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 YOUSUF AZAD vs TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER SIND CRIMES.1982 P Cr. L J 275 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION Ex.S1982 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-06
  compulsory retirementstatutory appealMartial Law Review Boardimplied withdrawalservice tribunalcivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer in the Irrigation Department, challenged his compulsory retirement before the Punjab Service Tribunal. While his statutory appeal was pending, he filed a review petition before a Martial Law Review Board. The Tribunal subsequently dismissed his appeal, holding that filing the review petition implied a withdrawal of the pending appeal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that he never formally withdrew his appeal and that the Tribunal's dismissal deprived him of his statutory right to adjudication. The core legal question concerns whether the mere filing of a review petition before a Martial Law Review Board, in the absence of an express withdrawal, legally constitutes the abandonment or withdrawal of a pending statutory appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, particularly in light of Martial Law Order No. 23 and its subsequent amendment by Martial Law Order No. 26. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the significant implications for similar cases and the need for a definitive interpretation of the relevant statutory and Martial Law provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a review petition before a Martial Law Review Board automatically constitute the withdrawal of a pending statutory appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss a pending appeal on the basis of an implied waiver without an express statement of withdrawal from the appellant?
  • What is the effect of Martial Law Order No. 26 on the validity of review petitions filed before a Review Board prior to the promulgation of Martial Law Order No. 23?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs EJAZ HUSSAIN Alias IJAZ KHAN AND Another1982 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-07
  oral salespecific performanceimmovable propertyTransfer of Property Actcurable defectinchoate titleregistration of sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the sale of land measuring 83 kanals and 12 marlas, initiated by the vendor, Muhammad Yousaf, who sought a declaration that the sale was invalid. Simultaneously, the vendees filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the vendor's suit and decreed the vendees' suit, a decision upheld by the first appellate court and subsequently by the High Court in Regular Second Appeals. The core legal question was whether an oral sale of immovable property, potentially violating Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, is void and whether the vendor could challenge it on that basis. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that an oral sale, even if technically in violation of Section 54, is not void ab initio and that the defect is curable by subsequent registration to perfect the vendee's title. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain arguments regarding the admissibility of a handwriting expert's report, noting that the issue was not raised before the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an oral sale of immovable property void if it violates the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Can a defect in an oral sale of immovable property be cured by subsequent registration?
  • Can a party raise an objection regarding the admissibility of evidence in the Supreme Court if that objection was not pursued in the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KURD ETC. vs SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1982 SCMR 644 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-18
  seniority disputeservice lawprospective applicationretrospective effectstatutory interpretationcivil serviceEstablishment of West Pakistan Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a seniority dispute between Sub-Inspectors of the Excise and Taxation Department in Baluchistan. The petitioners, appointed in 1957, challenged a seniority list that placed the respondent, appointed in 1959, above them. The core legal question was whether seniority should be determined by the Baluchistan Excise Service Rules, 1952 (the "old Rules") or the West Pakistan Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (the "new Rules"). The Supreme Court held that the new Rules were prospective and could not divest rights acquired under the old Rules. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 10 of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, laws in force prior to the integration of the province continued to apply until repealed. Administrative letters attempting to override these statutory protections were deemed nullities. Consequently, the Court upheld the respondent's seniority, ruling that the old Rules governed the determination of seniority for the parties involved. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, establishing that subsequent service rules cannot retrospectively alter seniority rights established under prior valid legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Can service rules promulgated in 1966 retrospectively determine seniority rights acquired before their enactment?
  • Does an administrative letter from a Provincial Government have the legal authority to override statutory provisions regarding the continuation of laws?
  • Under the Establishment of West Pakistan Act 1955, do pre-existing service rules remain in force until expressly repealed?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHALID vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME1982 CLC 1966 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Etcs vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE Etc.S1982 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-08
  licence feepower loomstax impositiontransitional provisionsconstitutional petitionlocal governmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, owners of power looms in Gujranwala District, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petition challenging the enhancement and imposition of a licence fee on power looms and handlooms by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, via a July 1975 notification under the Municipal Committee (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1960. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner retained the authority to impose such taxes after the enforcement of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, which vested exclusive taxing powers in Local Councils under sections 138 and 139. The Supreme Court held that under the transitional provisions in section 235(2) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, authorities exercising functions under repealed enactments continue to do so until Local Councils are constituted, provided the Government has not withdrawn those functions. Since Local Councils had not yet been constituted in Gujranwala at the relevant time, the Commissioner's powers remained fully protected. The key principle laid down is that transitional provisions safeguarding existing administrative and taxing functions of authorities under repealed laws remain operational until new local bodies are duly constituted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner retained the power to impose licence fees under the Municipal Committee (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1960 after the enactment of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975?
  • Do transitional provisions under section 235(2) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 allow previous authorities to continue exercising local council functions until new Local Councils are constituted?
  • Did sections 138 and 139 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 invalidate prior tax notifications before the formal constitution of Local Councils?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF BUTT vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 108 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-31
  leave to appealinformer claimmukhbariallotment cancellationsettlement proceedingslocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the cancellation of land allotment and the rights of informers in settlement proceedings. The core legal question involves whether an informant has the locus standi to maintain a petition when their allotment is cancelled based on a subsequent mukhbari by another informant, and whether urban land can be given in lieu of a rural claim. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the points raised require detailed consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The Court ordered that the status quo previously issued shall continue, subject to the petitioners furnishing security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Faisalabad, within one month. The key principle laid down is that complex questions regarding locus standi in rival informer allotment disputes and the interpretation of settlement circulars warrant a full hearing on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an informant has the locus standi to file a petition regarding the cancellation of land allotments?
  • Can urban land be allotted in lieu of a rural claim under the applicable settlement laws?
  • How are competing claims between rival informers to be adjudicated in settlement matters?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Other vs DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 690 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 2 Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-25
  post-arrest bailmurderself-defencecommon intentionappreciation of evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, accused of murder and assault, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing their post-arrest bail application. The prosecution alleged that the first petitioner hit the deceased on the head with a wooden bala causing his death, the third petitioner hit him with a lathi, and the second petitioner assaulted a prosecution witness. The petitioners contended that the incident occurred inside their saw mill where the deceased party were aggressors, and raised pleas of self-defence supported by injuries sustained by the petitioners, alongside arguments regarding section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and delay in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding self-defence, applicability of common intention, and delay required appreciation of evidence which should be determined during trial. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the refusal of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trespass by the deceased party justify the killing of a person so as to sustain a plea of self-defence at the bail stage?
  • Whether questions regarding the applicability of common intention and delay in lodging the First Information Report should be examined at the bail stage or left for trial?
  • Can objections relating to the appreciation of evidence form the basis for interfering with a High Court's order refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Aliaes RANGEELA BUTT. vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-16
  murderdeath sentenceocular testimonymedical evidencereappraisal of evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence of the petitioner, Muhammad Yousaf alias Rangeela Butt, for the murder of Ashiq Ali under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case detailed that the petitioner, along with co-accused, stabbed the deceased with a dagger following a prior altercation regarding a monetary dispute. The trial court convicted the petitioner while acquitting his co-accused, and the High Court dismissed his appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel argued discrepancies in the evidence and inconsistency between the medical and ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any misreading or gross misappreciation of material evidence by the courts below, and declined to undertake a reappraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence where no misreading or gross misappreciation by the lower courts is pointed out?
  • Does inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrant interference when the lower courts' findings are well-founded?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS SIDDIQUI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL1982 PLC 281 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS QURESHI AND 5 OTIIERS vs MRS. FEROZ QURAISHI AND 21982 CLC 976 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS QURESHI AND 5 Others vs MRS. FEROZ QURAISHI AND 21982 CLC 976 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS KHAN AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI, SINDH AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 2518 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS KHAN AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 2518 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE1982 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-26
  ex parte decreeejectment petitionsuccessors-in-interestwrit jurisdictionfraudulent decreependency of litigationrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ejectment of a tenant from a shop. The landlord, having failed in an initial ejectment petition, filed a second petition on identical grounds without disclosing the pendency of the first, obtaining an ex parte decree. The tenant successfully challenged this ex parte decree before an Additional District Judge, who found it was obtained fraudulently. The landlord had meanwhile sold the property to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the appellate order in the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition. The Supreme Court addressed whether an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order is appealable and whether purchasers of property are bound by the liabilities of their predecessor-in-interest regarding pending litigation. The Court held that an ejectment order functions as a decree and is appealable. Furthermore, it affirmed that successors-in-interest inherit the liabilities of their predecessors, particularly when they purchase property with notice of ongoing litigation. The Court upheld the High Court's refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction regarding points not raised before the lower appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order appealable?
  • Are successors-in-interest bound by the liabilities of their predecessor-in-interest regarding pending litigation?
  • Can a party raise a legal point in writ jurisdiction that was not raised before the lower appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS MALIK vs DISTRICT JUDGE LAHORE ETC.1982 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17
  leave to appealevictionbona fide personal needcommercial premiseslandlord and tenantalternative accommodationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner-tenant's constitutional petition against an appellate eviction order. The respondent-landlady sought the petitioner's eviction from commercial premises on grounds including bona fide personal need. While the Rent Controller initially rejected the eviction application, the District Judge on appeal held the landlady's personal need proved and ordered eviction. The tenant argued that the appellate authority misdirected itself on the law regarding personal requirement by ignoring available vacant accommodation on the first floor. The Supreme Court observed that the suitability of alternative accommodation is primarily a question of fact requiring pleadings and evidence. The tenant failed to elicit or prove during trial that the alternative premises were suitable or adequate to meet the landlady's needs. Finding no misdirection of law by the appellate court or the High Court that would justify constitutional intervention, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal while granting the tenant two months to voluntarily surrender possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the availability of alternative vacant accommodation automatically disentitles a landlord from claiming bona fide personal need without proof of its suitability?
  • Can a question regarding the suitability of alternative accommodation be raised without foundational pleadings and evidence?
  • Does a misapplication of law justifying interference in constitutional jurisdiction arise where a factual defense was not substantiated before the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS MALIK vs DISTRICT JUCGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-20
  leave to appealmurder convictionocular testimonyreappraisal of evidenceunder-trial prisonersentence calculationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of Bashir Ahmad, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the ocular testimony of witnesses related to the deceased and inimical to the accused, alongside the recovery of the weapon, warranted a reappraisal of evidence, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the period spent as an under-trial prisoner. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the conviction, holding that the case was not a fit one for the reappraisal of evidence. However, the Court granted partial relief by directing that the petitioner be given the benefit of the period spent in custody as an under-trial prisoner under the relevant statutory provision. The principle laid down is that while the Supreme Court generally avoids reappraising evidence in cases of concurrent findings, it will ensure the mandatory application of statutory provisions regarding the calculation of sentences for under-trial detention.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Supreme Court required to reappraise evidence in a criminal case where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of the period spent as an under-trial prisoner under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN ALLAHWALA AND ANOTHER vs MEHRBAN SHERVAN IRANI1982 CLC 478 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN vs JAMES MASIH AND 8 Other1982 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-08
  no-confidence motionUnion Councilofficial gazettenotificationconstitutional petitiondiscretionary jurisdictionoperative date
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an elected Chairman of a Union Council, challenged his removal following a no-confidence motion passed against him on December 18, 1980. The petitioner argued that a notification issued on December 15, 1980, which mandated that the Assistant Commissioner preside over no-confidence meetings, should have been effective from the date of its issuance, rather than its publication in the official gazette on December 21, 1980. The core legal question was whether a notification becomes operative upon its issuance or upon its publication in the official gazette. The Court held that the notification only became operative upon its publication in the official gazette. Consequently, the proceedings conducted on December 18, 1980, under the existing law were valid. The Court further noted that the petitioner had lost the confidence of the entire body of members, making the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction inappropriate. The principle laid down is that a notification generally becomes operative only from the date of its publication in the official gazette, and cannot retrospectively invalidate proceedings conducted under the law existing prior to such publication.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government notification become operative from the date of its issuance or the date of its publication in the official gazette?
  • Can a notification published in the official gazette retrospectively nullify proceedings held under the previously existing law?
  • Is the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction appropriate to restore a Chairman who has lost the confidence of the entire body of members?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR vs NAWAB AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR AND OTHERS vs SULTAN MAHMOOD AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR AND OTHERS vs SULTAN MAHMOOD AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR Alias MAMU vs The STATE1982 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08
  criminal appealleave to granthostile witnesschild witnessappraisal of evidencedeath sentencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence passed against the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for the murder of Mst. Bibi. The core legal question concerns the proper appraisal of evidence in criminal cases where eye-witnesses have turned hostile, the sole supporting witness is a child under ten years of age, motive evidence fails, and the recovery of the weapon is disbelieved by the trial court. The court held that the circumstances surrounding the reliability of the sole child witness, the failure of motive, and the discarded recovery evidence warranted a thorough re-examination of the case. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the norms for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases were correctly followed and to review the propriety of the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a child witness under ten years of age is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when other eye-witnesses have turned hostile?
  • Does the failure of prosecution to prove motive and recovery warrant a re-examination of the appraisal of evidence in a criminal case?
  • Whether the norms for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases were properly followed by the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982CLC610 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 979 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1982 PLC 1077 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs Master Muhammad Sharif And Another1982 PLD Quetta 129 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND 4 Other vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1982 PLD Lahore 752 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 961 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMEEN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER Opponents1982 PLD Karachi 279 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMEEN vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-06
  rent controlstriking off defencenon-compliance with rent depositact of naturefactual findingsevidence in rent proceedingslandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute where the Rent Controller had struck off the tenants' defence due to a failure to deposit monthly rent by the prescribed deadline of July 15, 1978. The tenants contended that the delay was caused by incessant rains, an act of nature beyond their control, and deposited the rent on July 16, 1978. The Rent Controller rejected this plea and ordered eviction, but the High Court reversed this decision on appeal, finding the tenants' explanation credible. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in its factual findings and whether the reliance on newspaper reports as evidence was legally permissible in rent proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's factual determination regarding the circumstances beyond the tenants' control was sound and free from infirmity. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller, and that the newspaper report was merely corroborative, not substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Do the strict provisions of the Evidence Act apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Can a High Court reverse a Rent Controller's finding of fact regarding a tenant's failure to deposit rent due to circumstances beyond their control?
  • Is a newspaper report admissible as corroborative evidence in rent control proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs PAKISTAN AND 07HER1982 CLC 2287 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs MISBAH UL HAQ AND Other1982 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27
  allotment of landpreferential rightconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionsettlement authoritiesfirst come first served
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a writ petition and restored the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner allotting agricultural land to the respondents. The dispute concerned the preferential right to the allotment of 315 kanals and 9 marlas of agricultural land. The High Court had found that the respondents' claim form reached the village earlier and was registered prior to the petitioner's, thereby establishing a preferential right under the principle of 'first come first served'. The petitioner contended that the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction by reassessing the material on merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court is justified in examining whether the conclusions drawn by settlement authorities are borne out by the record. Since the settlement authorities' findings against the respondents were based on conjectural inferences unsupported by any evidence, the High Court's interference was unexceptionable. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction examine the factual conclusions of settlement authorities if they are based on conjectural inferences unsupported by evidence?
  • Does the principle of 'first come first served' establish a preferential right to the allotment of agricultural land under settlement instructions?
  • Is the High Court barred from interfering with the findings of administrative tribunals when there is no evidence on record to support those findings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WALI vs MARIAM BEGUM1982 CLC 1789 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD vs THE OCCUPIER/MANAGER, DIL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. , .1982 PLC 433 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1982 CLC 2248 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN AND Others vs GHULAM QASIM KHAN1982 CLC 881 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD URIS vs ZIAUDDIN1982 CLC 4 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMER AND Others vs DR. AMINA ASHRAF1982 CLC 410 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11
  ejectmentpersonal requirementnon-residential premisessublettinglandlord and tenantrent restrictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had ordered the ejectment of the appellants from a commercial shop. The respondent landlady sought eviction on grounds of personal requirement for her husband and alleged subletting. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the application. The central legal question was whether the statutory provision for 'own use' in a non-residential building includes the personal requirement of a landlady's husband, and whether the evidence sufficiently established subletting. The High Court held that while the term 'own use' might broadly include a spouse's requirement if the landlord derives benefit, the respondent failed to demonstrate any such benefit in this specific case, given her independent economic status. Furthermore, the Court found the finding on subletting to be based on conjecture, as the alleged sub-tenants occupied space outside the premises, not within. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and dismissed the ejectment petition, ruling that the respondent failed to substantiate the grounds for eviction under the relevant rent legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'own use' in the context of non-residential premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include the personal requirement of a landlady's husband?
  • Can a landlady obtain an ejectment order for a non-residential building based on her husband's requirement if she fails to prove she derives personal benefit from such occupation?
  • Is the occupation of space outside a shop by third parties sufficient to constitute subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD UMAR vs Mst. FA71MA BEGUM AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 608 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Alias ARRORHA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 921 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AFTAB AND Another vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-01
  constitutional jurisdictionfindings of factwrit petitionsettlement departmentleave petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a leave petition filed against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging concurrent findings of fact by the settlement authorities. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property demarcation rendered by the Settlement Department in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and maintained in appeal and revision—holding that the disputed basement forms part of the adjoining house rather than the petitioners' transferred house—were unexceptionable and not open to question within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The court laid down the principle that findings of fact determined by departmental authorities through concurrent decisions cannot be varied or re-examined by the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the Settlement Department in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a basement form part of a transferred property when departmental authorities concurrently find it belongs to an adjoining house?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs The STATE1982 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-14
  criminal petitionmurder convictionmitigating circumstancesillicit liaisoneye-witness credibilitysentencing reductionprovocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for special leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, Muhammad Tariq, for the murder of two individuals, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Hussain. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, and sentenced to death, a conviction subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court, though the sentence for one count was reduced to life imprisonment due to alleged provocation regarding an illicit liaison. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction on grounds that a single assailant could not have committed both murders, that the eye-witnesses were unreliable as they failed to intervene, and that the sentence should be further reduced due to provocation and an altercation. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding no evidence that the eye-witnesses were positioned to intervene or that the altercation justified a reduction in sentence. The Court held that suspicion of an illicit liaison does not constitute a mitigating factor for sentencing in murder cases. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suspicion of an illicit liaison between a deceased and the accused's sister constitute a mitigating factor for sentencing in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be challenged on the ground that eye-witnesses failed to intervene during the commission of the crime?
  • Is it legally plausible for a single assailant to be convicted of multiple murders involving young victims?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TALIB vs NOOR ELAHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1516 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TALIB vs MOOR ELAHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1516 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAHIR ETC. vs ROBERT COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD.1982 CLC 2663 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN AND 2 OT HEIRS vs THE STATE-1982 P Cr. L J 234 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 282 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs AHMAD BAKHSH1982 CLC 1849 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs ABDUL GHAFFAR1982 CLC.1717 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND 236 OTHERS vs MECHANICAL ENGINEER, CENRAL1982 PLC 679 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1981-12-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE MANAGER, SPENCER & COMPANY (PAKISTAN)1982 PLC 521 · Labour Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs REVIEW COMMITTEE, D. G. KHAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 51 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR1982 CLC 758 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Ch. FAZAL DIN AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs ABDUL RASHEED1982 CLC 217 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-17
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentwilful defaultdiscretion of rent controllerconsistent practicesecond appealrent receipts
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent findings of the lower courts refusing to pass an ejectment order against the respondent-tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground that the default in payment of rent was not wilful and deliberate. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly exercised their discretion under section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance by considering the landlord's consistent past practice of accepting rent in lump sums over several months for a period of seven years. The High Court held that the landlord's conduct of consistently recovering rent in lump sums led the tenant to believe that such practice would continue, and in the absence of a notice indicating a departure from this practice, the tenant's default could not be considered wilful or deliberate. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding the exercise of judicial discretion in rent matters will not be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the non-wilful nature of a tenant's default in rent can be interfered with in second appeal?
  • Does a landlord's consistent practice of accepting rent in lump sums over several years preclude a claim of wilful default without prior notice?
  • Whether the Rent Controller and appellate authority have the discretion under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to refuse ejectment despite proved default if the default was not wilful or deliberate?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN vs ALLAH YAR KHAN AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND Another vs NASEER AHMAD1982 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-28
  second appealfinding of factmutation of saleforged documentSupreme Court petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court which dismissed the second appeal of the petitioners on the ground that the matter was concluded by a finding of fact. The core legal question in dispute was whether the mutation of sale relied upon by the petitioners was genuine or fictitious. The trial court held the document to be forged and fictitious after discussing the evidence at length, and this finding of fact was upheld by the District Judge, Vehari. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the matter in dispute was clearly one of fact, and the concurrent findings recorded thereon by the lower courts were final and could not be interfered with in second appeal or in the present proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of fact concurred in by the lower courts be interfered with in a second appeal?
  • Whether the question of whether a mutation of sale is genuine or fictitious constitutes a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1982 SCMR 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11
  evictionwilful defaultrent disputepersonal requirementres judicatapartition of propertytenant attornment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal arising from concurrent findings of three lower courts ordering the petitioner's eviction from a shop in Lahore on grounds of default in rent payment and the respondent owner's personal bona fide requirement for business. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's failure to pay rent to the respondent—following the partition of the joint property and subsequent transfer of the shop to the respondent's sole ownership—constituted wilful default, and whether the defense of res judicata applied based on a prior dismissed eviction application. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's persistence in refusing to attorn to the respondent after partition amounted to wilful default, and that the partition was not shown to be collusive, while the respondent sufficiently established his personal requirement for the shop. The Court laid down that a tenant who refuses to acknowledge the title of a co-owner to whom the property has been validly transferred through partition commits wilful default, rendering the defense of res judicata misconceived.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's refusal to acknowledge the title of a landlord to whom the rented property has been assigned upon partition constitute wilful default in the payment of rent?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent and personal requirement of a landlord be disturbed in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is the principle of res judicata applicable to bar a subsequent eviction petition filed after the partition of joint property among co-owners?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND TRIBUNAL (SOUTH), KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 297 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND Other vs Master MUHAMMAD MUNIS AND, Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-15
  interim reliefsecurity depositnon-compliancepossessionsettlement authoritiessupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil miscellaneous application in a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a shop by the settlement authorities through an auction. The core legal question involves the consequence of a party's failure to comply with an interim direction of the Court requiring the furnishing of security for the use and occupation of the disputed premises. The Supreme Court held that where a respondent deliberately fails to comply with the court-ordered security deposit, the possession of the disputed property should be handed over to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that the Court possesses the equitable power to direct the surrender or handover of possession of disputed premises to the aggrieved party when the opposing party willfully defaults on interim conditional orders imposed during pending proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • What consequence follows when a respondent deliberately fails to furnish security as ordered by the Court for the use and occupation of disputed premises?
  • Can the Court direct the handover of possession of a disputed shop to the petitioner upon the respondent's default in complying with an interim order?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 21982 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertyindivisibility of propertyremand orderPermanent Transfer DeedDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) ActSettlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the transfer of a one-third evacuee share of a bungalow in Karachi. The appellants held a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) for the share, while the respondents sought transfer of the same share under paragraph 16-C of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, claiming the property was indivisible. The core legal question was whether the property was divisible or indivisible, a determination required to trigger the transfer provisions under paragraph 16-C. Following a High Court remand order directing the Settlement Commissioner to decide this issue, the Commissioner failed to address the question of indivisibility, instead focusing on the finality of the P.T.D. The High Court subsequently cancelled the appellants' P.T.D., assuming the Additional Settlement Commissioner's earlier finding on indivisibility stood. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in assuming the lower authority's finding remained valid. The Court established that where a remand order specifically directs a lower authority to determine a crucial factual issue, the failure to do so necessitates a fresh remand for that specific determination, rather than the High Court assuming the findings of a previous, superseded authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by a Settlement Commissioner to decide a specific issue directed by a remand order justify the High Court in assuming the findings of a lower authority remain valid?
  • Is the determination of property indivisibility a prerequisite for transferring property under paragraph 16-C of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a High Court when a Settlement Commissioner fails to comply with a specific direction in a remand order?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIBTAIN Alias GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 515 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHIREEN AND 4 OTHERS vs M. DURVESH M. RAFIQUE & CO. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 475 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 534 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1982 CLC 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SAIFULLAH KHAN NIAZI AND Other1982 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-28
  quashing of criminal casewrit petitionZina Hudood Ordinanceparallel inquiryleave to appealmala fide investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had refused to quash a criminal case registered for the offence of Zina under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 against the petitioner's sister and her alleged husband. The core legal question was whether the High Court ought to interfere and quash a pending criminal case and stop the submission of a challan on the plea of mala fides and a disputed marriage. The Supreme Court held that neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court can initiate a parallel inquiry into disputed questions of fact when the police investigation is complete and the challan is ready for submission to the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case is ready for trial and evidence can be examined by the trial court, constitutional petitions seeking to quash the proceedings based on disputed factual assertions such as a valid marriage and police mala fides ought not to be entertained.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court or Supreme Court conduct a parallel inquiry into disputed questions of fact when a police challan is ready for submission?
  • Whether a criminal case registered under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 should be quashed on the plea of a disputed marriage?
  • Is it proper for the High Court to interfere under constitutional jurisdiction when all relevant evidence can be examined by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1982 P Cr. L J 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 4 Other1982 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN BAKHSH1982 CLC 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ABDUL MAJID1982 CLC 208 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-26
  pre-emptionurban immovable propertyagricultural landcivil revisionmala fideappellate interferenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a pre-emption suit concerning land sold in 1973. The core legal question was whether the suit land, at the time of sale, retained its character as agricultural land subject to the law of pre-emption or had become urban immovable property, and whether the pre-emptor's suit was filed bona fide. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding the land was urban and the pre-emptor's claim lacked merit, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Upon revision, the High Court held that the appellate court failed to properly consider documentary evidence, including the sale deed describing the land as urban and evidence of surrounding residential development. The Court reaffirmed the principle that if a building scheme is introduced on agricultural land and municipal limits are extended, the land's character ceases to be agricultural. Furthermore, the Court held that the pre-emptor's failure to challenge specific evidence regarding his knowledge of the transaction and the land's urban status indicated mala fides. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the character of land for pre-emption purposes change if a building scheme is introduced and municipal limits are extended?
  • Is the question of whether a place is a town or a village for the purposes of the law of pre-emption a question of law?
  • Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's finding of fact without considering key documentary evidence?
  • Does the failure to challenge specific averments in cross-examination amount to an admission of those facts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF ETC. vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1982 PLC 471 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-04-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Others vs AHMAD YAR AND Other1982 SCMR 1200 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-24
  Leave to appealCivil procedureWitness examinationList of witnessesOrder XVI CPCSummoning witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to consider the legal justification of a Civil Judge's refusal to examine witnesses presented by petitioners in court on the relevant date. The core legal question revolves around whether the bar contained in Order XVI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regarding the filing of a list of witnesses after the settlement of issues, applies to witnesses brought by a party directly, as opposed to those intended to be summoned through the court. The petitioners argued that Order XVI Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, pertain only to witnesses called through the court, not those personally brought by a party. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine this point, setting the case for an early hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the refusal of a Civil Judge to examine witnesses brought by a party to court on the hearing date is legally justified if no list of witnesses was filed under Order XVI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Do Order XVI Rule 1 and Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to witnesses personally brought by a party to court, or only to those intended to be called through the court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Another vs KHURSHID AHMAD1982 PLD Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 3 OTHERS vs WAPDA1982 PLC 597 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-04-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 2 OTHERS vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 350 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 2 Others vs JAMAL DIN AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 2 Others vs JAMAL DIN AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AHMED vs Syed SAFDAR HUSSAIN1982 CLC 434 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 625 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAMIM SIDDIQUI vs MRS. KAUSAR AZIZ AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1972 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAMIM SIDDIQUI vs MRS. KAUSAR AZIZ AND OTHER1982 CLC 1972 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAIQ vs MESSRS KOHINOOR BATTERY MANUFACTURERS LTD.1982 PLC 524 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHID SIDDIQ vs IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN KHAN1982 CLC 244 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH KHISRO KHAN vs THE STATE THROUGH DEPUTY1982 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-16
  writ jurisdictionfindings of factlachesland disputeexclusive jurisdictionconstitutional petitionadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges multiple administrative orders and recommendations by the Land Dispute Enquiry Commission and subsequent forums, which declared the petitioner's claimed property as State property. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can re-examine findings of fact regarding property title and possession that have already been adjudicated by specialized forums constituted under special law. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it cannot act as an appellate court to re-evaluate evidence or decide disputed questions of fact, such as actual possession, which were already determined by competent authorities. The Court found no evidence of perversity or arbitrariness in the lower forums' decisions. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction with findings of fact made by exclusive forums constituted under special law, provided those findings are not perverse or arbitrary. Additionally, the Court affirmed that petitions challenging long-standing administrative orders without plausible explanation are barred by the principle of laches.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction re-examine disputed questions of fact regarding property title and possession?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against findings of specialized forums when those findings are neither perverse nor arbitrary?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to a constitutional petition filed years after the impugned administrative orders were passed?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH AND Others vs SIND BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS1982 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH AND Others vs HIND BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY AND OTHER1982 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 124 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE KHAN vs UNITED BANK LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 371 · Labour Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 268 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →