that a court cannot convict an accused based on a theory of the incident that contradicts the prosecution's evidence or introduces a narrative not supported by the record. Furthermore, when the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused, the court cannot unilaterally invent a justification for those injuries to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convict an accused based on a theory of the case that was not presented by the prosecution?
  • Is a court permitted to construct a theory of a 'scuffle' or 'self-defense' in the absence of evidence supporting such a narrative?
  • What is the legal consequence when a court rejects the prosecution's evidence on the main incident but attempts to convict based on a new, unproven theory?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE GENERAL MANAGER, WAPDA, COMPUTER. CENTRE1984 PLC 1023 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Sheikh RIAZ AHMAD1984 CLC 1913(2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs R1AZ SABTR1984 CLC 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-28
  arbitration awardobjections to awardlimitation periodsubstance over formremoval of umpirespecific performanceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for specific performance where the dispute was referred to arbitration under section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940. An award was filed by the umpire, following which the trial court directed objections to be filed within 30 days. The appellant filed an application purportedly under section 11 of the Arbitration Act within the limitation period, seeking the removal of the umpire and requesting that the award be ignored due to lack of notice and bias. Subsequently, the appellant filed formal objections under sections 30 and 33, which were dismissed by the trial court as time-barred, and the award was made a rule of the court under section 17. The Lahore High Court held that courts must be guided by the substance and contents of an application rather than the specific legal provision cited in its heading. The High Court found that the appellant's initial application within the limitation period, though labelled under section 11, substantially embodied objections against the validity of the award under sections 30 and 33. Consequently, the trial court erred in treating those objections as time-barred without deciding them on merits. The appeal was accepted, the impugned order and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision on the merits of the objections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application filed within the period of limitation, though incorrectly labelled under section 11 of the Arbitration Act 1940, can be treated as an objection under section 30 and section 33 of the Act?
  • Does the mere misquotation or citation of a wrong section in the memo of appeal or application denude a party of its legal rights?
  • Whether an appeal is competent under section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 against an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award?
  • Under what circumstances can a decree passed in terms of an award under section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 be assailed in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Mst. SHAKILA KHATOON and another1984 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-18
  dissolution of marriagedowerKhulahfamily courtsappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which restored a two-fold decree for dissolution of marriage and dower amount in favour of the respondent wife. The core legal question concerns the competence of the District Court in appeal to modify a decree for dissolution of marriage by converting it into one based on Khulah when such decree was passed on grounds of non-maintenance and cruelty, thereby affecting the dower amount in light of statutory bars. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court could not modify the decree for dissolution of marriage in a collateral manner so as to add the ground of Khulah in violation of the bar contained in section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar against appeals in family matters concerning dissolution of marriage cannot be circumvented collaterally through an appeal relating to the dower decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Court modify a decree for dissolution of marriage on grounds of non-maintenance and cruelty to one of Khulah in an appeal arising from a dower decree?
  • Does section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 bar the collateral modification of a dissolution of marriage decree?
  • Whether an appeal against a dower decree permits the appellate court to alter the underlying grounds for the dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM AND 2 crHEas1984 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-09
  guardian and wardscustody of minorterritorial jurisdictionwelfare of minorwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the judgments of the lower courts which granted the custody of a minor child, Memoona Iqbal, to her mother, Mst. Irshad Begum. The core legal questions involved the territorial jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act and the determination of the welfare of the minor. The Supreme Court held that the ordinary place of residence of the child was correctly determined by the courts below and that the welfare of the minor would be best served in the custody of her mother, especially since her other children were already living with her. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding residence and welfare based on proper appreciation of evidence do not warrant interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Guardian Judge has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the custody of a minor based on the ordinary place of residence?
  • Is the mother entitled to the custody of her minor child when her welfare is best served with her?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the residence and welfare of a minor can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MOHSINUDDIN1984 MLD 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1984 PLC 828 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs ATTAULLAH NISAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 454 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL represented by Legal Heirs and another vs NAZIR AHMAD1984 MLD 930 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL RAJOKA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 638 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL QURESHI vs ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 3057 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-06-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 PLD Azad J & K 15 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 117 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1019(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10
  quashment of criminal proceedingsprivate complaintpending appealsection 561-A CrPCmurder trialpolice challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the dismissal of an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Lahore High Court for the quashment of criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether a private complaint against a new set of accused could proceed while an appeal and murder reference regarding the same incident were pending before the High Court, and whether such a complaint amounted to a review or an abuse of process. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there is no bar to the trial of the accused appellants on a private complaint merely because the police had not challaned them or because an appeal concerning connected proceedings is pending in the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a private complaint is a valid recourse when the police choose not to send up an accused for trial, and contentions regarding the merits or quashment of proceedings should be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complaint can be maintained against an accused who was not challaned by the police during investigation?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while an appeal regarding the same incident is pending before the High Court?
  • Does the trial of a second set of accused on a private complaint amount to a review of an already announced judgment in a connected case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs KHURSHID AHMAD1984 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantexecution proceedingsobjection petitionrelationship of landlord and tenantdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent orders of the lower courts and the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' objections in execution proceedings regarding the ejectment of their mother from a residential property. The core legal question is whether an ejectment order passed against a mother living under the same roof is binding on her adult children who were omitted from the subsequent ejectment proceedings, and whether their late application for impleadment and subsequent objections are maintainable. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners lived with the judgment-debtor under the same roof, shared identical interests without any conflict, and had all available defenses represented, the ejectment order was fully effective against them as well. The Court laid down the principle that an objection petition filed by family members residing together with the judgment-debtor under similar interests is in substance an objection on behalf of the judgment-debtor and does not impede the execution of an ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment order passed against a mother is binding on her children living with her in the same property?
  • Can family members residing under the same roof file independent objections in execution proceedings when their interests are identical to the judgment-debtor?
  • Whether the omission of certain family members from an ejectment application invalidates the ejectment order against the occupant mother?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another vs ZIAULLAH KHAN1984 MLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16
  solitary eye-witnessmurdermitigating circumstancesreduction of sentencemotivecriminal appealmedical evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions involved the sustainability of a conviction based on the testimony of a single, related eye-witness and the sufficiency of motive for the imposition of the death penalty. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of a solitary, related eye-witness, if credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical and recovery evidence, is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction. However, on the question of sentence, the Court ruled that where the prosecution fails to establish a clear and plausible motive and leaves the genesis of the crime shrouded in mystery, a mitigating circumstance is made out. Consequently, the Court upheld the appellants' convictions under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but altered their death sentences to imprisonment for life, while enhancing the fine and extending the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while a related solitary eye-witness's unblemished testimony can form the basis of a conviction as a matter of law, an unproven or obscure motive can serve as a mitigating factor warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a single, related eye-witness?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a plausible motive warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Is corroboration required as a matter of law for the testimony of a related eye-witness?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs WAPDA1984 PLC 794 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3095 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs HILTON INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, LAHORE1984 PLC 855 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs QAMARUDDIN1984 CLC 757 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-19
  ejectment applicationstatutory tenantbona fide personal needdefault in payment of rentrent deed expirylandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate a shop on grounds of default in rent payment and the respondent-landlord's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions concerned whether the tenant had defaulted on rent payments given the expiry of the original rent deed, and whether the landlord had sufficiently established the bona fide personal need for the premises. The Court held that upon the expiry of a rent deed, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, and the terms of the expired deed cease to govern the tenancy; thus, rent payment timelines are determined by the relevant statutory provisions. Regarding personal need, the Court affirmed that a landlord's sworn testimony is of fundamental importance and should be accepted as bona fide unless effectively challenged or disproved during cross-examination. Finding the landlord's claim for personal use consistent and unrebutted, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ejectment order and requiring the tenant to vacate the premises within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiry of a rent deed render the tenant a statutory tenant whose obligations are governed by statute rather than the expired agreement?
  • Should a landlord's sworn statement regarding personal bona fide need for premises be accepted if it remains consistent and is not shaken during cross-examination?
  • Is an ejectment application premature if filed before the expiration of the statutory period for rent payment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 1054 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYA S vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 404 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILY AS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 358 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IKRAMULLAH vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 360 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IKRAMULLAH vs HEAVY FOUNDRY & FORGE LTD, THROUGH ITS1984 PLC 1258 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDRIS vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2746 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDREES vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 1135 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDREES NISAR vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1984 PLC 753 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2950 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs RAJ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 51 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst. SAPAQAT RABBANI1984 CLC 2655 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs DISTRICT JUDGE AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 77 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-26
  Service Tribunalspeaking orderseniority disputecivil servantjudicial reviewadministrative lawremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a Service Tribunal decision concerning the seniority of a civil servant, which was altered following an order by the President under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision, contending it failed to address the legal and factual controversies and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Supreme Court examined whether the Tribunal’s order constituted a "speaking order" capable of appellate review. The Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was legally deficient as it failed to specify the nature of the "wrong advice" tendered to the President or the legal basis for its conclusions, offering only vague assertions of injustice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The key principle established is that all judicial and quasi-judicial orders must be "speaking orders," explicitly manifesting that the adjudicating authority has applied its mind to the specific issues of fact and law, thereby enabling appellate courts to understand the rationale behind the determination.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements for a judicial or quasi-judicial order to qualify as a 'speaking order'?
  • Does a Service Tribunal have an obligation to decide all questions of law and fact raised in an appeal?
  • Can an appellate court review a decision of a Service Tribunal if the decision fails to articulate the reasoning and the specific controversies involved?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1459 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD I NAYAT vs JACOB ISSAC, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS_ JUDGE, SA H1984 P Cr. L J 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN' vs Raja MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2271 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs SADIQ MUHAMMAD1984 SCMR 1353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-30
  concurrent findingsfraud and misrepresentationmutation of landcivil prisonland revenuepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of a regular first appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit. The core legal question was whether the mutation of land executed while the petitioner was in civil prison was the product of fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that in view of the concurrent findings of fact by all three courts below establishing that fraud was not proved, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the same. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower forums unless a compelling ground is made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact on the question of fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Can a party challenge a land mutation executed while confined in civil prison on the ground of fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1429 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD YAR AND ANOTHR1984 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-09
  Shamlat landdeclaratory suitlimitationsecond appealownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court which dismissed two regular second appeals concerning a dispute over ownership of Shamlat land measuring 7,650 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Village Choni Shimali Dagar, Tehsil and District Bhakkar. The petitioner had brought a suit for declaration claiming exclusive ownership of the Shamlat land on the ground that his ancestor founded the village. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court accepted the appeals of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The High Court upheld the dismissal, concluding inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's declaratory suit was within time and whether interference was warranted against the concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to show any error in the High Court's finding that the suit was time-barred, which went to the root of the case. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a declaratory suit regarding ownership of Shamlat land liable to be dismissed if it is found to be time-barred?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court regarding limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ZAFRULLAH KHAN1984 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22
  leave to appealmurderacquittaldelay in FIRidentification in darkappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 26-5-1981, whereby the respondent Zafrullah Khan was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondent along with his father was accused of committing the murder of Haji Zar Gul by firing at him at night. The trial court had convicted the respondent and sentenced him to death, but the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and rejected the Murder Reference. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in appreciating the evidence, specifically regarding the inordinate delay in lodging the first information report, the lack of sufficient light for identification at night, and the improbability of the prosecution's narrative concerning pre-planning. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its findings regarding the delayed FIR and the impossibility of identification in the dark, and consequently declined to interfere with the acquittal. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the appreciation of evidence regarding identification and delayed FIR is plausible?
  • Does a solitary eye-witness statement require corroboration when the occurrence takes place in the dark of night without reliable sources of identification?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report when the police station is located within a short distance from the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AMIR AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Mst. JAMILA KHATOON and 2 others1984 MLD 732 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 122 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and others1984 MLD 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1984 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05
  constitutional petitionevacuee propertyredemption of mortgagesettlement authoritiesdisputed questions of factprinciples of natural justiceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question an order of the Settlement Commissioner dismissing the petitioners' application for delivery of possession of property allegedly redeemed as non-evacuee Muslim property. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed property was evacuee or non-evacuee at the relevant time, whether an ex parte order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner could bind respondents who were not parties to those proceedings, and whether a high court under constitutional jurisdiction could resolve disputed questions of fact based on fresh evidence. The court held that the ex parte rehabilitation order violated principles of natural justice and was not binding on the contesting respondents holding transfer orders, and that determining the true nature and character of the property involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for resolution through fresh evidence in writ jurisdiction. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the competent authority for a fresh decision after allowing parties to produce relevant documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte order passed by a Rehabilitation Commissioner is binding on respondents who were not party to those proceedings?
  • Can a High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction determine disputed questions of fact based on fresh evidence produced for the first time?
  • Whether the non-production of documents at an earlier stage can be excused under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when necessary for determining the real controversy?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1984 CLC 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs ALEEM1984 MLD 923 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ZAFAR NABI KHAN1984 CLC 1164 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 19 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1204 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 14 OTHERS vs NORTHERN FOUNDRY & ENGINEERING1984 PLC 1202 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 10 OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD (THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)1984 CLC 713 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias MUHAMMAD ALI ZAHID vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias DH ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2475 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 2 OHERS1984 PLC 431 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs BARKAT ALIPLD 1984 Rev. 17 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs BAHADUR AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1986 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20
  criminal appealsentence reductioncompromisemitigating circumstancesriotingwater dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a criminal revision filed by the petitioners, who were convicted by the trial court for offences involving rioting and causing injuries. The incident arose from a water supply dispute, resulting in injuries to several prosecution witnesses. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether, given that the parties had reached a compromise to ensure future peaceful coexistence, the sentences imposed on the appellants could be mitigated. The Supreme Court, having converted the petition into an appeal, noted the compromise between the parties, which was supported by the State counsel and the complainants present in court. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentences of the appellants to the period already undergone. The judgment affirms the principle that while a compromise may not necessarily negate the underlying criminal conviction, it serves as a valid mitigating factor for the appellate court to consider when determining the appropriate quantum of sentence in cases involving private disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between parties in a criminal case be considered as a ground for reducing the sentence?
  • Does a compromise between the parties negate a criminal conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the appellate court empowered to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on a post-conviction compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE1984 PTD 303 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2210 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2868 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN and another vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2890 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASIL vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT1984 PLC 365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASHAM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 153 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASAN vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., BAHAWALPUR1984 PLC 964 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs Mst. HAMEEDA AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3147 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs GUL MUHAMMAD and 3 others1984 MLD 781 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-17
  leave to appealejectmentlandlord and tenantconstitutional petitionrelationship of landlord and tenanttransfer orderfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed concurrent orders of ejectment passed against him. The core legal question concerned whether a subsequent transfer order specifying the exact portion of the property removed the bar of a previous failed ejectment application and established the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact regarding the validity and effect of the subsequent transfer order, as determined by the lower forums and affirmed by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, was supportable from the record and suffered from no legal error. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, supported by evidence and equity, will not be interfered with in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent transfer order specifying the exact property remove the bar of a previous failed ejectment application?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether a tenant can resist ejectment while failing to pay rent to the transferee landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs KAZI SALEH1984 CLC 2610 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Monnoo vs Income Tax OfficerPTCL 1984 (CL) 291 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND 8 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 632 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANEEF MONNO O vs THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE1984 PTD 171 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21
  reassessmentincome taxjurisdictionnotice validitypresumption of regularitywrit petitiontax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the validity of notices issued under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979, which sought to reopen the petitioner's tax assessments for the years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. The petitioner contended that the notices were issued without lawful authority, lacked the requisite prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and were based on pre-judged findings. The Court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had complied with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 65. The Court held that the issuance of such notices does not require the disclosure of specific grounds or the fact of prior approval on the face of the notice itself. It is sufficient if the record demonstrates that the Income-tax Officer possessed definite information or obtained necessary prior approval before initiation. Finding that the respondent had complied with these procedural requirements and that the presumption of regularity attached to official acts had not been rebutted, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to raise substantive objections before the tax authorities during the reassessment proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Must a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 explicitly state the grounds or the fact of prior approval to be valid?
  • Is the presumption of regularity applicable to the initiation of reassessment proceedings by an Income-tax Officer?
  • Can a High Court interfere with the issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 if the jurisdictional requirements are met?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAMEED vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22
  quashment of proceedingsSection 145 CrPCpre-emption suitpossession of landbreach of peaceattachment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner argued that because a civil suit for possession through pre-emption was pending regarding the disputed land, the criminal proceedings under Section 145 were incompetent. The petitioner further contended that the criminal court's attachment order was legally unjustified given the prior civil litigation and the nature of Section 145 proceedings, which are intended to maintain peace. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances, noting that the criminal proceedings were initiated to address potential breaches of peace. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's order and no legal basis to declare the Section 145 proceedings incompetent merely due to the existence of a civil suit, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The holding affirms that the pendency of a civil suit does not automatically render Section 145 proceedings incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit for pre-emption render proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 incompetent?
  • Can a criminal court initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while civil litigation regarding the same property is ongoing?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAIDER SHAH vs MUAHAMMAD AKBAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 471 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFIZ vs Mst. RABIA BIBI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2131 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ AND ANOTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME1984 CLC 3479 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD AZEEM AND 9 OTHERS1984 CLC 1083 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-02-11
  evictionbona fide requirementdemolition and reconstructionnon-residential buildingtenant's right of re-entryrent restrictionpleadings and proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected first appeals directed against a common judgment of the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Quetta, which had ordered the eviction of the appellants from commercial shops on the ground of reconstruction. The core legal questions involved whether the landlords established a reasonable and bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction, and whether non-residential premises could be evicted for residential use or to defeat the tenant's right of re-entry under the rent laws. The Balochistan High Court held that the landlords failed to prove any bona fide personal or reconstruction requirement, and that a non-residential building cannot be evacuated for residential purposes. Furthermore, the Court held that a reconstruction scheme designed to bypass the mandatory right of the tenant to regain possession under statutory provisions lacks good faith. The appeals were accordingly allowed, the eviction orders were set aside, and the eviction applications were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-residential building can be ordered to be vacated for the residential use of the landlord?
  • Does a reconstruction scheme aimed at ousting the tenant and defeating statutory re-entry rights constitute a bona fide requirement?
  • Can a landlord succeed on a ground of eviction not pleaded in the ejectment application?
  • What is the effect of linking an application for demolition and reconstruction with an unproved personal residential need?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HABIB vs LAL DIN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →