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 ASGHAR AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3063 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 931 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACHHU AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 413 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF AND 2 OHTERS vs MESSRS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD.1984 PLC 1296 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AQUIL vs KHAIRUNNISA1984 CLC 2912 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWER BAIG AND 2 OTHERS vs BEGUM M. A. JAWAD AND 31984 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05
  dying declarationmurderkerosene burnsbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly killing his wife by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting her on fire. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a dying declaration recorded by the police and the testimony of two eye-witnesses. The trial court had already disbelieved the eye-witnesses and the recovery evidence, relying solely on the dying declaration for conviction. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the dying declaration and found it highly doubtful due to the extensive nature of the burns, which likely caused shock or unconsciousness, the absence of the doctor's signature or a consciousness certificate, and the potential for tutoring by present relatives. Applying established principles of evidence appreciation, the Court held that an uncorroborated and doubtful dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a dying declaration if its genuineness and the declarant's mental capacity are doubtful?
  • What factors must a court consider when evaluating the reliability and truthfulness of a dying declaration?
  • Does the failure of the police to obtain a doctor's attestation or consciousness certificate affect the credibility of a dying declaration recorded in a hospital?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs PUNJAB URBAN TANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER1984 PLC 1073 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs KADIR BUX AND 7 OTHERS1984 CLC 2162 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs HAFIZUDDIN1984 CLC 2871 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_COLLECTOR, SADAR, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 641 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 706 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN TIWANA vs Mst. SADEEQA BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 411 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR CHAUDHRY AND 5 OTHERS vs UNITED BANK LTD. AND 41984 PLC 897 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND OTHERS, vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-24
  pre-emption suitadmission of appealscope of appealreview petitionjudicial proprietystay orderappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellants, as vendees, challenged a trial court decree. In the High Court, the appellants filed a regular appeal raising multiple issues; however, the High Court admitted the appeal only to consider the specific question of entitlement to compensation for improvements, effectively excluding other grounds without providing reasons. The appellants sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that this limited admission order amounted to an unreasoned dismissal of their other pleas. During the pendency of the Supreme Court proceedings, it was revealed that the appellants had also filed a review petition in the High Court regarding the same admission order. The Supreme Court held that since the core issue regarding the scope of the High Court's admission order was concurrently pending before the High Court in a review petition, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the High Court retained the authority to consider the excluded pleas during the final disposal of the main appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court's order admitting an appeal on a limited question amount to a dismissal of other grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal?
  • Can the Supreme Court entertain an appeal when the subject matter is concurrently pending before the High Court in a review petition?
  • Is an appellate court required to assign reasons when admitting an appeal on limited grounds while excluding others?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2258 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others1984 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05
  leave to appealpre-emption suitadmission of appealinterim reliefcompensation for improvements
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, vendees and heirs of vendees, filed a Regular First Appeal in the High Court against a trial court decree in a pre-emption suit. Although the appeal challenged findings on multiple issues, the High Court admitted the appeal only to consider the question of the appellants' entitlement to compensation for alleged improvements and denied interim relief regarding possession. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the restrictive admitting order amounted to an unreasoned dismissal of their remaining pleas, citing supporting authorities. The Supreme Court held that the point raised required consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal, while continuing the stay already granted and setting a date for the hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the admission of an appeal on a limited ground amount to the dismissal of other pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal?
  • Is the High Court required to assign reasons when restricting the admission of a regular first appeal to specific issues?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND OTHERS vs Mst. BALQEES BEGUM AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenant relationshipdefault in payment of rentsummary evictiondenial of titlerent restrictionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the ejectment orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, which were issued immediately after determining the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller may summarily order eviction upon establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant without inquiring into the merits of the default or personal need claims, particularly when the tenant asserts that rent has been deposited. The Court held that while a contumacious denial of title may justify summary eviction, such an order is improper where the tenant provides evidence or a plausible defense of rent payment. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller is duty-bound to frame issues and record evidence regarding default and personal requirement in such instances to avoid injustice. The principle established is that summary eviction is not a substitute for a trial on merits when the tenant’s denial of title is not frivolous and is accompanied by claims of rent deposit, thereby necessitating a full adjudication of the eviction grounds under the relevant rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order summary eviction immediately after finding the relationship of landlord and tenant exists without inquiring into the alleged default?
  • Does the denial of a landlord's title by a tenant automatically disentitle the tenant from leading evidence on the issue of rent payment?
  • Is the assignment of arrears of rent to a new owner a valid basis for seeking the eviction of a tenant under the rent laws?
  • When is a tenant entitled to a full trial on the merits of an eviction petition despite having denied the landlord's title?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and anothers vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another1984 P Cr. L J 2438 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 954 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs SULTAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-19
  consolidation matterconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionBoard of Revenuequestion of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition challenging the revisional order passed by a Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court rightly declined to entertain arguments concerning factual inquiries and matters not raised before the revenue tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact regarding the opportunity of hearing suffered from no legal infirmity and that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to entertain an argument regarding land allocation that was not pressed before the Board of Revenue. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that factual arguments not raised before the subordinate tribunal cannot ordinarily be entertained for the first time in writ jurisdiction, and bare statements of counsel cannot outweigh the recorded contents of judicial and quasi-judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a factual argument in writ jurisdiction that was not pressed before the lower tribunal?
  • Whether the High Court's refusal to entertain unpressed factual contentions in consolidation matters is unexceptionable?
  • Can the bare statement of counsel regarding the raising of points be preferred over the contents of relevant tribunal orders?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 326 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR alias Meera vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-25
  murder convictiondeath sentenceright to counsellegal representationprovocationcriminal appealjail petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a jail petition filed by Muhammad Amir against a High Court judgment that upheld his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Khan Muhammad. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner stabbed the deceased following a dispute over a small monetary loan, resulting in fatal chest injuries. The petitioner challenged the conviction on two grounds: first, that he was not properly represented by counsel during the trial; and second, that the sentence should be reduced because the act occurred during a heated exchange of abuses, suggesting a fit of anger. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions. Regarding representation, the Court found that the petitioner was adequately defended by both state-appointed and privately engaged counsel throughout the proceedings. Regarding the sentencing, the Court held that the argument of provocation was fallacious, noting that the petitioner inflicted multiple stab wounds over a trivial matter, constituting a gruesome murder. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the major penalty of death was rightly awarded for such an act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an accused was represented by both state-appointed and private counsel satisfy the requirement of proper legal representation?
  • Can a murder committed during a verbal altercation over a trivial matter be mitigated to a lesser sentence based on a claim of sudden anger?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND, HYDERABAD1984 SCMR 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-28
  allotment cancellationgovernment landpeasant tenurebreach of conditionsnatural justiceconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Sind High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of his government land allotment measuring 64 acres. The land was granted to the petitioner on peasant tenure in 1961 under the rules framed under the Sind Revenue Code, 1879. Authorities cancelled the allotment in 1981 after finding that the allotment papers were untraceable, the petitioner was not in possession, had failed to satisfy any conditions of the grant, and was in serious default. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory protection and an opportunity to rectify breaches under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and whether principles of natural justice were violated. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not claim statutory protection without fulfilling requirements such as obtaining an ijazatnama or proving lawful possession under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, or section 60 of the Sind Revenue Code, 1879. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to explain his default over twenty years, justifying the cancellation without separate notice. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grantee of government land can claim statutory protection under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 without proving lawful possession or compliance with section 10 of the said Act?
  • Does the failure of a grantee to discharge obligations over a long period disentitle them from claiming a separate opportunity to show cause based on principles of natural justice?
  • Can the Supreme Court conduct a roving inquiry into allegations of discrimination regarding the treatment of other allottees' land grants?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1984 PLC 1294 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs Mst. NASIM BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20
  constitutional petitiondefault in rentstriking off defencewilful defaulturban rent restrictionsecurity depositmistaken advice of counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the lower appellate authority and the Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant's defence was struck off and his ejectment from the disputed shop was ordered for a one-day delay in depositing the monthly rent. The core legal questions involve whether a one-day delay in rent deposit under a mistaken advice of counsel constitutes a wilful default under section 13(6) of the relevant rent restriction law, and whether the existence of a security deposit adjustable against arrears renders such a default merely technical. The Lahore High Court held that the delay occurred due to a bona fide mistake and the advice of counsel, lacking the element of negligence or wilful default necessary to warrant striking off defence. Furthermore, the court held that a technical default is mitigated where a security deposit is held by the landlord. The petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside as being without lawful authority, and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of a single day in depositing monthly rent under the mistaken advice of counsel constitute a wilful default under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Whether the mere non-compliance of a rent deposit order automatically obligiges the Rent Controller to strike off the tenant's defence without proof of negligence?
  • Can the existence of a security deposit held by the landlord transform a delay in rent payment into a mere technical default precluding summary ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs Mst. AISHA BIBI1984 CLC 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN RAZIEN (represented by Legal Heirs) vs DEPUTY1984 MLD 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28
  drug Actsub-standard drugdrug analyst reportmandatory provisionsbenefit of doubtcriminal appealdrug court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of the Drug Court dated 13th March, 1980, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 23(1)(a)(v) read with section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 for possessing and selling sub-standard drugs. The core legal questions involved whether the analytical reports submitted beyond statutory timelines without mandatory board approval were valid, whether mandatory rules regarding sealing and marking of samples sent to federal laboratories were complied with, whether the analyst reports were admissible without full testing protocols, and whether drug deterioration due to storage conditions warranted the benefit of the doubt. The Sindh High Court held that strict compliance with statutory procedures, timelines, and mandatory marking/sealing rules under the Drugs Act, 1976 and associated rules is imperative for criminal conviction, and that failure to provide testing protocols renders analytical reports inadmissible. Furthermore, the court held that where evidence suggests potential drug deterioration under improper storage conditions over time, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of submitting a government analyst report within sixty days under section 22(2) of the Drugs Act, 1976 is mandatory?
  • Whether failure to include full protocols of test applied renders an analyst report inadmissible in evidence?
  • Whether non-compliance with statutory rules regarding the sealing, marking, and dispatch of drug samples vitiates the trial and conviction?
  • Whether potential deterioration of drug potency due to prolonged storage under improper conditions entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN1984 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22
  ejectmentrent restrictionlimitationmixed question of fact and lawsecond appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a Peshawar High Court order that restored a Rent Controller's decision directing their ejectment from a property. The landlord had sought ejectment based on default in rent payment and the need for property reconstruction. While the first appellate court had reversed the Rent Controller's findings, the High Court reinstated them, finding no merit in the appellate court's reasoning regarding the nature of rent payments or the applicability of section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the High Court failed to address a limitation issue regarding the Second Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the question of limitation, involving the timing of copy applications and appeal filing, constituted a mixed question of fact and law that could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, citing precedent, the Court affirmed that a plea of limitation not pressed before the High Court cannot be re-opened at the appellate stage. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it involves a mixed question of fact and law?
  • Does the failure to press a plea of limitation before the High Court preclude a party from re-opening it before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALTAF KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1818 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD alias MATHARO vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND and another1984 MLD 822 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs Mst. MADINA BANO AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2446 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs MILLS MANAGER NATIONAL EMBRIODERY MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 1100 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs AMJAD HUSSAIN CHUGHTAI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI VAPIWALA vs MES'RS PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD,1984 PLC 634 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI THORUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1984 CLC 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI LUQMAN vs WAPDA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 476 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1984 CLC 2708 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS vs SIND LABOUR COURTNo, 1, KARACHI AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1645 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-05
  trade union electionsunfair labour practiceinterim orderdismissed employeesworker definitionoutsider office-bearersindustrial relationslabour court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Presiding Officer of the Sind Labour Court, Karachi, which annulled the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions recording a change of office-bearers for a trade union and directed fresh elections. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners, who were dismissed employees, could be treated as workers actually engaged in the establishment for the purpose of meeting the statutory threshold of 75% worker representation on the union executive under section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether the National Industrial Relations Commission had jurisdiction to issue an interim order protecting their status under Regulation 32 of the National Industrial Relations Regulations, 1973. The Sindh High Court held that the interim order was passed without jurisdiction as the alleged unfair labour practice had already occurred, and that dismissed employees cannot be considered 'workmen actually engaged or employed' in the establishment under section 7(1)(d). Consequently, the election resulted in an excessive proportion of outsiders, rendering it void. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Labour Court's order for fresh elections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission is competent to pass an interim order under Regulation 32(2) of the National Industrial Relations Regulations, 1973, in respect of an unfair labour practice that has already occurred?
  • Do dismissed employees qualify as workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment for the purpose of fulfilling the seventy-five percent worker requirement under section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to set aside union elections that violate the mandatory proportion of worker office-bearers?
  • Can an interlocutory order allowing dismissed employees to contest union elections confer upon them the status of workers actually engaged in the establishment under section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS vs SHARIFAN BIBI1984 CLC 945 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. THROUGH COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22
  auction of leasehold rightsjurisdiction of civil courtAdministrator of AuqafWaqf Ordinancetenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order dated 16th September, 1971, issued by the Administrator of Auqaf, N.-W. F. P., directing the auction of disputed plots where the petitioners were tenants. The core legal question concerns whether there is any legal bar against the auction of leasehold rights and whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in such matters. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to point out any legal bar against the auction of leasehold rights, and furthermore, the jurisdiction of civil courts is completely ousted by virtue of section 17 of the Waqf Ordinance, 1961, and subsequent repealing and re-enacting enactments. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the ouster of civil court jurisdiction and the legality of the auction of leasehold rights under the relevant legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Is there any legal bar against the auction of leasehold rights by the Administrator of Auqaf?
  • Does section 17 of the Waqf Ordinance, 1961 oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to question the auction of leasehold plots?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 19 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND 7 OTHERS vs SAKAR KHANOO BAI REPRESENTED BY LEGAL1984 PLD Karachi 97 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04
  electoral rollage qualificationlocal council electionReturning OfficerElection Authoritynomination paperbirth register
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses the legal effect of age entries in electoral rolls vis-a-vis the statutory age qualification for candidates contesting local council elections. The core legal questions involved whether the Election Authority had jurisdiction to determine a candidate's age dispute post-election and whether a Returning Officer is barred by the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 from inquiring into the correct age of a candidate independently of the electoral roll entry. The court held that while electoral roll entries are final and conclusive regarding a person's qualification to vote, they are not final or incontrovertible regarding the exact age required for candidature under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, Returning Officers and Election Authorities are legally competent to inquire into a candidate's actual age using independent evidence aliunde, such as municipal birth registers. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Authority have jurisdiction to inquire into a candidate's age qualification post-election?
  • Are entries of age in the electoral roll final and conclusive for determining a candidate's eligibility regarding the minimum age requirement?
  • Is a Returning Officer prohibited from inquiring into the correct age of a candidate independently of the electoral roll?
  • What is the precise scope and legal effect of proviso (iii) to sub-rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM/Opponent vs Mst. AMIRUN NISA/Applicant1984 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM vs THE PROVICE OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 629 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE1984 PLC 1221 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM vs BARKAT ALI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2223 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN1984 PLD Azad J & K 51 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 356 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs STATE HEAVY ENGINEERING AND MACHINE TOOLS1984 PLC 688 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY, WILDLIFE, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT1984 SCMR 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01
  service tribunalrepatriationtemporary absorptionretrenchmentforest departmentwildlife departmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, initially appointed as a forester in the Forest Department in 1963-64, was temporarily transferred and absorbed as a Game Inspector in the Parks and Wildlife Department following the retrenchment of posts caused by the transfer of canal-side plantations to the Irrigation Department. Subsequently, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent Forest Department. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's absorption in the Games Department was permanent and final, barring his repatriation to the parent department. The Supreme Court held that the absorption was made purely on a temporary basis subject to repatriation upon the availability of duly qualified staff after the lifting of the recruitment ban, and therefore the repatriation order was lawful. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that temporary absorption subject to specified conditions does not confer permanent tenure and allows for repatriation to the parent department upon fulfillment of those conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee temporarily absorbed in a department on specific conditions can be repatriated to their parent department?
  • Does temporary absorption of surplus staff confer a permanent right to retain the absorbed post?
  • Can a service tribunal's judgment upholding the repatriation of a temporarily absorbed employee be interfered with when the terms of absorption permit repatriation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 468 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD /1984 PLC 45 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION1984 PLC 999 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Mst. MAJEED BEGUM1984 PLD Azad J & K 36 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Haji NAWAB AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 270 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURAISHI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 918 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others vs Mst. BEGUM BIB1 and others1984 MLD 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 730 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR RAZA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3244 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR PERVEZ vs MISTRY MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1921 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-14
  leave to appealplea of guiltycustoms offencesupply of statementstrial vitiationproperty valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of his appeal by the Peshawar High Court, having been convicted and sentenced on his own plea of guilty under section 156(i)(89) of the Customs Act for possessing smuggled foreign-made electric irons. The core legal questions involved whether the non-supply of witness statements under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the trial, and whether the conviction was unsupportable without explicit proof of property valuation. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 265-C are directory, and non-compliance does not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown, which cannot be claimed when an accused pleads guilty. Furthermore, the framing of the charge itself indicated the requisite valuation, which the petitioner failed to dispute before pleading guilty. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-supply of copies of statements and documents under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a trial where the accused has pleaded guilty?
  • Whether the provisions of section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Can an accused who pleaded guilty to a charge under the Customs Act subsequently challenge the valuation of the property in the absence of any dispute raised during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 120 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN vs FAZAL KARIM AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3130 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR CHEEMA vs THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-27
  arrears of land revenueascertained duescoercive processadjudication of duesWest Pakistan Land Revenue Actdeposit under protestremand for trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a decision of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing the appellant's suit for declaration and injunction against coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents. The appellant, who was awarded a lease of agricultural land at an auction but was never given possession nor notified of approval, challenged the recovery of lease instalments initiated as arrears of land revenue. The primary legal issue was whether an unadjudicated claim could be recovered as arrears of land revenue without prior determination of liability and whether the suit was barred under Section 91 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 due to non-deposit of the disputed amount. The Supreme Court held that statutory machinery for recovering government dues as arrears of land revenue can only be invoked after the claim has ripened into 'ascertained dues' following proper determination and opportunity of hearing. Reaffirming established precedent, the Court ruled that unestablished claims cannot be forcibly recovered as arrears of land revenue. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the suit was remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government claim be recovered as arrears of land revenue before it is adjudicated and established as an ascertained due?
  • Must a plaintiff deposit disputed recovery amounts under protest before filing a civil suit if the underlying liability has not been legally determined?
  • Does a statutory notification authorizing the recovery of 'ascertained dues' apply to disputed lease instalments where possession of the leased property was never delivered?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND OTHERS vs NASAR JAMA SHAH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-01
  pre-emptionrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factleave to appealfictitious salecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a pre-emption suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants regarding the sale of land, which was initially decreed. Subsequently, the heirs of the alleged vendor filed a separate suit for a declaration that the sale was fictitious, fraudulent, and without consideration, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the District Judge. The pre-emptor's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court, which held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the invalidity of the sale were not open to interference under revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to re-examine these concurrent findings of fact. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court determined that the case was not a fit or proper matter for the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court rescinded the order granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the finality of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts?
  • Is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the validity of a sale open to challenge in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 MLD 220 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 836 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1312 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3015 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMAD WARSI vs POSTMASTER GENERAL, SOUTHERN CIRCLE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 455 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs NAZIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-10
  bailinvestigation reportocular testimonyfurther inquirypolice opinioncriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to two accused persons charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant challenged the bail grant, arguing that the High Court erred in relying on police investigation reports that favored the accused's innocence, despite the existence of ocular testimony implicating them in the murder. The core legal question was whether the opinion of an investigating agency, which contradicts the FIR and ocular evidence, constitutes valid grounds for granting bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion. The Court affirmed that while police opinions are not binding on courts, they are relevant in bail matters if based on sound material, such as statements from credible witnesses regarding an alibi. The key principle laid down is that the relevancy of an investigating officer's opinion in bail proceedings depends on the soundness of the factual material supporting that opinion, which may provide reasonable grounds for believing an accused is not guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of an investigating agency regarding an accused's innocence binding upon a court in bail proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances is the opinion of an investigating officer relevant to the determination of bail?
  • Can a court grant bail based on an investigation report that contradicts the FIR and ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-12
  public auctionresumption of propertydemand noticeSettlement Scheme No. VIIIdisplaced personsmandatory compliancewaiver
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the resumption and subsequent transfer of a commercial property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The first respondent was the highest bidder in a public auction, and a Provisional Transfer Order was issued in his favour. Due to issues with adjusting the price through an agreement of association and a non-genuine compensation book, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner resumed the property and transferred it to the appellant under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The High Court set aside the resumption, holding that the Settlement authorities failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of a demand notice under Paragraph 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that because the property was treated as available and disposed of under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, the mandatory requirements of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Scheme—specifically, sending a demand notice by registered post with acknowledgment due—had to be strictly complied with before penal consequences of resumption could flow.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Settlement Scheme No. VIII apply to the resumption of a property that was originally auctioned before the promulgation of the Scheme but subsequently treated as available property under the Scheme?
  • Is the requirement of sending a demand notice by registered post acknowledgment due under Paragraph 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII mandatory before penal consequences of resumption can flow?
  • Does the confirmation of an auction bid by Settlement authorities despite the non-deposit of the required one-fourth amount at the fall of the hammer constitute a waiver of that requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE SADDAR DEPOT, LAHORE1984 PLC 890 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs GHULAM HAIDAR AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 590 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs FAQIR AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-21
  dying declarationappeal against acquittalmedical evidenceeye-witness testimonytribal affiliationretrialuninjured witnessabsconding accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the dismissal by the High Court of a revision petition upholding the trial court's acquittal of four respondents accused of a daylight ambush resulting in four deaths and injuries to two others. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan for reappraisal of the evidence. The primary legal questions concerned the evidentiary value and credibility of a brief dying declaration certified by medical officers, whether tribal affiliation warrants an inference of medical fabrication, and the reliability of an uninjured solitary eye-witness. The Supreme Court held that the brevity of a dying declaration does not detract from its truthfulness and can alone form a sufficient basis for conviction without independent corroboration. It rejected the presumption that public servants fabricate evidence based solely on tribal ties. The Court further held that escaping injury does not discredit an eye-witness lacking direct hostility with the assailants. Consequently, the acquittal of the respondents named in the dying declaration was set aside with an order for retrial, while the acquittal of the unnamed co-accused was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be based solely on a truthful dying declaration without independent corroboration?
  • Does the brevity of a dying declaration undermine its veracity or credibility?
  • Can a court infer fabrication of a dying declaration by medical officers merely because one doctor shares the tribal background of the deceased?
  • Does the mere fact that an eye-witness escaped unhurt during an armed attack justify disbelieving their testimony?
  • Can an appellate court set aside the acquittal of an absconding accused who has not yet been arrested?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL MUNIF vs BRIG. (RTD.) IFTIKHAR AHMAD, RETURNING1984 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs S.U.O. and others1984 MLD 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 61984 PLD Karachi 114 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12
  Martial Law Order 55writ jurisdictionshow-cause noticecivil servantCorporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978mala fideouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA), challenged his reversion from Grade-18 to Grade-17, ordered under Martial Law Order 55, and a subsequent show-cause notice issued for alleged misconduct. The primary legal questions concerned the court's jurisdiction to review orders passed under Martial Law Orders, whether a KDA employee constitutes a "civil servant" under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978, and the maintainability of a writ petition against a show-cause notice. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reversion order due to the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction regarding actions taken under Martial Law Orders. Regarding the show-cause notice, the court determined that KDA employees are not "civil servants" under the 1978 Ordinance because KDA is a provincial, not federal, entity. Furthermore, the court found the show-cause notice to be mala fide and without lawful authority, as the petitioner's direct representations to higher authorities were protected complaints regarding corruption under Martial Law instructions, not personal appeals. Consequently, the court dismissed the challenge to the reversion order but quashed the show-cause notice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review an order passed under Martial Law Order 55?
  • Is an employee of the Karachi Development Authority a 'civil servant' for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against a show-cause notice if it is issued mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  • Does the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978 apply to employees of provincial corporations?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 215 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-03
  education cessProvincially Administered Tribal Areasconstitutional petitionlegislative applicationrepeal of amending lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the demand for education cess by the Excise and Taxation Officer from an industrial establishment in the Malakand Agency. The petitioner contended that the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, as amended, was not applicable to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) because the amending Act of 1973 was not extended to that region. The petitioner further argued that the repeal of the amending Ordinance of 1972 by the 1973 Act rendered the amendments inoperative in PATA. The Court held that the Ordinance, in its amended form, was validly applied to PATA via the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Application of Laws) Regulation, 1972, prior to the enactment of the 1973 Act. The Court further clarified that the non-application of the 1973 Act to PATA did not invalidate the existing law, as the repeal of an amending law does not affect the continuance of amendments already incorporated into the principal statute, a principle supported by Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the demand for education cess was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Was the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, applicable to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas in its amended form?
  • Does the repeal of an amending law affect the validity of amendments already incorporated into the principal statute?
  • Did the failure to extend the Workers' Children (Education) (Amendment) Act, 1973, to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas render the education cess unrecoverable in that region?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL BHATTI vs CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY OF PAKISTAN LTD1984 PLC 1106 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2653 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 7 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZ AL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1815 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFSAR AND 6 OTHERS vs SHAH WALI, AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A I & K) 115 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AEZAL vs ABDUL KARIM AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY1984 CLC 2840 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs ADVISOR/DIRECTOR, PLANT PROTECTION AND1984 PLC (C. S.) 161 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL KASSIM vs The MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd.,KARACHI1984 MLD 370 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →