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 ILYAS vs Mst. KARAMNISSA AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1824(1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IKRAM AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IJSMAN vs N.W.4F. PROVINCE THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY/1983 PLD Supreme Court 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which deemed it premature. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed before the expiry of the 90-day statutory waiting period, required after filing a departmental representation, is competent, and whether such an appeal can be adjudicated on merits if the period expires during pendency. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was premature and incompetent. The Court affirmed that the proviso to Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, creates a mandatory statutory bar. The legislative intent is to provide departmental authorities a specific period to redress grievances before judicial intervention. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal until the 90-day period has elapsed. The Court distinguished service matters from other civil proceedings, noting that the statutory bar in service law is absolute and cannot be bypassed by the mere admission of an appeal at a preliminary stage. The petitioner retains the right to file a fresh appeal following the final departmental decision.
Questions settled- Is a service appeal filed before the expiry of the 90-day period following a departmental representation competent?
- Does the admission of an appeal at a preliminary hearing cure the defect of it being filed prematurely?
- Can a premature service appeal be decided on merits if the statutory waiting period expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs S. H. 0. POLICE STATION, MANSEHRA AND ANOTHES1983 PLD Peshawar 229 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a criminal case based on a report lodged by the petitioner regarding a cognizable offence. The petitioner alleged that despite providing a counter-version of an incident involving injuries, the police refused to register a case, having already registered a case against the petitioner based on the opposing party's report. The core legal question was whether the police are duty-bound to register a counter-version of a cognizable offence and whether the S.H.O. can adjudicate on the guilt or innocence of parties at the registration stage. The Court held that the police are legally obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register reports of cognizable offences and investigate them, rather than usurping the judicial function of determining the aggressor. However, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches, noting that the petitioner failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of approximately 17 months in approaching the Court for discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Is a police officer duty-bound to register a counter-version of a cognizable offence reported by a party?
- Can a police officer determine the guilt or innocence of parties or identify the aggressor at the stage of registering an FIR?
- Does an inordinate delay in filing a writ petition without reasonable explanation disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 818 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1983 CLC 2621 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst. SALAMATI BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 366 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs HAVALDAR MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 963 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land allotted under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959, situated in a border area. The petitioner, a tenant, sought to pre-empt a sale made by an allottee to army personnel. The lower appellate courts dismissed the suit, reasoning that border area land sales were restricted to army personnel and required General Headquarters approval, thereby barring pre-emption. The core legal question was whether such a sale, once proprietary rights are obtained, remains subject to the right of pre-emption. The High Court held that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, not re-purchase, and that statutory restrictions on alienation do not preclude a pre-emptor from exercising their right under the law. The Court ruled that the pre-emptor merely steps into the shoes of the vendee, and the prohibition on direct sale does not apply to the enforcement of a pre-emption decree. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, declaring the lower appellate orders illegal and restoring the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioner.
Questions settled- Is a sale of agricultural land by an allottee under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959 subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Does the restriction on the sale of land in border areas to army personnel bar a tenant from exercising the right of pre-emption?
- Is the right of pre-emption considered a right of re-purchase or a right of substitution?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Haji RAMZAN1983 CLC 2800 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1983 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which upheld the ejectment of a tenant from a shop on the grounds of the landlord's bona fide personal use. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in accepting the findings of the District Judge, which favored the landlord, over the Rent Controller's initial dismissal of the ejectment petition, particularly regarding the tenant's contention that the landlord had disposed of other adjoining shops during the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the issues raised were essentially questions of fact, which the Court declined to re-examine. Furthermore, the Court noted that the allegation of mala fides was not properly raised in the written objections before the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of special grounds, and allegations of mala fides must be specifically pleaded to be considered.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal use in an ejectment case?
- Is a tenant entitled to challenge the validity of a transfer of property in favor of a landlord when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SADORO vs ROHRI CEMENT WORKS, ROHRI1983 PLC 537 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM BAJWA vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 844 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND Another vs ILAM DIN AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arose from a dispute regarding the classification of a property located at Hakim Khadim A.I Road, Sialkot City. The core legal question before the Court was whether the property in question constituted merely a 'deori' (a vestibule or entrance area) or a separate, independent shop, a determination that carried significant implications for settlement proceedings. The High Court had previously ruled that the property was a separate shop. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the relevant municipal records dating back to 1947. The Court found that the property had been consistently treated and assessed as a separate shop even prior to the Partition of the subcontinent. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its classification of the property as a separate shop. Finding no merit in the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the High Court's judgment and establishing that historical municipal assessment records serve as a definitive basis for determining the legal character of urban property.
Questions settled- Can historical municipal assessment records be used to determine the legal character of a property?
- Does a property assessed as a separate shop in pre-Partition municipal records constitute a separate shop for settlement purposes?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Other1983 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment. The case originated from a murder and injury incident where the petitioner's son was killed and the petitioner injured. The trial court acquitted two respondents and convicted respondent No. 1 under Sections 304 and 308, Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, largely based on his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, after rejecting ocular evidence. The High Court, while agreeing on the unreliability of ocular evidence, acquitted respondent No. 1, holding that his statement admitted firing in self-defence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against respondent No. 1, finding that the High Court's judgment required further consideration, particularly regarding whether the right of private defence was exceeded, as no harm was caused to the accused or his family.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be legitimately recorded against an accused based on their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, even if ocular evidence is deemed untrustworthy?
- What is the extent of the right of private defence, and can it be exceeded if no harm is caused to the person exercising it or their family?
- Does a judgment require further consideration if it acquits an accused who admitted firing a weapon, claiming self-defence, but no harm was caused to them or their family?
- Can an accused's statement, read as a whole, be used to determine if the right of private defence was exceeded?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MESSRS SIND SEED CORPORATION1983 PLC 1003 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN1983 CLC 3154 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ABDUL HUSSAIN KARIMJI TRUST AND Other1983 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's rent appeal against an ejectment order. The landlord, a Trust, initiated ejectment proceedings against the tenants under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, citing default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and structural alterations. The tenants, after initially filing a written statement, ceased appearing in the proceedings, resulting in an ex parte ejectment order. On appeal, the tenants challenged the maintainability of the ejectment application, arguing it was filed by the Trust's managing trustee rather than the Trustees themselves, and contended that the Rent Controller erred by not deciding their application for additional issues. The Supreme Court held that the objection regarding the maintainability of the application was not raised in the written statement or before the High Court and could not be introduced at the leave-to-appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the tenants, having failed to pursue their application for additional issues or cross-examine witnesses due to their own absence, could not now challenge the landlord's locus standi.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding the maintainability of an ejectment application for the first time at the stage of a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does a tenant have the right to challenge the authority of a managing trustee to file an ejectment application if the tenant failed to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence on the issue?
- Is a Rent Controller required to decide an application for additional issues if the tenants remain absent during the proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KAZE vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB CHIEF1983 PLD Supreme Court 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Additional District & Sessions Judge, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld his dismissal from service for misconduct and corruption. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings on several grounds, including the appointment of a High Court Judge as the Inquiry Officer, the delay in serving the charge-sheet, and the Inquiry Officer recommending a specific penalty. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that appointing a High Court Judge as the Inquiry Officer was in accordance with the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1960, as the rules required an officer higher in rank, and it afforded maximum protection to a judicial officer. The Court further ruled that the late service of the charge-sheet did not prejudice the petitioner since he had prior opportunities to explain his conduct. Additionally, the inclusion of a recommended penalty by the Inquiry Officer, while outside their ordinary function, was severable and did not vitiate the inquiry. Finding no question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the appointment of a High Court Judge as an Inquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings against a Sessions Judge violate the requirement of appointing an officer higher in rank?
- Whether the late delivery of a charge-sheet and statement of allegations by an Inquiry Officer vitiates the legality of disciplinary proceedings if the accused officer had prior opportunities to explain their conduct?
- Does the inclusion of a recommended penalty in an Inquiry Officer's report vitiate the entire inquiry or findings?
- What is the legal distinction between a charge of having a 'reputation for being corrupt' and a charge of 'misconduct from which it could reasonably be inferred that the officer was corrupt' under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2537 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs MEMBER; BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 425 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Others vs GHULAM RASOOL AND Other1983 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, defendants in a pending civil suit, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld interlocutory orders refusing to recall a reference to arbitration. The core legal questions concerned whether the reference to arbitration was invalid under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act due to the absence of a written application signed by the parties rather than a statement by their counsel, and whether the appointment of a close relative as an arbitrator vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the requirements of the law were substantially satisfied as counsel for the parties agreed to the reference and were competent to do so, and that the objection regarding the arbitrator's relationship was premature in a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that a reference to arbitration made through statements of duly competent counsel recorded by the court satisfies substantial legal requirements, and premature challenges regarding an arbitrator's alleged bias or relationship cannot be entertained through constitutional jurisdiction while proceedings are ongoing.
Questions settled- Whether a reference to arbitration can be made on the statement of counsel without a written application signed by the parties under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground of relationship before the arbitration proceedings are concluded?
- Whether the requirements of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act are substantially satisfied when counsel for the parties agree in court to refer the dispute to arbitration?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs ABDUL AZIZ1983 CLC 2785 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Another vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1983 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review of a Supreme Court order dated 20-2-1980, which had previously upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Additional District Judge regarding a pre-emption claim. The core legal question was whether a pedigree-table (Exh. P. 1), in the absence of oral testimony proving its contents, could be relied upon to establish the relationship between the pre-emptor and the vendor to prove a superior right of pre-emption. The petitioner contended that the pedigree-table, being part of the record-of-rights, carries a statutory presumption of correctness, a point previously overlooked by the Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the issue regarding the evidentiary value of the pedigree-table as part of the record-of-rights required further consideration. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order, allowed the review petition, and granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that a pedigree-table forming part of the record-of-rights is entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness, which must be duly considered by the courts when determining the relationship between parties in pre-emption cases.
Questions settled- Does a pedigree-table that forms part of the record-of-rights carry a statutory presumption of correctness?
- Can a court overlook the evidentiary value of a document forming part of the record-of-rights in a pre-emption case?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1983 CLC 46 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 PCr.LJ 619 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES1983 PLC 659 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT BHATTI vs THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, KARACHI1983 CLC 1773 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs Tan STATE1983 PLD Shariat Court (A J & K) 18 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)1983 PLD Karachi 353 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1686 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASHAM KHAN vs THE CHAIRMAN, BALUCHISTAN SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arises from an order of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal dismissing a civil servant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant had initially challenged his compulsory retirement through a constitutional petition that abated upon the establishment of service tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Subsequent attempts to seek relief through the courts led to delays. During the pendency of proceedings, the Baluchistan Service Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 was enacted retrospectively, making sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to service appeals. The core legal question concerned the condonation of delay and whether the time spent in prosecuting a remedy in a wrong forum in good faith constitutes sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in treating the appellant's pursuit of remedies as wilful avoidance and ignored earlier observations of the Supreme Court regarding condonation. The Court laid down that the principles underlying section 14 can be used as a guide when applying section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, and time spent pursuing a remedy in good faith due to complicated laws or court practices can constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act apply retrospectively to appeals before the Baluchistan Service Tribunal?
- Can the principles underlying section 14 of the Limitation Act be considered when applying section 5 thereof?
- Does the time spent pursuing a remedy in good faith in a wrong forum constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether a service tribunal is bound by observations made by the Supreme Court regarding the condonation of delay in the same case?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1983 PCr. L J 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2380 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1983 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUHAMMAD JAVAID AND Other1983 SCMR 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a judgment of the High Court. The core legal question presented is whether the High Court was legally justified in setting aside an order issued by the Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The Settlement Commissioner's original order was predicated on a specific finding of fact regarding the status of land in Mauza Garbagh, specifically whether the area in question was protected under the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900, and the relevant notifications issued thereunder. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's interference with this factual finding and the application of the aforementioned Act. The Court also issued notice to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, and directed that the interim stay order remain in effect, with the petitioner undertaking not to obstruct tenants from paying batai to the respondents pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Was the High Court justified in setting aside the factual findings of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the applicability of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900?
- Does the land in Mauza Garbagh fall under the protection of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs HABIB ULLAH KHAN AND Another1983 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs ECKHARD & Co. MARINE GMBH AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 613 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter arose from an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 by the defendants seeking to stay a suit for damages and refer the dispute to arbitration in London, as stipulated in a Memorandum of Agreement for the sale of a vessel. The plaintiff resisted the application, arguing that the contract was executed, performed, and allegedly breached in Karachi, where all material evidence and witnesses were located. The Sindh High Court examined the scope of judicial discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court held that while parties are ordinarily bound by their contractual bargains, a foreign arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction clause does not completely oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts. The court retains discretion to refuse a stay of proceedings if the party opposing the stay discharges the burden of showing that foreign arbitration would cause extreme inconvenience, excessive expense, or a virtual denial of justice. Finding that the entire evidence was in Karachi, the contract was to be performed there, and one of the defendants was not a party to the arbitration clause, the Court dismissed the application.
Questions settled- Does a foreign arbitration clause completely oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts in Pakistan?
- Under what circumstances can a court exercise its discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to refuse a stay of proceedings despite a foreign arbitration agreement?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to show that a matter should not be referred to foreign arbitration, and how can that burden be discharged?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs DISTRICT JUDGE/ELECTION TRIBUNAL, MULTAN AND1983 CLC 2965 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by Muhammad Hanif to challenge the order of the Election Tribunal, which held that an application for the restoration of an election petition previously dismissed in default was not maintainable. The core legal question was whether an application for the restoration of an election petition dismissed in default by an Election Tribunal is competent and maintainable in law. The Lahore High Court held that the application for restoration is maintainable, ruling that since the Election Tribunal has the powers of a Civil Court and follows the procedure for the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable. The key principle laid down is that in procedural law, what is not expressly excluded is impliedly permitted, and where election rules apply the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, remedies such as restoration of petitions dismissed in default are available unless expressly barred.
Questions settled- Whether an application for restoration of an election petition dismissed in default by the Election Tribunal is competent and maintainable in law?
- Does the Election Tribunal possess the power to apply Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restoring an election petition dismissed in default?
- Whether the absence of an express provision for restoration in the election rules implies the exclusion of the power to restore a petition dismissed in default?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF SHIBLI vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GOJRA AT1983 SCMR 1273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, specifically contesting the imposition of exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 5,000 awarded to the respondent upon the dismissal of the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal. The petitioner argued that the appellate court lacked the legal authority to grant such costs, asserting that the relevant statutory framework for compensation regarding false or fictitious claims is limited by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to award exemplary costs when dismissing an appeal, particularly in light of the constraints imposed by Section 35-A and Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court erred in awarding these costs, as the statutory provisions do not permit such an order in this context. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the imposition of the exemplary costs, establishing that an appellate court cannot impose exemplary costs where the statutory conditions for such an award are not met.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have the power to award exemplary costs when dismissing an appeal?
- Can an appellate court make an order under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the trial court omitted or refused to make such an order?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN vs Ch. MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines whether the transfer of a displaced person's property had become a past and closed transaction, and whether the respondent, having attorned to the appellant as a landlord, was legally barred from disputing his title. The respondent, a local in occupation of the disputed house, had initially applied for its transfer, but his claim form remained unattended due to temporary instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The property was subsequently placed in earmarking and transferred to the appellant, who obtained a provisional transfer order and initiated ejectment proceedings after issuing notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. Upon the withdrawal of the restrictive instructions, the respondent applied for a review, which was initially refused by the Settlement Commissioner. The High Court allowed the respondent's constitutional petition, a decision upheld in Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court held that actions taken under instructions inconsistent with parent law are nullities and cannot attain finality, meaning the transaction could not be deemed past and closed where the claimant's form was never adjudicated upon. Furthermore, recognition of the transferee as a landlord under statutory obligation does not estop a tenant from challenging the underlying transfer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer made pursuant to administrative instructions that are inconsistent with the parent statute can attain the status of a past and closed transaction?
- Does a statutory tenant who attorns to a provisional transfer order holder become legally estopped from challenging the underlying transfer of the property?
- Whether the failure to adjudicate upon a claim form due to conflicting administrative instructions prevents a transaction from becoming past and closed?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Others vs A. A. WASTY, SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the transfer of plots in Bhakkar, where multiple parties claimed portions of the same Khasra number. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to reopen and unsettle transfer orders, including those for which Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.D.) had been issued, when the original transfer process was conducted in a haphazard manner without proper verification of construction claims. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction to remand the case for a fresh determination. The Court found that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had failed to perform the mandatory duty under Settlement Scheme No. VI to verify permanent construction through spot inspections, resulting in an erroneous and haphazard allocation of land. The Court affirmed that where jurisdictional requirements for transfer are not met, the settlement authorities are empowered to re-examine and re-adjust claims to ensure compliance with the law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was correctly declined in this matter.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner reopen and unsettle transfer orders if the original transfer was made in a haphazard manner without verifying jurisdictional requirements?
- Does the failure of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner to conduct a mandatory spot inspection to verify permanent construction constitute a jurisdictional defect?
- Can a party raise a new question of fact for the first time before the Supreme Court in an appeal?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr.L J 2311 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Another vs RIVAZ GARDENDS SOCIAL WELFARE1983 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the use of a plot of land, known as the 'grassy plot,' within the Rivaz Garden Scheme in Lahore. The petitioners, having been directed by the Lahore Development Authority to relocate their petrol pump to this plot, faced a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent welfare society, which sought to restrain the operation of the pump. While the trial court initially refused an interim injunction, the appellate court ordered the maintenance of the status quo. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts correctly applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory relief. The Court held that the status quo order should not be interpreted to prevent necessary safety measures or reasonable use of the premises, particularly when such measures protect public interest. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioners to reconstruct a room (limited to the size of the original) and cement their underground petrol tank, subject to the petitioners' undertaking to remove these additions if ultimately unsuccessful in the main suit. The Court also mandated an expedited disposal of the suit within six months.
Questions settled- Does an order to maintain the status quo in a civil suit preclude necessary safety improvements to existing structures?
- Can a court grant interim permission for construction on disputed land pending the final determination of a suit?
- What is the scope of a court's discretion in modifying status quo orders to prevent potential harm or ensure regulatory compliance?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF AND 4 OTHERS vs The STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2032 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAFEEZULLAH vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 27 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs HABIB BANK LTD.1983 PLC 526 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs ABDUL SATTAR1983 CLC 3166 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HABIB vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WAZIRABAD AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 989 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HABIB AND OTHERS vs IBRAHIM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 438 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GULZAR vs The STATE1983 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment, which reversed a trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellant for murder, sentencing him to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony versus a trial court's site inspection note conducted two years post-incident, and the evidentiary value of an accused's statement admitting to the firing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly appraised the evidence, finding that the trial court's site inspection was unreliable due to potential topographical changes over time. The Court affirmed that an accused's statement admitting to firing shots, even when asserting self-defense, can corroborate prosecution evidence when the self-defense claim is inherently implausible and contradicts common sense. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's reasoning or the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the death sentence.
Questions settled- Can a trial court's site inspection note conducted years after an incident override reliable ocular testimony?
- Is an accused's statement admitting to firing shots, while claiming self-defense, sufficient to corroborate prosecution evidence if the self-defense claim is implausible?
- Does the appellate court have the authority to re-evaluate the findings of a trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses?
- MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1983 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court which allowed the respondent's intra-court appeal and set aside the transfer of a disputed shop previously made in favor of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns whether the original allottee, who had let out the shop to a tenant, or the tenant in actual occupation was entitled to the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No. VII, and whether letting out the property amounted to abandonment of rights by the original allottee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the competing claims of the original allottee in constructive possession versus the actual occupant tenant under the relevant settlement scheme.
Questions settled- Whether the original allottee or the tenant in actual occupation of a shop is entitled to the transfer thereof under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Does letting out a property by an allottee amount to an abandonment of rights therein for the purposes of transfer under settlement laws?
- MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs Mst. RESHAM JAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1165 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAZIL ETC. vs Mst. NAZARIAN AND Another1983 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed the respondents' second appeal in an inheritance suit. The petitioners claimed ownership of property through a will executed by the deceased Fazal Din in favour of the first petitioner, which was initially rejected by the trial Court, partially accepted by the District Court, and finally declared not genuine by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the competency and scope of a second appeal against a first appellate judgment of variance, and whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence regarding the genuineness of the will. The Supreme Court held that the second appeal was competent due to the variance in the first appellate judgment, but found no justification to interfere with the High Court's findings as the legal test regarding variance was satisfied and the contentions merely sought an impermissible reappraisal of evidence. The Court laid down that the rules barring second appeals on facts against concurrent findings do not strictly apply when the first appellate judgment is one of variance, and that appellate courts will not re-evaluate evidence without compelling justification.
Questions settled- Whether a second appeal is competent against a first appellate judgment of variance?
- Does the rule barring second appeals on facts against concurrent findings apply when the first appellate judgment is one of variance?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent or high court factual findings regarding the genuineness of a will through reappraisal of evidence?
- MUHAMMAD FAZ1L vs Ch. NAZIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 540 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ CHAUHAN vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1983 PLC (C. S.) 196 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FARASH KHAN vs Mst. NISHADAR JAN1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 43 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ESSA vs MESSRS INDUS TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 693 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs Syed IRSHAD ALI SHAH AND 2 OTHERs1983 CLC 804 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1983 PLC 858 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs NASIR AHMAD Alias HEERA AND Another1983 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and instead convicted him under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction based on the plea of grave and sudden provocation and rejecting the prosecution's ocular testimony and dying declaration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment was well-founded, noting that the eye-witnesses were interested persons, the exact place of occurrence was doubtful due to the investigating officer's failure to recover blood-stained earth, and the dying declaration could have been influenced. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence regarding the place of occurrence and interested witnesses is doubtful, and the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation is plausible, appellate interference with the reduction of sentence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder is unwarranted.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on grave and sudden provocation?
- Can the testimony of interested eye-witnesses who are employees of the deceased be relied upon without corroboration?
- Does the failure of the investigating officer to recover blood-stained earth create a reasonable doubt as to the exact place of occurrence?
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs Mst. AMNA KHATOON AND 2 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 756 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MAQSOOD AHMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD CHIRAGH AND MUHAMMAD CHIRAGH vs MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN1983 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BUX vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2340 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BUX ETC. vs ABDUL MAJID1983 CLC 2555 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BILAL vs NASIM AKHTAR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2390 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LYALLPUR AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 143 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals against judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of excess open land appurtenant to evacuee houses transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether a transferee of a house under the Act was entitled to purchase land in excess of three times the plinth area pursuant to Paragraph 19 read with Paragraph 1(3) of Settlement Scheme No. I, or whether such excess land was subject to public auction under the revised instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that following the amendment introduced by Ordinance LIII of 1959 adding the second proviso to Section 2(4) of the Act, open land exceeding three times the plinth area ceased to form part of the 'house'. Consequently, Paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. I became repugnant to the parent statute and could no longer be invoked to claim automatic transfer of excess land at market value. The Court upheld the validity of the Chief Settlement Commissioner's administrative instructions dated 9-1-1960 and 11-3-1961, affirming that excess area beyond permissible statutory limits was subject to separate disposal.
Questions settled- Is a transferee of an evacuee house entitled to purchase open land in excess of three times its plinth area under Paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. I after the amendment of Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does Paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. I become repugnant to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 following the insertion of the second proviso to Section 2(4)?
- Can administrative instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner validly regulate the disposal of excess evacuee land not forming part of a transferred house?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs ALLAH DAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1955 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 2 OTHERS vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 930 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BARAN AND 5 OTHERS vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1983 CLC 765 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs ZIA ULLAH AND Other1983 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal examines whether a plaintiff pre-emptor can enforce a superior right of pre-emption based on an oral purchase of land that violates section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 due to lack of a registered instrument. The core legal question is whether an incomplete or defective sale, failing to meet statutory registration requirements, can confer ownership or co-sharership status necessary to pre-empt another sale. The Supreme Court held that transactions exceeding one rupee in value of tangible immovable property require a registered instrument under section 54, and oral sales incorporated merely through mutations and revenue records do not confer active title, ownership, or co-sharership. Furthermore, the shield of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 cannot be used as a sword by a transferee to assert active rights or claim co-sharership in separate property. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming that revenue entries cannot validate a transaction fundamentally defective under the law.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff enforce a right of pre-emption based on an oral purchase of land that violates section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Does an unregistered and defective sale confer ownership or co-sharership status to act as a basis for pre-emption?
- Can section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be used as a sword by a transferee to claim active rights or title in property?
- Do entries in revenue records like the Jamabandi create title when the underlying transaction violates statutory registration requirements?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2740 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BHALWAL1983 PLC (C. S.) 1051 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1983 CLC 448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH alias MANDU vs MUHAMMAD WAJIHUDDIN KHAN1983 PLD Peshawar 220 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAGA KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 73 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZMIM vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Other1983 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondents' revision petition and upheld a second gift made in 1970. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reversing findings regarding the delivery of possession for the second gift and whether the failure to frame a specific issue on the validity of the second gift prejudiced the petitioner's case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was substance in the contention that the lack of a specific issue deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to produce evidence and challenge the validity of the gift. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to consider the questions raised, and a status quo order was issued.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can reverse a concurrent finding of fact regarding the delivery of possession of a gifted property without a specific issue framed thereon?
- Does the failure to frame a specific issue regarding the validity of a gift prejudice a party's case at trial by depriving them of the opportunity to produce evidence?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a material question regarding the validity of a gift and absence of a specific issue is established?
- MUHAMMAD AZIM vs The STATE1983 SCMR 296 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had altered his conviction under section 10(3) to section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and reduced his sentence for committing rape on a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the strict qualitative and numerical evidentiary requirements prescribed under section 8 for Hadd punishments apply equally to trials and convictions for Taazir under section 10 of the Ordinance, thereby excluding ordinary rules of evidence like the Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court held that the evidentiary standards of section 8 are strictly tied to Hadd punishments and do not govern section 10 (Taazir) proceedings, where ordinary rules of evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872 apply. The court laid down the principle that section 10 offenses are to be adjudicated using standard rules of witness competence and corroboration, such as those in sections 118, 133, and 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872, without importing the Quranic numerical and qualitative prerequisites of section 8. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Do the qualitative and numerical evidentiary requirements prescribed in section 8 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 apply to offenses tried under section 10 for Taazir?
- Are the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 applicable to proceedings before a court under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a female competent to testify as a witness in proceedings under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a conviction under Taazir require a specific number of witnesses as mandated for Hadd under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs MESSRS GHULAM HUSSAIN HIDAYATULLAH TEXTILE MILLS1983 PLC 961 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM vs Mst. AISHA BEGUM1983 CLC 2300 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN AND Others vs VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND Other1983 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by medical students challenging the postponement of the Final Professional M.B., B.S. Annual Examination by the University of the Punjab to July 1983. The core legal questions involved the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate to alter examination dates and whether the court should compel the holding of multiple examinations. The Supreme Court held that the Syndicate of the University is lawfully empowered under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 and relevant regulations to fix and alter examination dates in exceptional circumstances, and courts will not normally interfere with the discretionary administrative decisions of university authorities acting within the framework of the law. The key principle laid down is that the fixation of academic examination schedules falls within the exclusive domain of competent university bodies, and judicial review will not extend to substituting administrative discretion unless exercised arbitrarily or without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab is empowered to fix and alter dates for holding professional examinations?
- Will courts interfere with the discretionary decision of university authorities regarding the postponement of examinations taken within the framework of law?
- Does the Vice-Chancellor or the Syndicate possess the exclusive competence to determine examination schedules under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973?
- MUHAMMAD AZAM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and recoveries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding firing distances, the interested and uncorroborated nature of the eyewitnesses, and doubts regarding the recovery evidence. The appeal was consequently accepted, the conviction set aside, and the appellants acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution's case can be sustained when the ocular account is directly contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the distance from which shots were fired?
- Does the testimony of related and chance witnesses require independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Whether recovery evidence is rendered doubtful when the investigating officer associates interested witnesses to the recoveries?
- MUHAMMAD AYYUB alias NIKK A vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a conviction under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The prosecution case rested on the statement of the deceased recorded as the First Information Report (FIR), eyewitness accounts, and the recovery of a blood-stained knife. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the credibility of chance witnesses, their failure to report the incident immediately or accompany the deceased to the hospital, the non-attestation of the dying declaration by a doctor, and the delayed recovery of the weapon. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to cross-examine witnesses regarding their post-incident conduct prevented adverse inferences. The Court further held that a signed dying declaration by a victim who survived for three days was trustworthy despite lack of medical attestation, and that false substitution of a single accused in broad daylight without strong motive was highly improbable.
Questions settled- Whether the omission of an investigating officer to obtain a doctor's attestation invalidates a signed dying declaration?
- Whether an adverse inference can be drawn regarding the post-incident conduct of witnesses when they were not cross-examined on the point?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained in a single-accused case on the credible testimony of disinterested eyewitnesses supported by a dying declaration?
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of the petitioners, Muhammad Ayub and Abdullah, for murder and hurt. The petitioners were originally convicted by the trial court for the murder of Hakim Ali and causing injuries to Hakim (P.W.), with Muhammad Ayub receiving a death sentence and Abdullah receiving life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently reduced Muhammad Ayub's death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted Abdullah of the murder charge, considering his time served sufficient for the hurt offense. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the evidence, specifically the reliance on the testimony of a single injured eye-witness despite the trial court's rejection of motive evidence and weapon recoveries, warrants a re-examination of the convictions. The Supreme Court, finding the case fit for further scrutiny, granted leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of judicial review in criminal matters where evidentiary findings are contested, particularly regarding the reliability of solitary eye-witness testimony in capital cases.
Questions settled- Is a case fit for leave to appeal where the trial court rejected motive and recovery evidence but relied solely on an injured eye-witness?
- Can a High Court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment while acquitting a co-accused of murder based on the same evidentiary record?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs WAPDA1983 PLC (C. S.) 1006 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs The STATE1983 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for the offence of rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which had been upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's appeal was competently heard by the High Court, given a subsequent amendment to the Ordinance transferring appellate jurisdiction to the Federal Shariat Court, and whether the conviction was supported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that since the conviction occurred before the amendment, the High Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction, as the amendment lacked retrospective effect. Regarding the merits, the Court found that the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries and forensic analysis of blood-stained articles recovered from the scene, conclusively established the prosecution's case. The Court affirmed that ocular evidence supported by consistent medical and forensic findings is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent findings, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does an amendment to the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 regarding appellate jurisdiction apply retrospectively to cases already decided by the High Court?
- Is a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 sustainable based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
- Which court has appellate jurisdiction over a conviction by a Sessions Judge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 prior to the amendment of Section 20?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE1983 PLC (C. S.) 478 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), LAHORE1983 CLC 915 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →