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 NAZIR vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY1983 CLC 3064 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs NOOK ELAHI AND 2 Others1983 P Cr. LJ 914 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Azad J& K Shariat Court 10 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZEER AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ 72 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, C. I. A. STAFF POLICE, CHINIOT1983 P Cr. L J 630 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-12
  murderocular testimonymedical evidence discrepancybenefit of doubtindependent corroborationeyewitness credibilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the court arises from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Nawaz, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Aitbar Khan, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the discrediting and acquittal of co-accused based on the testimony of the same eye-witnesses necessitated strong independent corroboration of their testimony before convicting the appellant, and whether material discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant. The holding establishes that where eye-witness testimony suffers from significant contradictions regarding the manner of the assault, unconvincing explanations for the presence of alleged eye-witnesses, and direct inconsistencies with medical evidence concerning the physical state of the deceased, such testimony becomes unsafe for sustaining a capital or major conviction without reliable independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of eyewitness testimony regarding co-accused require strong independent corroboration before sustaining the conviction of the remaining appellant?
  • Whether material discrepancies between ocular accounts and medical evidence regarding the state of the deceased's body impair the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can a conviction for murder be maintained solely on the testimony of witnesses whose presence at the scene is found to be coincidental and unconvincing?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1047 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1161 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs HABIBULLAH AND Other1983 SCMR 100 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14
  leave to appealacquittalhandwriting comparisoneye-witness credibilityappellate jurisdictionbailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order granting leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court. The primary issue concerns the propriety of the High Court's procedure in acquiring, verifying, and comparing the handwriting of a key eye-witness for the first time during appellate proceedings, leading the High Court to deem the witness thoroughly unreliable despite being found reliable by the trial court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court, in forming its opinion regarding the credibility of the eye-witness, took all relevant factors into consideration and whether its conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the respondents returnable to the District Magistrate, Sargodha.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can properly procure, verify, and compare handwriting evidence for the first time in appellate proceedings to assess witness credibility?
  • Whether the High Court took into consideration all relevant factors in discrediting an eye-witness relied upon by the trial court?
  • Whether the conclusions drawn by the High Court regarding witness credibility could reasonably be drawn from the material on record?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 945 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-26
  private defenceculpable homicidecriminal appealacquittalpossession of propertyexceeding right of private defencecriminal force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's acquittal of respondents in a double murder and attempted murder case arising from a dispute over the possession of a plot. The core legal question concerned whether the accused, who were in lawful possession of the property, were entitled to the right of private defence when confronted by an unarmed complainant party, and whether they exceeded that right. The Supreme Court held that while the accused possessed an initial right of private defence against the complainant party's criminal force and assault, they significantly exceeded this right by using lethal force against unarmed individuals. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal of those responsible for the deaths and injuries, convicting them under Section 304, Part I, and Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, respectively. The Court affirmed that the right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary, and exceeding this limit in good faith constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence?
  • When does the act of causing death in the exercise of the right of private defence fall under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused be convicted for attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they exceed the right of private defence?
  • Does the assembly of unarmed persons to prevent a possessory act constitute criminal force or assault under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIM SIPRA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, S&GAD DEPTT. AND PTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 513 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAQI vs KHALILUR REHMAN1983 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSTAQEEM AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 339 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE ASSISTANT1983 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-22
  land acquisitionurgency clauseWAPDApublic purposedefinition of companyjudicial reviewsubjective satisfactionSection 17(4)
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a notification issued under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dispensing with the application of Section 5-A objections on the ground of urgency for acquiring land for WAPDA to construct a grid station. The petitioners contended that WAPDA was a company under Section 3(e) of the Act and that the mandatory provisions of Section 39 had not been complied with prior to invoking Section 17(4). They further argued that no urgency existed and that the Commissioner's decision was subject to judicial review. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that although WAPDA falls within the definition of a company under Section 3(e) as an entity incorporated by a Pakistani law, where land acquisition is for a public purpose for a company simpliciter, prior compliance with Section 39 is not mandatory before invoking Section 17(4). Furthermore, the Court held that the forming of an opinion as to urgency under Section 17(4) is an executive function based on subjective satisfaction, which is immune from judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Does WAPDA constitute a company under Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is prior compliance with Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory before invoking Section 17(4) when acquiring land for a public purpose for a company simpliciter?
  • Is the opinion formed by the Commissioner regarding urgency under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subject to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2048 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MURAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26
  quashment of criminal proceedingsfalse FIRshow-cause noticepending direct complaintspeaking orderjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pending before a magistrate. The core legal questions involved whether a magistrate can accept a police report recommending cancellation of an FIR and direct prosecution of the informant without a reasoned order, without a show-cause notice, and while a direct complaint by the informant remains pending. The Sindh High Court held that a magistrate must apply judicial mind and pass a speaking order supported by reasons when dealing with police cancellation reports, that an informant is entitled to a pre-action show-cause notice before being prosecuted for giving false information, and that prosecution under Sections 182 or 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is premature and not maintainable while the informant's direct complaint regarding the same incident is still pending. The court accordingly quashed the pending proceedings against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a magistrate can accept a police report and direct prosecution under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code without passing a reasoned judicial order?
  • Is an informant entitled to a show-cause notice before proceedings under Section 182 or 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code are initiated against them?
  • Can criminal proceedings for lodging a false information be legally maintained while a direct complaint filed by the same informant regarding the incident is still pending?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1983 CLC 2404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, M/O1983 PLC (C. S.) 1054 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOSAWWAR KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA1983 PLD Lahore 102 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-08
  constitutional petitionoctroi auctionmisreading of evidenceprinciples of natural justicedoctrine of severabilitywithout lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, which set aside the auction of octroi collection for the year 1982-83 in favor of the petitioner. The core legal questions involve whether an administrative order based on an erroneous assumption of fact and misreading of record is sustainable, and whether an order passed without notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice can be maintained. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was vitiated due to a clear misreading of documentary evidence regarding auction amounts, reliance on a bad reason which could not be severed under the doctrine of severability, and a violation of the principles of natural justice by failing to issue notice to the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that an administrative order partly based on a material misreading of fact and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing is without lawful authority, and that where bad reasons cannot be severed from good reasons, the entire order must be struck down.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative order based on a misreading of documentary evidence is liable to be set aside?
  • Does an order passed without notice to the affected party violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can the doctrine of severability be applied to separate good reasons from bad reasons in an administrative order where the extent of the impact of the bad reason is indeterminate?
  • What is the effect on an administrative order when it is found to be partly based on erroneous assumptions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOOSA vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR AND OTHERS1983 PLC 650 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MIRZA vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN GANI1983 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01
  second appealejectmentrent restrictionmaterial impairmentadditions and alterationsconcurrent findings of factmisconception of lawtenant liabilitylandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged an ejectment order issued under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the tenant's alleged additions and alterations to the demised premises materially impaired their value or utility, thereby rendering him liable for ejectment. A secondary question concerned the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal. The court held that mere alterations or additions are insufficient for ejectment unless they are proven to materially impair the value or utility of the building. It further ruled that concurrent findings of fact, though generally not interfered with, lose their sanctity and can be set aside in a second appeal if based on misinterpretation of documents, misreading of evidence, misstatement of facts, or a misconception of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the ejectment application against the tenant was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be ejected for making additions or alterations to premises if they do not materially impair the value or utility of the building?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal?
  • Does the replacement of an old door with a new one, including a lintel, constitute material impairment of a building's value or utility?
  • Is a mere statement about alleged additions or alterations sufficient to render a tenant liable for eviction without proving material impairment?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact based on a misconception of law be disturbed in a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MEHDI vs ALLAH BAKHSH1983 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-06
  murderleave to appealsentence reductionfamily honourjoint liabilityacquittalcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal concerning a murder case where two individuals, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Shafi, were killed, and several others were injured. The motive for the crime was alleged to be an illicit liaison between the deceased, Ghulam Rasool, and the daughter of one of the accused. The High Court had previously reduced the death sentences of two accused, Allah Bakhsh and Ghulam Hussain, to life imprisonment, citing the vindication of family honour. The complainant filed a petition challenging this reduction, arguing that the plea of honour did not apply to the murder of Muhammad Shafi, and also challenged the acquittal of other accused persons regarding charges under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court observed that the attack appeared to be a joint and concerted effort, necessitating a review of the acquittal under Section 307. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both the complainant's petition and the connected petition filed by the convicts to examine the legality of the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of family honour serve as a mitigating factor for the murder of a person not involved in the alleged illicit relationship?
  • Does a joint and concerted attack preclude the separation of cases for individual accused regarding the intention to commit murder?
  • Under what circumstances can an acquittal under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be reviewed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAZHAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 152 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MATIN vs MRS. DINO MANEKJI CHINOY AND OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 387 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26
  temporary injunctionspecific performancefirst preferencelease deedconcluded contractbalance of conveniencemandatoriness of statutory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from selling or purchasing the property in dispute, which was the subject-matter of a specific performance suit. The core legal question concerned whether the lease deed and subsequent correspondence established a concluded contract giving the appellant a valid right of pre-emption or first preference to purchase the property, and whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant had indeed established a serious and arguable case regarding the existence of a valid contract and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo. The court laid down the principle that the mere absence of a fixed time for completion in a contract for the sale of immovable property does not destroy its basic characteristics, and time cannot be made the essence of the contract unilaterally. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and an injunction was granted subject to the appellant depositing a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs in court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a fixed time for completion in a contract for the sale of immovable property robs the contract of its basic characteristics?
  • Can time be made the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property by unilateral action?
  • Whether the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding notice before presentation of appeal are mandatory or directory?
  • What constitutes a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction in a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GENERAL1983 PLC (C. S.) 730 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANZOOR vs THE STATE1983 PLD Azad J& K Shariat Court 1 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANZAR AND ANOTHER vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT AND 21983 CLC 377 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAH vs SULTAN AHMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2640 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LUQMAN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Azad J& K Shariat Court 5 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LUQMAN vs OBEDUR REHMAN AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2245 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 622 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHURSHID vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, FOOD DEPTT_1983 PLC (C. S.) 407 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHURSHID BUTT vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1983 PLD Supreme Court 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19
  constitutional petitionDefence Servicescivilian employeeMilitary Engineering Servicebar of jurisdictionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a civilian employee in the Military Engineering Service under the Ministry of Defence, challenged his retirement under the Civilian Employees in Defence Service (Further Usefulness in Service) Rules, 1964 by filing a constitutional petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding it barred under Article 98(3)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 because the appellant was a person in the Defence Services. The core legal question was whether a civilian employee holding a post included in the General Central Service Class II and later re-designated as Defence Services (Civilian) Class II could invoke constitutional jurisdiction despite being enrolled under the Army Act and belonging to the Military Engineering Service. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'Defence Services of Pakistan' in Article 98(3)(a) encompasses all employment connected with, ancillary, or incidental to the tasks of the defence forces, including the Military Engineering Service. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions by persons in the Defence Services or services connected therewith regarding terms, conditions, or actions taken in relation to their service are barred under Article 98(3)(a) of the Constitution of 1962.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition by a civilian employee in the Military Engineering Service regarding his retirement is barred under Article 98(3)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
  • Does the expression 'Defence Services of Pakistan' include services connected with, ancillary, or incidental to the tasks performed by the defence forces?
  • What is the effect of enrolment under the Army Act on a civilian employee's status regarding Defence Services?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan, Members DR. MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 568 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN MALIK vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2833 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs MUZAFFAR1983 PLD Supreme Court 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-13
  pre-emptiontenant's right of pre-emptionLand Reforms Regulationsuperior right of pre-emptionregular second appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a tenant who purchases land loses their status as a tenant and consequently their preferential right to defend a pre-emption suit under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner pre-emptors must possess a superior right of pre-emption at the time of the sale, suit, and decree. Since the defendant was a tenant at the crucial time of the sale, the plaintiffs had no preferential claim, and the merger of tenancy into ownership upon purchase does not afford the plaintiffs a superior right. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant-vendee does not lose their preferential status as a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation simply because the sale has concluded, avoiding the anomaly of a tenant succeeding as a plaintiff in a pre-emption action but failing as a defendant vendee.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant lose their preferential right of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, once they purchase the land?
  • Must a pre-emptor establish a superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of the suit, and at the time of the decree?
  • Can a defendant vendee who was a tenant prior to the sale defend a pre-emption suit on the basis of their prior tenancy status?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs PEHALWAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-29
  attempted murdergrave and sudden provocationalteration of convictioncriminal intentdagger attackpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had altered the petitioner's conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code and reduced his sentence. The petitioner was accused of inflicting dagger blows on the victim's neck and mandible following an altercation concerning an alleged theft. The core legal questions involved whether the offence constituted an attempt to commit murder under Section 307 or simple hurt under grave and sudden provocation pursuant to Section 334, and whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction based on the simplicity of the injuries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the nature of the weapon used, the vulnerable body parts targeted, and the repeated blows indicated an intention to cause death, thereby establishing an offence under Section 307. The key principle laid down is that intention in assault cases must be inferred from external acts such as the weapon used and the vital part of the body targeted, and that a lapse of time between an alleged insult and an attack negates the defense of grave and sudden provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence falls under Section 307 or Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code when repeated dagger blows are inflicted on the vital parts of the victim's body?
  • Can an insult by a third party (the accused's father) hours before the incident constitute grave and sudden provocation for an attack on the complainant under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • How is criminal intention ascertained when evaluating an assault resulting in simple injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JUMAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAWAID vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2444 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAWAHIR vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1983 PLC 604 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE ETC.1983 CLC 605 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMSHED ALI AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MUSTAFA AND OTHERS1983 CLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 406 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL vs Mst. SARWAR JEHAN AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-13
  dissolution of marriagenon-maintenanceKhularestoration of benefitswrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court which dismissed his writ petition challenging a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the Appellate Court in favor of the respondent-wife. The core legal question concerned whether the marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula, thereby necessitating the conditional restoration of benefits received by the wife, or on the ground of non-maintenance for a statutory period. The Supreme Court held that the marriage was validly dissolved on the ground of the husband's failure to maintain the wife for more than two years without any fault on her part, rather than on the basis of Khula. Consequently, the question of the return of marital benefits did not arise. The key principle laid down is that where a decree of dissolution of marriage is founded upon substantiated grounds of non-maintenance rather than Khula, the requirement for the conditional restoration of benefits does not apply, and the High Court's refusal to interfere with such concurrent factual findings warrants no appellate interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree for dissolution of marriage based on non-maintenance requires the conditional restoration of benefits received by the wife?
  • Can the High Court's refusal to interfere with a decree of dissolution of marriage be challenged on the ground of Khula when the lower appellate court rested its decision on non-maintenance?
  • Whether failure to maintain the wife for more than two years constitutes a valid ground for the dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL KHAN vs CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 522 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAFAR vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IZHARUL AHSAN QURESHI vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1983 PLC 620 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISSA vs STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1674 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1341 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS)1983 CLC 961 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 904 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHBRS1983 PLC (C. S.) 222 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, CENTRAL REGION, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 982 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs ABDUL RASHID AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28
  writ petitionsettlement schemevoid orderlacheslimitationconstitutional jurisdictionejectmentlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing his constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a shop under settlement laws. The shop was originally transferred to the respondent in 1959. The petitioner, despite being in physical occupation, did not file a transfer form during initial settlement operations and only challenged the transfer after an nine-year delay, following ejectment proceedings against him. He argued that the transfer order was void due to misrepresentation regarding possession and non-compliance with Settlement Scheme No. I, rendering limitation inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that even assuming an order is void, courts are not obligated to strike it down if the petitioner is guilty of laches, seeks to circumvent limitation statutes, or is estopped by conduct. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court exercising constitutional jurisdiction is bound to set aside an order alleged to be void regardless of laches or delay by the petitioner?
  • Can a writ petition challenging an administrative or settlement order be refused on the ground that the petitioner is seeking to circumvent statutory limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QAMAR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1983 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-27
  personal requirementlandlord and tenantbona fide needevictionrent controlconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a landlord's application for the eviction of his tenant from a building on the grounds of personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the first appellate court ordered eviction, finding the landlord's personal need genuine. The High Court upheld this decision in second appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the landlord's plea of personal requirement was bona fide, specifically considering his heart condition and the potential health risks of climbing stairs to the first-floor premises, and whether his choice of this specific property over another owned property was reasonable. The Supreme Court held that the landlord provided a satisfactory financial explanation for selecting the disputed property over his other building. Furthermore, the Court found that in the absence of contradictory medical evidence from the tenant, the landlord's claim regarding the proximity to a medical facility for his heart condition remained credible. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the landlord’s personal requirement was bona fide, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's choice of a specific property for personal use considered bona fide when they own other properties?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the tenant to contradict a landlord's stated personal requirement for eviction?
  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN vs KHURSHID BIBI1983 CLC 3267 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN vs GUL FAQIR1983 CLC 1727 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND Another vs THE STATE1983 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-27
  culpable homicidesudden fightdying declarationocular testimonycriminal liabilityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions arise out of a judgment convicting the accused petitioners under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder following an altercation over irrigation water resulting in the death of Bashir Ahmad. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, dying declarations, and the extent of individual criminal liability for co-accused in a sudden fight without pre-meditation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave to appeal should be refused to the petitioner who inflicted fatal spear injuries, but granted leave to appeal to the co-accused who used a stick to examine his precise criminal liability. The key principle laid down is that in sudden altercations without pre-meditation, individual liability depends upon the specific weapon used and the nature of injuries caused by each participant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable on ocular testimony and dying declarations during a sudden encounter?
  • Can co-accused in a sudden fight without pre-meditation be held equally liable regardless of the specific weapons used and injuries inflicted by each?
  • Does the absence of pre-meditation in a sudden quarrel alter the nature of the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ1983 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs PAKISTAN ENGINEERING Co. LTD.1983 PLC 113 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs AKHTAR H. GHORI1983 CLC 3290 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND Others vs Mst. BAKHTAWARI AND Other1983 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02
  review petitioncondonation of delaySupreme Court Ruleslimitationprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition presented against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question is whether the delay in refiling the review petition, after it was taken back following the disallowance of an exemption application regarding the drawing of the petition by the original counsel or advocate-on-record, can be condoned under the circumstances. The court held that the review petition, being barred by sixty days, lacked satisfactory reasons for the delay and was not a fit case for condoning the same. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that strict adherence to procedural rules regarding the presentation and refiling of review petitions is required, and unexplained or unsatisfactory delays will not be condoned by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a review petition can be condoned when the reasons provided for the delay are unsatisfactory?
  • Does a review petition violate procedural rules if it is not drawn by the counsel or advocate-on-record who appeared at the hearing of the original petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KASUR AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs RATIONING CONTROLLER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3040 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs NISAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3251 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 491 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT1983 PLC 1135 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND OTHERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_COLLECTOR, VEHARI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1824 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND Others vs AKHTAR H. GHORI1983 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2426 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,1983 PLC 860 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATEs1983 P Cr. L J 1351 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12
  Customs Actsmuggled goldburden of proofreasonable suspicionconfiscation of goodsSarafa Bazaracquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, convicting the appellant under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act 1969 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment, fine, and whipping after he was intercepted carrying 2,000 tolas of gold. The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had established reasonable belief or suspicion that the seized gold was smuggled so as to shift the statutory burden of proof onto the accused under Section 156(1)(89) and Section 156(2) of the Customs Act. The High Court observed that while the statute shifts the onus of proof to the accused, this shift occurs only after the prosecution successfully establishes foundational facts giving rise to a reasonable belief or suspicion of smuggling. Given that the appellant and his family were established gold merchants, the gold lacked foreign markings, and gold of similar purity was locally available, mere possession did not raise suspicion. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • When does the burden of proof shift to an accused person under Section 156(1)(89) and Section 156(2) of the Customs Act?
  • Whether the mere possession of a large quantity of unmarked gold by a verified gold merchant is sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion of smuggling?
  • Can a conviction under the Customs Act be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish preliminary grounds for believing the seized goods were smuggled?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1746 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Sardar SAKHAWAT DIN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2975 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs PAKISTAN REFINERIES LTD.1983 PLC 651 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1983 CLC 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB Etc.S1983 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-17
  ejectmentpartial evictiontenancybona fide personal needrent restrictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning an ejectment order against a tenant. The petitioner, a tenant of a shop, challenged an order for partial eviction sought by the respondent, who had purchased a portion of the premises. The core legal questions were whether a landlord can seek the ejectment of a tenant from only a part of a building, and whether the tenancy of a single unit can be legally divided for such purposes. The petitioner further argued that the landlord failed to satisfy the statutory requirements regarding bona fide personal need and the absence of other suitable accommodation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no legal prohibition against a landlord seeking the ejectment of a tenant from a portion of a building, provided the property is sufficiently identified. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding the division of tenancy or the alleged misreading of evidence by the lower courts, thereby affirming the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek the ejectment of a tenant from only a part of a building?
  • Does the law prohibit the division of a tenancy for the purpose of partial eviction?
  • Must a landlord prove the absence of other suitable accommodation to satisfy the requirements for personal need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 670 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 467 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL FAROOQ AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS -1983 PLC (C. S.) 1241 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Another vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1983 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08
  service tribunalseniority disputeexecutive engineerscontinuous officiationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute in the cadre of officiating Executive Engineers in Class I Service of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab. The core legal question involves the correct interpretation and application of seniority rules, specifically rule 15.2 and rule 15.4, concerning temporary Engineers, Class II Officers, and promotees to the cadre of Executive Engineers. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the misconstruction of the explanation to rule 15.2 and the applicability of rule 15.4 require detailed consideration by the Court. The key principle established is that the determination of seniority for officers holding officiating Executive Engineer posts must be strictly evaluated in accordance with the applicable departmental rules governing continuous officiation and recruitment source.

  Questions settled

  • How is the seniority of Class II Officers and temporary Engineers holding posts of Executive Engineers determined under rule 15.2?
  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal misconstrued the explanation of rule 15.2 regarding promotees from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers?
  • Does rule 15.4 apply to determine the relative seniority of parties when rule 15.2 is inapplicable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND AND 21983 CLC 1327 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs MIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2180 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT ULLAH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S) 622 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 108 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMDAD KHAN vs KOH-I-NOOK TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD1983 PLC 1086 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYASs vs ZARINA1983 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17
  transfer of family suitordinary residencerecovery of dowerrestitution of conjugal rightsconvenience of lady litigantjurisdiction of Family Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 25-A(1) of the W. P. Family Courts Act, 1964 seeking the transfer of a suit for recovery of dower from Shorkot to Lahore to be heard alongside the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question involves determining whether the wife ordinarily resides at Shorkot for the purposes of jurisdiction under Rule 6 of the W. P. Family Courts Rules, 1965, and whether the husband's earlier institution of a suit or convenience warrants transferring the wife's suit. The Lahore High Court held that the wife was ordinarily residing at Shorkot with her brother, that the convenience of a lady litigant is a dominant factor in transfer applications under family law, and that the husband's earlier filing of a suit does not impede the wife's choice of forum or justify transfer. The application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the convenience of a lady litigant is a dominant factor in deciding transfer applications under the W. P. Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the institution of a suit by the husband earlier in time prevent the transfer of his suit to the place where the wife subsequently institutes her suit?
  • How is the ordinary residence of a wife determined for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction under Rule 6 of the W. P. Family Courts Rules, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2491 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →