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.
- Munshi ALLAH RAKHA vs THE STATE1983 PLC (C. S.) 318 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- MUNIR MASIH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUNIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND Other1983 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the disqualification of the appellant, a former government servant, from membership in a Local Council. The appellant resigned from service and contested an election within two years, violating Section 99(d) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976, which was incorporated into the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the Election Tribunal removed him from membership. The core legal question was whether the subsequent amendment to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, via Ordinance VI of 1981, which introduced a proviso removing certain disqualifications, applied retrospectively to validate the appellant's membership. The Supreme Court held that the amendment, specifically the addition of subsection (2) to section 21, operated retrospectively. The Court ruled that the disqualification incurred by former government servants who resigned or retired (otherwise than by punishment) was removed ab initio. Consequently, the appellant's removal was set aside, and his membership was restored, establishing the principle that the amending Ordinance validated the status of such members notwithstanding prior orders or judgments removing them based on the now-removed disqualification.
Questions settled- Does the amendment to Section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, via Ordinance VI of 1981, operate retrospectively to remove disqualifications for local council membership?
- Are former government servants who resigned from service eligible to be members of a local council despite the two-year restriction period under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976, following the 1981 amendment?
- Can a member of a local council removed by an election tribunal be restored to membership if a subsequent legislative amendment removes the ground for their disqualification?
- MUNIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs Mst. SHAI KHELA AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2794 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMED vs THE STATE- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2343 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 85 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs Mistri SIRAJ DIN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2789 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs KHALIQUR RAHMAN AND Other1983 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition seeks to challenge the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court, which set aside their conviction and death sentences for murder and attempt to murder arising from an armed clash over the possession of a plot. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding the right of private defence and the credibility of the prosecution's version in light of unexplained injuries on the accused party and a suppressed title document. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's conclusion was unassailable on the weight of evidence. The Court affirmed that where the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence and sets up a colourable and unproved claim of title to dispossess a person in settled possession, the plea of private defence of person and property raised by the accused is reasonably established, warranting acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused party supports the defence version of the incident?
- Can a criminal petition against an acquittal be maintained when the High Court's conclusions are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and the right of private defence?
- Whether the production of a disputed and unproved title document for the first time at the trial stage affects the credibility of the prosecution case?
- MUNIR AHMAD vs HABIB BANK LTD.1983 PLC 869 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs AHMAD DIN AND Another1983 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the landlords under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 seeking the eviction of the tenant from a shop in Faisalabad on the ground of personal need, as one of the landlords intended to start a cloth merchant business jointly with his brother through his son. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and both the appellate court and the Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's subsequent appeals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the failure of the landlord's son to appear as a witness vitiated the concurrent findings of fact regarding good faith and personal need. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were unexceptionable as the landlord himself deposed and established the personal need, and the appreciation of evidence by the lower forums suffered from no legal or procedural error. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the non-production of a landlord's son as a witness is fatal to an ejectment application based on personal need where the landlord himself has deposed to establish the same?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums in the absence of any legal or procedural error?
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI vs MATLOOB HUSSAIN SHAH1983 PLC 854 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, WAZIRABAD vs SADIQ MASIH1983 PLC 844 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, VEH ARI vs HASHMAT ALI1983 SCMR 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's order accepting a revision petition and setting aside the dismissal of the respondent, a permanent employee of the Municipal Committee, Vehari. The core legal question is whether the High Court, under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, can interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts upholding a departmental dismissal that was allegedly based on no evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered under section 115, clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, as dismissing an employee without any evidence constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity by the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must exercise their powers consistently with the governing statute, and courts possess the jurisdiction to declare an employment termination illegal and ultra vires when it is unsupported by any evidence.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 with a departmental dismissal upheld by subordinate courts?
- Does the dismissal of an employee without any evidence amount to acting in the exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity?
- Are the powers of a statutory body subject to the constituting statute when determining the employment of a servant?
- MUNAWWAR BEGUM AND 9 OTHERS vs Mst. ALQAB BEGUM1983 CLC 1548 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR SULTANA (THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) vs SIDDIQUE1983 CLC 2791 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the appellant inflicted a single dagger blow to the left thigh of the deceased, cutting the femoral vessels and causing death due to shock and haemorrhage, arising from a previous altercation over a kite. Leave was granted to examine whether the appellant, being a layman, possessed the knowledge of the location of human arteries, and whether the offence fell under section 326 or section 304 Part II instead of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that since the injury was not on a vital part of the body and the appellant could not be attributed with the specific intention to kill or cause an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, only knowledge likely to cause death could be imputed. Consequently, the conviction was altered from section 302 to section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether a single dagger blow to the thigh resulting in the severance of the femoral artery constitutes murder under section 302 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a layman attacking with a dagger on a non-vital part of the body like the thigh be imputed with the specific intention to kill or only the knowledge likely to cause death?
- MUNAWAR AND 5 OTHERS vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the convictions and sentences of the appellants for rioting and murder arising from a land dispute. The core legal questions concerned the validity of possession delivery by revenue staff without civil court execution, the applicability of self-defense, and the evidentiary weight of injuries sustained by both parties in a mutual combat scenario. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove legal delivery of possession, as the mere passing of a civil decree does not constitute execution without proper procedure. Furthermore, because both parties suppressed the true origin of the conflict, the Court rejected the prosecution's ocular version as unreliable. Applying the principle that in mutual combat cases where facts are suppressed, the court must draw inferences from established circumstances rather than relying on disputed testimony, the Court found the plea of self-defense unavailable but held that the prosecution failed to establish the specific roles of all accused. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of doubt to several appellants, modifying the convictions of the remaining appellants to attempted murder under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- Does the mere passing of a civil court decree for possession of immovable property constitute proof of delivery of possession?
- Can revenue staff unilaterally execute a civil court decree for possession of immovable property without a formal order of the civil court?
- How should a court determine criminal liability when both parties in a violent conflict suppress the true origin of the incident?
- Is the plea of self-defense available to an accused who launches a sustained and determined attack despite the complainant party being armed only with sticks?
- MUNAWAR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR AHMAD BHATTI vs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD.1983 PLC 285 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ. AHMED vs RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1983 PLC 923 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-03Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 81 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ LIAQAT vs PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMIC RESEARCH1983 PLC (C. S.) 255 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-08-02Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 225 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE\1983 P Cr. L J 909 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN WAPDA1983 PLC (C. S.) 826 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ BEGUM AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA. AND OTHERS1983 CLC 586 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ALI vs Habibur Rashid For The State1983 PCr. LJ 1709 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ALI AND ANOTHER vs MACHINERY MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT1983 PLC 746 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-09Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (SETTLT. & REH_1983 PLC (C. S.) 511 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,1983 PLC (C. S.) 1059 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-10Read full judgment →
- MULLAH GHULAM ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE COMMISSIONER OF KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 602 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- MULAZIM HUSSAIN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND Other1983 SCMR 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding an election dispute for the Union Council Basharat. The petitioner, Mulazim Hussain, was initially declared elected, but the Election Tribunal subsequently declared the election void after finding that markings on ballot papers violated the secrecy of the ballot. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision in the High Court. Upon review, the High Court accepted the petitioner's own argument that the entire election should be declared void rather than merely unseating him. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to argue that the High Court erred in declaring the election void, claiming the markings were not a violation of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the High Court's decision when the High Court had merely granted the specific relief the petitioner had requested in his own writ petition. The Court affirmed that a party cannot complain of an order that aligns with their own pleaded position.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge a High Court judgment that grants the specific relief requested in their own writ petition?
- Does the principle of approbate and reprobate prevent a party from challenging an order that aligns with their own arguments before the lower court?
- MULAIM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIARKAR, PANOAKIL AND ANOTHER vs WALI MUHAMMAD1983 PLD Karachi 573 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR vs KHAKAN AND Other1983 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of agricultural land involving multiple Khasra numbers. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor could successfully claim a Khasra number that was not contiguous to their own land, specifically when an intervening property, identified as a thoroughfare, separated the two. The Supreme Court held that the pre-emption claim regarding the non-contiguous Khasra number must fail. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that being in the same Khata was sufficient for pre-emption regardless of contiguity. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain a new plea regarding participation in common amenities as it was not raised or pressed during the trial or first appellate stages. The principle laid down is that the right of pre-emption based on contiguity requires actual physical contiguity; where an intervening property separates the lands, the right cannot be exercised. Additionally, appellate courts will not permit the introduction of new legal grounds or pleas that were not raised or pressed in the lower courts.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption claim succeed for land that is not contiguous to the pre-emptor's property?
- Does the existence of an intervening thoroughfare defeat a claim of contiguity in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a party introduce a new ground for pre-emption, such as participation in common amenities, for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- MUKHTAR KHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR ALI vs The STATE1983 PLC (C. S.) 959 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN vs THE STATE--1983 P Cr. L J 950 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1738 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 2019 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD AND 5 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 767 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- MUJAHID HUSSAIN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mujahid Hussain against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death for the murder of Abbas. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony, the corroboration of motive, and the credibility of recoveries and the first information report, which was repudiated at trial by its maker. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a thorough re-appraisal of the ocular evidence, recovery evidence, and motive is necessary to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice and to establish whether the prosecution's case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where crucial prosecution witnesses, including the maker of the first information report, repudiate or fail to consistently support the case, the apex court will grant leave to re-examine the evidence to prevent potential miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the maker of the first information report repudiates the same?
- Is a re-appraisal of ocular and recovery evidence warranted when inconsistencies arise regarding the motive for an offense?
- Does the delayed arrest of an accused cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution case to merit a re-examination of the evidence by the Supreme Court?
- MUJAHID ABBAS RIZVI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1127 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHIB ALI AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMD IDREES vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC(C.S.) 1212 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMADIA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL. vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 24 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD. ARIF AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 20 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD-HASSAN AND 8 OTHERS vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 2681 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD, SALSM AND ANOTHER vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIRPURKHAS AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1288 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs The COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND Other1983SCMR781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's case was adjudicated under the incorrect service rules. The petitioner contended that the authorities erroneously applied the West Pakistan Health Department Vaccination Subordinate Service Rules, 1968, instead of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1953, which were the governing regulations for the matter. The Supreme Court found merit in this contention, noting that the application of the wrong set of rules constituted a legal error in the decision-making process. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must adjudicate service matters strictly under the appropriate and applicable statutory rules; failure to apply the correct governing legislation renders the impugned order unsustainable and necessitates a remand for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the application of incorrect service rules by an administrative authority constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
- Should a case be remanded for a fresh decision if it was originally adjudicated under the wrong set of service rules?
- MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 21983 PLD Lahore 576 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR CHAUDHRY vs THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED1983 CLC 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 477 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs Malik MUHAMMAD AMIR AND Other1983 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 16-6-1982 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's regular second appeal was dismissed in limine. The underlying matter arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions relating to an alleged encroachment and a door opening towards his land, which was initially dismissed by a Civil Judge and subsequently upheld by the District Judge. During the first appeal, a Local Commissioner was appointed to measure the area and submit a report, which went against the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the District Judge unlawfully delegated his judicial functions by relying on the Local Commissioner's report. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted documents for appraisal by the Local Commissioner and had withdrawn his objections to the report after they were invited. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that a party cannot legitimately grievance against a Local Commissioner's report when the actions were undertaken at the party's own instance and objections were subsequently withdrawn.
Questions settled- Whether a District Judge unlawfully delegates judicial functions by relying on a Local Commissioner's report after inviting and considering objections?
- Can a party legitimately challenge a Local Commissioner's report when the proceedings before the commissioner were conducted at that party's own instance?
- Is a grievance regarding a Local Commissioner's report maintainable after the objecting party has formally withdrawn its objections?
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs FATEH SHAH1983 CLC 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3165 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSIF AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSAF ZAKI vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, CIVIL JUDGE AND others1983 CLC 2224 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs The STATE1983 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The petitioner, a government school teacher, contended that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the case and that certain remarks in the High Court's judgment were prejudicial to his fair trial. The Supreme Court held that the question of guilt under the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 must be determined by the trial court based on evidence. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the apprehension of prejudice, noting the High Court's explicit observation that the trial judge should decide the case on its merits without being influenced by the High Court's remarks. Consequently, the petition was found to be without substance and was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, have jurisdiction to try a government servant for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
- Can a petition for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted solely on the basis of apprehended prejudice from a High Court's observations?
- Should a trial court be influenced by remarks made by a High Court in a judgment dismissing a petition for quashment?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 535 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs ABDUL MAJID AND 5 Other1983 SCMR 100(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of two respondents (Abdul Majid and Nazir Ahmed) and maintained the acquittal of the remaining respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in treating the incident as a case of outright aggression and self-defence without properly examining whether it constituted a sudden fight attracting Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question regarding the two convicted respondents, while dismissing the petition as not pressed concerning the other respondents. The Supreme Court laid down that in cases involving mutual altercation and injuries on both sides, the courts must carefully examine the evidence to determine the applicability of Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code pertaining to sudden fights, rather than prematurely concluding self-defence or aggression without such analysis.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in treating the case as one of self-defence without examining the applicability of Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does a sudden fight involving mutual injuries warrant an examination under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code rather than an outright finding of self-defence?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF BURNEY vs S. MUHAMMAD ALI1983 CLC 1498 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two applications arising from a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and accounts. The first application sought the appointment of a receiver for the partnership firm, while the second, filed by the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, sought a stay of the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration. Regarding the receivership, the Court held that in disputes between partners involving dissolution and accounts where assets are exclusively held by one party, appointing a receiver is standard practice. The Court appointed the Nazir as a receiver with limited supervisory powers over the business, which the defendant continued to operate, while maintaining an injunction against the disposal of partnership assets. Regarding the stay application, the Court dismissed it, holding that the application failed to disclose the specific nature of the dispute between the parties, a prerequisite for invoking Section 34. Furthermore, the Court determined that allegations of coercion and undue influence regarding a prior agreement were unsuitable for determination by an arbitrator.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of a receiver a standard course of action in suits for the dissolution of a partnership and accounts where assets are held by one party?
- Does an application for a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 require the applicant to specify the nature of the dispute?
- Can a court refuse to refer a matter to arbitration if the dispute involves allegations of coercion and undue influence regarding the underlying agreement?
- Does a party's previous withdrawal of a suit for dissolution of partnership preclude them from being considered 'ready and willing' to arbitrate in a subsequent suit?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AWAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 610 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 305 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSIF vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1983 CLC 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs The STATE1983 SCMR 102(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had rejected the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as his co-accused, Muhammad Arif, who had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. Upon reviewing the circumstances and the parity of the petitioner's case with that of the co-accused, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar treatment. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate. The judgment reinforces the principle of parity in bail matters, where co-accused similarly situated should generally receive consistent treatment regarding bail applications.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if their case is at par with a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal to grant bail?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs NAWAB DIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1961 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN And Other1983 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction proceeding where the tenant and the previous owner disputed the landlord's title. The landlord asserted ownership based on a registered sale-deed and produced a photostat copy of the deed before the Rent Controller. No objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the admissibility of the photostat copy before either the Rent Controller or the first appellate court, both of whom concurrently found the relationship of landlord and tenant established. The High Court, on review, declined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact, noting the lack of timely objection to the document's admissibility. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that since the previous owner had already filed a separate civil suit challenging the sale transaction, it would not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact at the instance of a petitioner who is merely a tenant. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party object to the admissibility of a photostat copy of a document for the first time in review or second appeal if no objection was raised before the trial and first appellate forums?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant at the instance of a tenant when a separate civil suit challenging the landlord's title is already pending?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs LIAQUAT HAYAT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1944 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 337 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 664 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN vs Mst. CHAND BIBI AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 777 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a murder case where leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the right of private defence was wrongly denied to the petitioners. The High Court had disbelieved the prosecution's initial story of an ambush by the accused and found that the appellant Islam received injuries first from the complainant party, but nevertheless negated the plea of self-defence solely on the ground that the numerous injuries inflicted on the deceased and prosecution witnesses took the case outside the ambit of private defence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in considering the mere number of injuries as the sole test under Section 99 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while ignoring other vital factors such as the nature of the injuries, the weapons used, the apprehension of danger, and good faith. The Court established that actions in self-defence must not be weighed in golden scales, and that the infliction of severe injuries does not negate the right of private defence where the accused acted in good faith to protect life against lethal attack. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentences were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether after disbelieving the prosecution's ambush story and finding that the accused received injuries first, the right of private defence is completely unavailable?
- Does the mere number of injuries inflicted by the accused take a case outside the ambit of private defence under Section 99 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Should acts done in the heat of the moment in self-defence be weighed in golden scales?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 1092 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs MESSRS GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER Co. OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 740 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 3 Other1983 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil suit under the Specific Relief Act where defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order VII, rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint or appointment of a next friend, alleging the plaintiff was of unsound mind. The trial court rejected the application, and the revisional court dismissed the subsequent revision, noting the applicant failed to apply under Order XXXII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for taking the plaint off the record to inquire into the plaintiff's mental capacity. A subsequent writ petition before the Lahore High Court was also dismissed. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, attempting to introduce new material in the form of a subsequent statement made before a Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that subsequent material cannot be used to determine the correctness of past judicial orders and declined to interfere with the High Court's decision in writ jurisdiction, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Can subsequent material arising after the impugned orders be referred to for deciding the correctness of orders already passed by lower courts?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction against orders dismissing an application regarding a plaintiff's unsoundness of mind warrants Supreme Court interference?
- Is an application under Order XXXII rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 necessary for taking a plaint off the record regarding the unsoundness of mind of a plaintiff?
- MUHAMMAD YOUNAS AND 8 OTHERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs Mst. ZUBEDA KHATOON AND 4 Others1983 CLC 12 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs Mat. RAFIA BIBI RAFIA SULTANA AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged a Family Court judgment that decreed the dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner, the husband, argued that the Family Court erred by closing his evidence after he failed to produce witnesses, and that the decree was conditional upon the return of specific ornaments, which he contended were not returned within the stipulated time, thereby rendering the decree ineffective. The Court examined whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing and whether the dissolution of marriage via Khula could be made conditional upon the return of benefits. The Court held that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to produce evidence and failed to do so, thus the closure of evidence was justified. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while a wife must return benefits to obtain Khula, the dissolution of marriage itself is not conditional upon such return. The return of benefits creates a civil liability, but failure to return them does not invalidate the decree of dissolution. The writ petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula be made conditional upon the return of benefits?
- Does the failure to return benefits in a Khula decree invalidate the dissolution of marriage?
- Is a Judge Family Court empowered to close the evidence of a party that fails to produce witnesses after being granted multiple opportunities?
- Does the failure to submit a list of witnesses within the statutory period under the Family Courts Act 1964 preclude a party from summoning witnesses through the court?
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN AND OTHERS vs WALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 253 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1983 CLC 2958 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1983 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning a property in Mauza Khangarh, Muzaffargarh. The petitioners purchased a property, which the respondent claimed was a house subject to pre-emption, while the petitioners contended it was a shop and thus not pre-emptiable. The trial court determined the property was originally built for residential purposes and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the lower appellate court failed to address all issues raised in the appeal, specifically contending that the High Court misconstrued their arguments regarding the scope of their challenge. The Supreme Court examined the record and the High Court's judgment, finding that the High Court had correctly recorded the arguments of both parties. The Court held that since the issue of the existence of the custom of pre-emption was a concurrent finding of fact by the lower courts, there was no legal justification for interference. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a custom of pre-emption in a locality?
- Does a failure by an appellate court to discuss all issues in a judgment necessarily render the judgment illegal if the core findings are supported by evidence?
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. AKHTAR JEHAN1983 CLC 3063 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs AMANI MALIK KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs Mst. NOORAN ETc.1983 CLC 1948 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kasur, admitting an appeal and granting a status quo order in a matter concerning an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal question was whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a judgment on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction can be filed before the Court of first instance when the final judgment in the matter was passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court held that a lower court's judgment merges into the judgment of the appellate or final court, and therefore an application under section 12(2) must be made to the court that passed the final judgment and not to the court of first instance. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the Additional District Judge was set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure can be filed before the court of first instance when the final judgment was passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does a lower court's judgment merge into the judgment of the appellate court for the purpose of seeking a remedy under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- What is the rationale behind the addition of subsection (2) to section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB KHAN vs ADALAT KHAN1983 CLC 976 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs The STATE1983 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through jail is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder. The appellant was tried for the murder of Muhammad Bashir, who was found dead with multiple incised injuries inside his shop. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to death, which the High Court commuted to imprisonment for life, noting circumstances suggestive of a sex affair. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether a reasonable case of self-defence was made out. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence can be established by raising a reasonable doubt that it may probably be correct from the prosecution evidence itself, and that the appellant acted to defend himself from a sexual assault but exceeded the right of private defence. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Questions settled- Can the plea of self-defence be established by raising a reasonable doubt from the prosecution evidence itself?
- Whether exceeding the right of self-defence in the face of a sexual assault warrants a conviction under Section 304(1) instead of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Is a young offender committing homicide while resisting a sexual assault entitled to mitigation of sentence?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs PACKAGES LTD.1983 PLC 842 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs LAHORECHEMICALS PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD.1983 PLC 852 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2216 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN AND OTHERS vs LAND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND Others vs NAZAR KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 1252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling land allotments previously made in favour of the respondents. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of settlement authorities to reopen and cancel long-standing mutation and allotment orders after several decades on allegations of fraud, and whether such orders had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly set aside the cancellation order, affirming that settlement authorities were incompetent to deal with questions of fraud allegedly committed upon the claims organization under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons Act, and that past mutation orders finalized in 1953 could not be arbitrarily challenged after a lapse of nearly two decades. The key principle laid down is that settlement authorities cannot exercise powers under sections 10 and 11 to re-examine matters relating to the initial verification of claims handled by the claims organization, and long-standing property titles cannot be uprooted after inordinate delay without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether settlement authorities have the jurisdiction under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land and Settlement) Act 1958 to deal with questions of fraud committed upon the officers of the claims organization?
- Can mutation and allotment orders that have attained finality over a long period of time be challenged and cancelled after an inordinate delay?
- Whether findings of fact recorded by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction can be interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction when such findings are without lawful authority?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND Others vs ABDUL GHANI AND Other1983 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a Constitutional petition, which had challenged an order passed by a Member of the Board of Revenue under Section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, concerning the revision of the record of rights. The petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue lacked the authority to direct such a revision due to the absence of necessary prerequisites and argued that the order was barred by the principles of waiver, estoppel, and laches. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding no justification to import the principles of waiver, estoppel, or laches into the exercise of powers under Section 40. The Court held that the revision of the record of rights is dependent on the merits and justification of each individual case. As the High Court had already determined that the Board's order followed a proper inquiry and was not arbitrary, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can the principles of waiver, estoppel, and laches be imported into the exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Is the revision of the record of rights under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, dependent upon the specific merits and justification of each individual case?