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 SALIM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Other1983 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a High Court judgment acquitting the respondents who were originally convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Shahid and under section 307 for assaulting Muhammad Salim. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court misappraised the evidence, notably by incorrectly treating eyewitnesses as related and interested witnesses based on hearsay, and by disregarding prompt recoveries of blood-stained crime weapons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding on witness relationship was based on a fundamental misconception and that the recoveries were individual and incriminating. However, upon reviewing the nature and locale of the injuries—specifically a fatal knife injury inflicted on the knee rather than a vital body part during a sudden grappling incident—the Court concluded that premeditation was absent and the intention to kill was not established. Consequently, the conviction under section 302 was altered to section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that where a fatal injury is inflicted on a non-vital part during a sudden fight without premeditation, the offense falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than premeditated murder.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can reverse an acquittal based on a fundamental misconception of facts regarding witness relationships?
- Does the infliction of a fatal injury on a non-vital part of the body during a sudden grappling incident negative the intention to cause murder under Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 be altered to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of premeditation?
- MUHAMMAD SALIM vs INAYATULLAH1983 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH MUSHARIFF1983 CLC 3053 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALIM AND 6 OTHERS vs BAKHSHAL KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 497 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves a reference to a larger Bench of the Sindh High Court to determine whether a government notification dated 30th October 1963, investing Third Class Civil Judges with the powers of Rent Controllers, was impliedly superseded by a subsequent notification dated 25th March 1964. The petitioners argued that because the second notification was issued 'in continuation of' the first, it merged with it and was implicitly wiped out when the third notification superseded the first. The Court examined the rules of statutory interpretation, the meaning of 'continuation', and the absence of repugnancy between the notifications. Answering the reference in the negative, the Court held that the second notification was a parallel appointment and was not superseded by implication when the first notification was replaced. The previous contrary ruling in Ghulam Sarwar v. Ghulam Muhammad Mithal was overruled, affirming that Third Class Civil Judges retained validly conferred powers of Rent Controllers under the surviving notification.
Questions settled- Whether a government notification investing Third Class Civil Judges with powers of Rent Controllers was impliedly superseded by a later notification superseding an earlier related notification?
- Does the expression 'in continuation of' in a statutory notification imply that the subsequent notification merges into the earlier one as an addendum or supplement?
- When can an earlier statute or statutory notification be deemed repealed or superseded by implication on the coming into force of a later one?
- MUHAMMAD SALEHOON vs Mst. BILQIS BEGUM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1853 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 258 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1457 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1983 PLC 838 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MESSRS ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC. AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 165 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1983 CLC 640 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NANKANA SAHIB AND ANOTHER1983PLC(C.S.) 615 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM MAZHAR KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 101 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, MULTAN1983 PLC (C. S.) 37 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. MEHBOOBA BEGUM1983 PLD Azad J & K 14 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM II vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 442 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM ETC.s vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM CHUGHTAI AND Other vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 688 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Alias SEEMA vs The STATE1983 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, Farid Khan. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on ocular testimony when the appellant challenged the reliability of the weapon recovery, the retracted confession, and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court ruled that the testimony of the deceased’s daughter and nephew was credible, as they had no personal enmity against the appellant and their presence at the scene was natural. The Court established the principle that even if specific items of circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of the weapon or a retracted confession, are disputed or excluded, a conviction remains legally sustainable if the ocular evidence is consistent, credible, and supported by a clear motive. The judgment reaffirms that in cases of broad daylight occurrences, the testimony of natural witnesses is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the disputed circumstantial evidence secondary to the primary ocular account.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony if the recovery of the weapon is disputed?
- Does the presence of a witness at the scene of a crime during daylight hours make them a credible witness despite familial relations to the deceased?
- Is the testimony of a witness sufficient to prove guilt if the motive for the crime is clearly established?
- MUHAMMAD SALAM vs COMMISSIONER WORKMENS' COMPENSATION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 348 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAGHIR AHMAD vs QURBAN ALI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2127 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment disposes of two connected suits, one for declaration, cancellation of a conveyance deed, and redemption of an equitable mortgage, and the other for possession and mesne profits. The core dispute centered on whether an attorney holding a general power of attorney to manage, mortgage, and sell property had the implied authority to delegate those powers and execute a separate power of attorney in favour of a creditor as security for a personal loan, and whether the creditor could privately sell the mortgaged property without court intervention. The court held that an agent cannot delegate authority without express power or exceptional circumstances under the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, that an equitable mortgagee cannot privately sell the mortgaged property without the intervention of the court, and that any separate document vesting such a power to sell without redemption options acts as an unlawful clog on the equity of redemption. The suits were adjudicated by decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for redemption upon payment of the principal loan and declaring the subsequent private sale void.
Questions settled- Whether an agent or attorney can delegate powers of sale and mortgage without express authorization from the principal?
- Does an equitable mortgagee possess the right to privately sell the mortgaged property without the intervention of the court?
- Whether a separate power of attorney executed to secure a loan over mortgaged property constitutes an illegal clog on the equity of redemption?
- Can a promissory note executed without consideration be enforced against the borrower?
- Whether the unauthorized filing and signing of a plaint by an agent can be cured by subsequent ratification by the principals?
- MUHAMMAD SAFDAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAFDAR vs KARACHI.TRANSPORT CORPORATION1983 PLC 752 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAFDAR AND Others vs The STATE1983SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court. The three petitioners, accused alongside others under sections 148, 324, and 325 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contended that their first information report was prior in time to a counter-report and that a right of private defence had accrued. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail ought to be granted in a case involving a sudden cross-version incident where no ulteiror motive or extraordinary feature justifying pre-arrest relief is demonstrated. The Supreme Court held that pre-arrest bail is not the rule in cognizable offences and is granted only when arrest is apprehended due to ulterior motives or exceptional circumstances. Finding no such features, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy requiring proof of mala fides or peculiar justifying features, and normal criminal process requiring post-arrest bail should otherwise take its course in cross-version affrays.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail the rule in cognizable offences?
- What are the essential grounds required for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of a prior first information report automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in a cross-version case?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mst. Hajiani NOOR BAI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1883 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the applicant's suit for possession and pre-emption regarding a house. The trial court and appellate court dismissed the suit on two grounds: first, that the pre-emption demands (Talabs) were premature as they were made prior to the registration of the sale-deed; and second, that the vendor belonged to the Shia sect while the applicant was a Sunni, precluding the claim. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts erred on both counts, ruling that a pre-emption claim can be maintained based on the intent of the parties and the applicable law of pre-emption without strictly waiting for a registered sale-deed, and that the vendor's sect was not properly pleaded or proved. However, upon examining the evidence, the High Court found that the pre-emption demands (Talabs) were not performed strictly in accordance with the requisite legal formalities under Muslim law. Consequently, the revision was dismissed and the dismissal of the suit was maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption can be claimed prior to the execution and registration of a sale-deed under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Does the description of a vendor in the title of a plaint constitute a formal pleading requiring a specific denial in the written statement?
- Whether the failure to properly perform Talab-i-Mowasibat and Talab-i-Ashhad strictly in accordance with Muslim law defeats a suit for pre-emption?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs DR. SULTAN MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN vs I.-G. OF PAKISTAN RAILWAYS POLICE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 307 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-01-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED Alias BABA vs MUZAMIL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 480 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AHMED KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by officers of the Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA), Lahore Development Authority (LDA), challenging the Inquiry Committee's refusal to allow them legal representation by counsel in departmental inquiry proceedings conducted under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975, as adopted via Regulation 22 of the LDA Appointment and Conditions of Service Regulations 1978. The core legal question was whether an employee facing disciplinary proceedings that could lead to dismissal is entitled to be represented by legal counsel, and whether Rule 7-B barring counsel representation validly restricts that right. The Lahore High Court held that the refusal to permit representation by counsel was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court declared that the right to a fair defence and cross-examination, guaranteed under principles of natural justice and Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, necessitates legal assistance, particularly given the technical complexities of law. Furthermore, administrative regulations non-statutory in nature cannot override Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 or constitutional protections.
Questions settled- Does an employee facing departmental inquiry proceedings involving major penalties have a right to be represented by legal counsel under principles of natural justice?
- Can executive rules or non-statutory regulations exclude an advocate's right to appear and plead under Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973?
- Whether the prohibition of legal representation contained in Rule 7-B of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 violates Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AHMED AND 21 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 607 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQUE vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2734 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the election of respondent No. 1 as a member and subsequently Chairman of a Town Committee, alleging he was disqualified under section 37(2)(f) of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979, due to his alleged affiliation with a political party. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto in circumstances involving unexplained laches and disputed questions of fact regarding the respondent's eligibility. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it on the grounds that the petitioner failed to explain the significant delay in filing the petition and failed to provide admissible evidence to substantiate the allegations of disqualification. The Court affirmed that the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is discretionary, not a matter of course. It established that the Court must examine the conduct and motives of the relator, and may decline relief where the petition is vexatious, involves complex factual disputes better suited for alternative forums, or where the petitioner lacks bona fides.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of a writ of quo warranto a matter of course or a discretionary remedy?
- Can a High Court decline a writ of quo warranto if the petitioner fails to explain significant delay in filing the petition?
- Should a High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction to resolve complex questions of fact that require the recording of evidence?
- Does the Court have the authority to inquire into the motives and conduct of a relator seeking a writ of quo warranto?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQUE KHAN vs WAPDA1983 PLC (C. S.) 548 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ+D12221 AKHTAR ABBAS AND Another vs JAFFAR AND ANOTHER THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2267 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAHID vs WAPDA1983 PLC 301 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs WALAYAT KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J & K 7 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 915 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2550 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner refusing to drop proceedings against the petitioners following a mukhbari application. The core legal questions were whether a mukhbari application filed against a deceased person is competent, and whether proceedings can be initiated or continued against parties impleaded after the repeal of all Settlement Laws. The Lahore High Court held that the mukhbari application filed against the deceased original allottee was incompetent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that because the petitioners were only impleaded as respondents in 1977, which was after the repeal of all Settlement Laws effective from 1st July 1974, the Settlement Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to proceed against them. Consequently, the Court declared the pending proceedings to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The judgment reinforces the principle that settlement proceedings cannot be initiated or maintained against new parties after the statutory repeal of the relevant Settlement Laws.
Questions settled- Is a mukhbari application filed against a deceased person legally competent?
- Can proceedings under Settlement Laws be initiated or continued against parties impleaded after the repeal of those laws?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to proceed against parties impleaded after the effective date of the repeal of Settlement Laws?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND Other1983 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appointment of a Receiver in a suit for administration of an estate. The core legal question concerns the propriety of appointing a Receiver over a disputed property in a partition or administration suit where one co-sharer claims exclusive title and bona fide possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a person in bona fide possession of a property should not ordinarily be deprived of its possession through the appointment of a Receiver without proper inquiry into possession and title. The Court laid down the principle that courts must duly consider evidence of exclusive possession and prima facie title before ordering the appointment of a Receiver over disputed estate properties, and conditionally suspended the Receiver's appointment pending the final outcome of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a person in bona fide possession of a disputed property can be deprived of its possession by the appointment of a Receiver?
- Can a Receiver be appointed in an administration suit without holding an inquiry or recording evidence as to the possession of the disputed properties?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1983 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit for specific performance, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a trial court order allowing the plaintiff to withdraw their suit with permission to file a fresh one. The petitioner argued that a valuable right had accrued to them because the plaintiff had failed to make up a deficiency in court fees, and that this right was improperly extinguished by the withdrawal order. The Supreme Court examined whether the withdrawal caused irreparable injury to the petitioner. The Court held that no valuable right had accrued to the petitioner because the period of limitation for the specific performance claim had not expired at the time the withdrawal was granted. Consequently, the petitioner had not suffered any tangible or irreparable injury. The Court affirmed that the trial court's discretion to allow withdrawal was properly exercised, as the plaintiff could reassert the claim upon payment of the proper court fee. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one deprive a defendant of a valuable right if the limitation period for the claim has not yet expired?
- Can a court grant permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one when there is an outstanding deficiency in court fees?
- Does the failure to pay court fees within the allowed time create an accrued right for the defendant that prevents the plaintiff from withdrawing the suit?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MESSRSISLAND TEXTILE MILLS LTO.1983 PLC 901 · Labour Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 1 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ MALIK vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROVINCIAL1983 PLC (C. S.) 974 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS vs SHAKILA JAMIL1983 CLC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-pre-emptors against a trial court decree in a pre-emption suit. The trial court decreed the suit subject to the deposit of the purchase price, expenses, and tube-well costs by a specified date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed, while also closing the plaintiffs' evidence under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC. The appellants challenged the closure of evidence and the enhancement of the decretal amount, while failing to deposit the purchase money or comply with interim orders of the Supreme Court granting conditional stay upon partial deposit.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to deposit the decretal amount in a pre-emption suit after interim stay is refused results in the dismissal of the suit and the appeal?
- Can a court properly close a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when time was explicitly granted on their own responsibility and they failed to produce witnesses or appear?
- Whether a pro forma respondent in an appeal can be transposed as an appellant after the period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND 5 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 61983 CLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAD1Q KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 43 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SABEEL KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 13 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SA LEEM alias SEEMA vs SARDAR KHAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL1983 CLC 2787 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs The STATE1983 SCMR 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner, Muhammad Riaz, under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing rape. The core legal question was whether the benefit of a procedural illegality under section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—which vitiated the trial of a co-accused summoned directly by the trial court—could be extended to the petitioner, whose trial suffered from no such defect. The Supreme Court held that the benefit of a procedural error committed under section 190(1)(c) read with section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in taking cognizance is exclusively available to the specific accused whose case was so taken cognizance of, and cannot be extended to other co-accused tried alongside. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of a procedural error under section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 committed regarding one co-accused can be extended to another co-accused?
- Does the failure to comply with section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial of an accused summoned directly by the trial court?
- Can the testimony of a prosecutrix supported by medical evidence and corroborative witnesses sustain a conviction for rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs RASHID AHMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2376 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD AMIR AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 2392 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHATTAK vs UNITED BANK LTD., KOHAT1983 PLC 255 · Labour Court · 1979-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ AHMAD vs AJMAL HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 233 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAYAZ vs Messrs NATIONAL MOTORS LTD.1983 PLC 786 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAUF vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1983 PLC 754 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHEED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA AND 21983 CLC 739 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, LAHORE, AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1040 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs SARWAR1983 P Cr. L J 2425 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs REHMATULLAH1983 CLC 3197 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS1983 CLC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2837 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Mst. JANATAN AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI1983 PLC 1167 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 714 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MESSRS ASPRO NICHOLAS (PAKISTAN) LTD.1983 PLC 550 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 956 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), LAHORE1983 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ABDUL HADI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2820 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KATIAR vs UNION COUNCIL, DARASANNA CHANNA1983 CLC 1543 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KATIAR vs RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 3281 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN CHAUDHRY vs S. A. NAEEM AND 6 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 218 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN ANSARI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C.S.) 52 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAHIM vs BASHI KHAN AND 3 oTHEits1983 PLD Peshawar 115 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2039 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAHIMYARKHAN1983 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former allottee of State land, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner's lease of State land had expired, and his application for a five-year extension under a policy circular was rejected after the Colonies Department changed its policy to dispose of such land by auction, leading the Collector to file his application. The High Court had dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had no vested right to extension. Before the Supreme Court, it was noted that the petitioner had moved departmental authorities for relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner must first exhaust available departmental remedies before seeking judicial adjudication on merits. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with these observations, and leave to appeal was refused, establishing the principle that litigants must exhaust departmental remedies prior to invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner must exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the High Court through a constitutional petition?
- Does an allottee of State land possess a vested right to the extension of a lease upon its expiration?
- Can leave to appeal be refused when the petitioner has bypassed available departmental forums?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondents in a murder case. The petitioner contended that the trial was being prolonged because the accused were on bail and had no incentive to expedite the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that despite its earlier directions to conclude the trial without delay, the trial court had repeatedly adjourned the matter over a period of two years, failing to follow the procedure for cross-cases and the High Court Rules and Orders. The Court declined to cancel the respondents' bail, finding that they were not responsible for the systemic delays. However, the Court strongly criticized the complacency of the subordinate judiciary and the failure to adhere to rules requiring day-to-day trials. It laid down the principle that sessions trials must proceed from day to day once commenced, and directed the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure efficiency and prevent unmerited adjournments.
Questions settled- Can bail granted to an accused be cancelled solely on the ground of trial delay where the accused is not responsible for such delay?
- What is the proper procedure to be followed by a trial court under the High Court Rules and Orders for conducting sessions trials?
- How should cross-cases arising from a police report and a private complaint be tried by the Sessions Court?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs MEHR DIN AND Other1983 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a High Court judgment declining to interfere in writ jurisdiction with an order of eviction passed against the appellant by the Rent Controller and upheld in appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether an appellate judgment that fails to explicitly record its reasons should be remanded for rewriting, despite concurrent findings and sufficient record evidence demonstrating personal bona fide requirement by the landlords. The Supreme Court held that while courts should always record reasons demonstrating proper application of mind, remanding the case would be a futile exercise since the appellate court had heard the parties, examined the record, and the evidence clearly established the landlords' genuine personal requirement for the shop. The Court affirmed that where the evidence on record overwhelmingly supports the concurrent finding of fact and the tenant himself admitted key facts, remanding the matter solely to rewrite the judgment serves no useful purpose. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Should an appellate rent order lacking express reasoning be remanded for rewriting if the evidence on record fully supports the decision?
- Does a failure by an appellate tribunal to explicitly record reasons automatically vitiate its order where the record demonstrates full application of mind?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs ARIF ALI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND Others vs Malik KHIZAR HAYAT AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AHMAD vs EXECUTIVE BOARD, UNITED BANK LTD. AND 31983 PLC 96 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs The STATE1983 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Seeman, along with a reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of prosecution evidence, specifically the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the veracity of the First Information Report, and the credibility of corroborative recoveries and medical evidence. The Supreme Court evaluated the material discrepancies, improvements in witness statements regarding their presence at the scene, the timing of the crime as suggested by the medical evidence, and suspicious investigative procedures. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the eyewitnesses were not present at the material time and the crime appeared to be an unwitnessed nocturnal occurrence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle of benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses render their evidence untrustworthy in a capital case?
- Does a significant discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the time of death cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Whether the recovery of blood-stained articles and alleged apprehension at the spot can sustain a conviction when the presence of eyewitnesses is doubtful?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE-1983 PCr.LJ 2161 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY1983 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision petition dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appellate district court's decision dismissing the petitioner's civil suit. The petitioner had challenged disciplinary orders passed by the educational Board disqualifying him for examination malpractices. The petitioner contended that an earlier appellate decision exonerating him was improperly substituted without a hearing, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the civil court despite statutory bars. The Supreme Court examined Sections 29 and 31 of the West Pakistan Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Multan and Sargodha) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that Section 29 bars civil suits against orders passed in pursuance of the Ordinance, while Section 31 excludes civil jurisdiction for acts done or purported to be done in good faith under the Ordinance. Because there was no evidence establishing lack of good faith, the mere allegation that the appeal was decided incorrectly did not confer jurisdiction on the civil court. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does an allegation that an internal educational board appeal was decided incorrectly confer jurisdiction on a civil court where statutory provisions bar civil suits?
- Does Section 31 of the West Pakistan Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Multan and Sargodha) Ordinance 1968 exclude civil court jurisdiction for acts merely purported to be done under the Ordinance in good faith?
- Can a civil suit be entertained against an action of an educational board absent proof of a lack of good faith?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs PUNJAB -ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1983 PLC 856 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs MEHR DIN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3179 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MOTI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECTION OFFICER, MINISTRY1983 PLD Karachi 589 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. AND 26 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 561 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI AND OTHERS vs Mst. BATOOLAN BIBI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2517 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RA FIQUE vs MRS. ABDUL KARIM AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 96 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL1983 PLC 1142 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QASSIM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QASIM AND ANOTHER vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QAMARUL ISLAM AND 3 Other vs THIRD1983 PLC 385 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD PARAL vs TOWN COMMITTEE, CHAK, TALUKA SUKKUR1983 CLC 9 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD OMAR AND OTHERS vs DR. AMINA ASHRAF1983 CLC 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from rent eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Following a remand order to determine whether an appeal filed by the respondent landlady against the Rent Controller's order was time-barred, the District Judge held that the appeal was filed within time. The core legal question was whether the time elapsed between applying for a certified copy and its delivery could be excluded as 'time requisite' under limitation principles when court stamps were supplied later and court officials omitted to reject the application or post notice of completion under the Sind Civil Courts Rules. The High Court affirmed the District Judge's finding, holding that where the court office failed to notify the applicant of the completion of the copy or reject the application for non-supply of stamps, the delay could not be attributed to the party. The court reiterated that litigants must not suffer due to the acts or omissions of the court or its officers.
Questions settled- Can the time taken to obtain certified copies be excluded from limitation when the court office failed to notify the applicant of its completion?
- Does an omission or act of the court or its officers prejudice a litigant's right to compute limitation?
- Whether failure to reject a copying application for non-supply of stamps under the Sind Civil Courts Rules entitles the applicant to an extension of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- MUHAMMAD NOMAN MALIK vs Mst. RUKHSANA NOMAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2846 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →