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 SHAFIQ AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court refusing to confirm interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petitioners were facing prosecution under Sections 148, 382, 452, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where they allegedly raided the complainant advocate's office, caused injuries to his clerks, and forcibly took away a watch. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted on grounds of alleged mala fides and the complainant's clerk's failure to undergo a re-medical examination. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the background litigation involving the bank did not demonstrate that the advocate had fabricated the incident or that the medical certificate was false. The Court held that failure to undergo a subsequent medical examination does not invalidate initial medical evidence at the bail stage, and law must take its normal course. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an injured victim to undergo a re-medical examination automatically invalidate the initial medical report at the pre-arrest bail stage?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted solely on allegations of background civil litigation without conclusive proof that the FIR was entirely fabricated?
- Whether the High Court properly exercises its judicial discretion in refusing pre-arrest bail where prima facie criminal allegations and medical evidence exist?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 91 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed by Muhammad Shafiq, Muhammad Sharif, and Arbab Ali, along with others, facing charges under sections 302, 307, and 325 read with section 149, and sections 147, 148, 504, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code before the Sessions Court, Sukkur. The core legal question revolves around whether bail should be granted in a case involving a sudden fight with counter-versions where it is uncertain at the preliminary stage which party was the aggressor or exceeded the right of private defence. The Sindh High Court held that due to the existence of counter-cases and uncertainty regarding the aggressor, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under the law, making it a fit case for bail. The court confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the applicants, supported by precedents from the Supreme Court and the consent of the Assistant Advocate-General, while also addressing the territorial entertaining of the matter at the main seat in Karachi under special circumstances.
Questions settled- Does a counter-case involving mutual injuries make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be confirmed when it is uncertain at the preliminary stage which party was the aggressor?
- May the High Court entertain a matter pertaining to an outlying bench at its main seat under special circumstances?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR, VEHARI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC55 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT SHAH AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Muhammad Shafi, was tried for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The complainant filed a revision petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in the High Court against the acquittal. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence and noting potential misappreciation of testimony by the trial court, admitted the revision for hearing and issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was committed to prison pending the hearing of the revision petition. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the High Court's order of commitment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, having satisfied itself regarding the merits of the revision, acted within its discretion in issuing the non-bailable warrants and committing the petitioner to prison pending the final hearing. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court rejected the petition for special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a High Court issue non-bailable warrants against an accused person during the pendency of a revision petition against their acquittal?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in committing an accused to prison pending the hearing of a revision petition against acquittal?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD AZAM1982 CLC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), LAHORE AND Another1982 SCMR 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against the cancellation of a land lease granted to the appellant under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme. The core legal question was whether the disputed land could lawfully form part of the Tube-well Sinking Scheme under section 10(3) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, given conflicting revenue records and a subsequent official report certifying the land as uncommanded. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Board of Revenue erred in relying on incorrect revenue records without examining the definitive report of the Divisional Canal Officer establishing the uncommanded nature of the land, which had created vested rights in favour of the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision, establishing the principle that administrative cancellation of a granted lease cannot be sustained upon erroneous revenue entries when official canal records conclusively demonstrate compliance with the scheme conditions.
Questions settled- Whether land classified as uncommanded can be lawfully leased out under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme?
- Does a public functionary have the power to issue a lease regarding cultivated or already leased areas under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme?
- Can a lease granted under a government scheme be cancelled on the basis of incorrect revenue entries when official canal reports prove otherwise?
- Are vested rights accrued through a validly granted government lease defeatable by administrative findings based on erroneous records?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a writ petition challenging an appellate judgment of the District Judge, Gujrat, which reduced the 'zar-e-khula' (consideration for dissolution of marriage) payable by the respondent from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 32. The petitioner argued that under Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal lies against a decree for dissolution of marriage, and therefore, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the fixation of 'zar-e-khula' in a dissolution decree constitutes a decision appealable under the Family Courts Act, 1964, despite the general bar on appeals against dissolution decrees. The Court held that while the decree for dissolution itself may not be appealable, the specific decision regarding the fixation of the consideration (zar-e-khula) is distinct and appealable under Section 14(1) of the Act. The Court affirmed that the appellate court acted with lawful authority in reviewing the quantum of the consideration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that the financial terms attached to a khula decree are subject to appellate review.
Questions settled- Is the fixation of 'zar-e-khula' in a decree for dissolution of marriage appealable under the Family Courts Act 1964?
- Does the bar on appeals against a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act 1964 extend to the financial terms of the decree?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs CAPT. NIZAM DIN1982 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI ETC. vs SADIQ SAEED KHAN Etc.S1982 SCMR 199(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal, which the Court converted into an appeal. The dispute concerned the permanent transfer deed issued by Settlement authorities regarding a specific property (House No. 2848-49). The core legal question involved the rights of the petitioners to the property versus the claims of the legal representatives of Qalandar Khan regarding the underlying land. The Court disposed of the appeal based on a settlement reached between the parties. The holding affirmed the validity of the permanent transfer deed in favor of the petitioners regarding the superstructure, while explicitly excluding any right, interest, or title in the land upon which the evacuee superstructure stands. The Court established the principle that rights and liabilities regarding the superstructure shall mirror those previously held by non-Muslim evacuees, thereby preserving the right of the legal representatives of the original claimant to seek vacant possession of the site in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a permanent transfer deed for an evacuee property be modified to exclude rights to the underlying land?
- Does the transfer of an evacuee superstructure grant the transferee title to the land beneath it?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 646 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 2 Others vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND 4 Other1982 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a pre-emption suit over agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit remains maintainable when a stranger vendee transfers their share to a co-vendee before the institution of the suit, thereby curing the defect of associating a stranger in a joint purchase. The Supreme Court held that the petition must fail, affirming the lower courts' dismissal of the suit. The Court reasoned that because the stranger vendee had transferred their share to a co-vendee prior to the filing of the suit, the pre-emptors lacked superior rights of pre-emption. The Court upheld the established principle that if a vendee, during the pendency of a pre-emption suit, removes the defect of associating a stranger by purchasing the stranger's share before final adjudication, the pre-emptor cannot succeed, regardless of whether the limitation period for the suit has expired. Consequently, the pre-emptor must maintain their superior position until the date of the decree to succeed.
Questions settled- Does a vendee who associates with a stranger in a joint purchase lose their right of pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emption suit be defeated if a stranger vendee transfers their share to a co-vendee before the suit is instituted?
- Must a pre-emptor maintain their superior position until the date of the decree to succeed in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the removal of a stranger vendee's share during the pendency of a pre-emption suit render the suit non-maintainable?
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR UR RAHMAN vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER; G. H. Q.1982 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the seniority assigned to a respondent. The core legal question was whether a person who remains junior to the respondent both before and after the impugned seniority assignment qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, so as to maintain an appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was not affected by the seniority assignment and those actually affected had not challenged it or been impleaded, the petitioner was not an aggrieved person. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a government servant who suffers no adverse impact on their relative seniority position and remains junior cannot maintain an appeal before the service tribunal as an aggrieved person.
Questions settled- Is a government servant who remains junior before and after a seniority assignment an aggrieved person under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Does an employee have the locus standi to challenge a seniority list when they are not personally affected by the assignment?
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM1982 CLC 268 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHER1982 CLC 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs MANAGER, SPENCER & COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD., FAISALABAD1982 PLC 519 · Labour Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN vs PUNJAB ELECTION AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 899 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Other1982 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as infructuous. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person, had been allotted land following a 'mukhbari' application against a third party. Subsequently, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled this allotment upon determining the original allotment to the third party was valid. The petitioner challenged this cancellation in the High Court. While an earlier writ petition had remanded the matter, the Settlement Commissioner maintained the cancellation order. The petitioner filed a subsequent writ petition challenging the same order, which the High Court dismissed as infructuous because the impugned order had already been quashed in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ petition remains maintainable when the impugned order has already been quashed in other proceedings. The Court held that once an order is quashed, it ceases to exist, rendering any challenge to it infructuous. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner could not challenge an order that was no longer legally alive, and further found no merit in the petition.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be maintained against an order that has already been quashed in separate proceedings?
- Does an order that has been quashed by a court remain subject to further challenge in a subsequent writ petition?
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR BUTT vs PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE1982 PLC 1097 · Labour Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND Another vs FAZAL REHMAN1982 CLC 1286 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC.1982 PLD Supreme Court 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses three consolidated petitions for leave to appeal arising from pre-emption suits concerning agricultural land purchased in District Jhelum. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Pre-emption (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance XI of 1972 was a valid and continuing piece of legislation, notwithstanding that it had not been approved by the Assembly within six weeks under the 1962 Constitution, and whether it restricted pre-emption suits to specific areas relating to the Chashma Barrage displaced persons. The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance remained valid and operative by virtue of Article 4(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969, and Article 281 of the Interim Constitution of 1972, which gave protection and validated laws enacted during the relevant period. Consequently, the Court ruled that the pre-emption suits were not barred for land outside the specified districts. The key principle laid down is that legislative measures promulgated during the martial law period and protected by constitutional validation provisions cannot be challenged or declared void for lacking legislative duration or competence.
Questions settled- Whether an Ordinance promulgated under the 1962 Constitution lapses after six weeks if not approved by the Assembly, despite the provisions of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969?
- What is the legal effect of Article 281 of the Interim Constitution of 1972 on laws and ordinances promulgated between March 1969 and April 1972?
- Does the notification issued by the Board of Revenue on 23rd November 1971 bar pre-emption suits for agricultural land situated outside Mianwali District and Khushab Tehsil?
- MUHAMMAD SARDAR KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER (ESTABLISHMFNT) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1982 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, an Assistant in the Board of Revenue, was apprehended in a trap, convicted under Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and subsequently removed from service by the Board of Revenue while his appeal against conviction was pending. Although the High Court later acquitted him, the Full Board dismissed his departmental appeal, finding it time-barred and his acquittal not honourable, citing his bad service record. The Service Tribunal upheld this decision, applying Rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Service Rules Punjab. The petitioner contended that Rule 9(a) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, invoked for his removal, was inapplicable after his conviction was set aside, necessitating a full inquiry. The Supreme Court found that the questions raised, being purely of law and its application to the facts, required authoritative interpretation. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be removed from service under Rule 9(a) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules if their conviction, which led to the removal, is subsequently set aside?
- Does an acquittal by a higher court automatically render a departmental action based on the original conviction invalid, requiring a fresh inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- What is the legal implication of an 'unhonourable acquittal' on departmental proceedings, particularly concerning removal from service, under the Civil Service Rules Punjab?
- Is Rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Service Rules Punjab, which deals with pay during suspension based on honourable acquittal, applicable for upholding an order of removal from service?
- MUHAMMAD SALIM AND Others vs BEGUM MUSARRAT BASHIRUL HASSAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 868 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALIM AND Others vs BEGUM MUSARRAT BASHIRUL HASSAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 868 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1982 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute regarding an ejectment application. The core legal questions were whether the restoration of an ejectment application, previously dismissed in default, revives an interlocutory order for rent deposit under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, and whether a landlord’s delay in seeking to strike off a tenant’s defense for non-compliance constitutes a waiver of that right. The Supreme Court held that upon the restoration of a suit or application, all ancillary and interlocutory orders passed prior to the dismissal are automatically revived with retrospective effect. Furthermore, the Court held that mere inaction or silence by a landlord in enforcing the right to strike off a defense does not amount to waiver by conduct. To establish waiver, there must be clear and decisive evidence of acquiescence beyond mere delay. The Court affirmed that the tenant’s failure to comply with the rent deposit order rendered their defense liable to be struck off, dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Does the restoration of an ejectment application dismissed in default revive an interlocutory order for rent deposit?
- Does a landlord's mere delay in seeking to strike off a tenant's defense constitute a waiver of the right to enforce compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION MODEL DEPOT ,1982 PLC 943 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 249 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHALID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1982 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of a degree college nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118, sought classification as a Head Clerk and entitlement to the corresponding pay scale. The matter reached the Service Tribunal, which held that the petitioner was not a Head Clerk based on the staff list handed over to the Department. However, documents supplied by the Principal and acquittance rolls established that the petitioner was employed and drawing salary as a steno-typist. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the undisputed record, converted the petition into an appeal, and accepted it. The Court held that an employee nationalized under the martial law regulation is entitled to the pay scale corresponding to their actual established post. The Court laid down that where records confirm employment in a specific capacity such as a steno-typist, the employee must be granted the pay scale applicable to that post, notwithstanding the rejection of a higher claim.
Questions settled- Whether an employee nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 is entitled to the pay scale of the post established by institutional records?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition into an appeal when the record undisputedly establishes entitlement to a specific pay scale?
- MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN SIDDIQUI vs Syed RAUNAQ RAZA, DIRECTOR1982 PLC 793 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAGHIR KHAN vs HIRALAL AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAGHIR KHAN vs HIRALAL AND OTHER1982 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs MEMBER. BOARD OF REVENUE1982 CLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs ANJUMAN JAMIA HANFIA (REGD.) AL MINAR MOSQUE1982 PLD Lahore 657 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN vs RETURNING OFFICER, KARACHI MUNICIPAL1982 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED JEHANGIR- vs MRS. SANJIDA BANO AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AND Another vs SHAUKAT ALI1982 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition filed against an order of the High Court dated 2-4-1980 passed in Writ Petition No. 949-R/79, which had remanded a case for fresh decision. The primary legal question addressed by the court is whether the petition, having been filed 36 days beyond the period of limitation, can be entertained after condoning the delay based on the time spent obtaining copies and the grounds presented in the application. The Supreme Court held that the petition is barred by time, observing that even if the entire time spent in obtaining the relevant copies is excluded, the petition remains time-barred, and the application fails to satisfactorily explain each day of the delay as required by law. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that an applicant seeking condonation of delay must satisfactorily explain each and every day of the delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether a petition filed beyond the period of limitation can be entertained without explaining each day of the delay?
- Does the time spent in obtaining relevant copies automatically extend the period of limitation if the petition remains barred even after excluding such time?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND Other1982 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondents accused of murdering the petitioner's nephew, Ashiq Hussain. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail in a murder case where the First Information Report alleged the victim was caught committing adultery with the first respondent's wife inside the respondents' house. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail was justified given the circumstances disclosed in the First Information Report, declining to interfere with the impugned order. The key principle laid down is that observations made in a bail order are strictly of a tentative nature and shall not prejudice the trial court, which must independently decide the case based on the evidence presented before it.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretion of the High Court in granting post-arrest bail when the First Information Report discloses mitigating circumstances?
- Do observations made by a superior court in a bail order affect the merits of the case during the trial before the Sessions Court?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs IRSHAD BEGUM, AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs IRSHAD BEGUM AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs AZIZ JAN1982 CLC 726 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND ANOTHER vs Mst. GHULAM SAKINA AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal addressed the validity of a gift of land made by a widow holding a limited estate as an occupancy tenant and whether the conversion of occupancy rights into proprietary rights under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 enlarged her powers of alienation. The core legal questions involved whether the parties were governed by custom regarding succession and alienation, whether the acquisition of proprietary rights freed the widow from prior limitations, and whether reversioners had the locus standi to challenge the alienation. The Supreme Court held that the last male holder was governed by custom, that the widow remained a limited owner whose estate did not enlarge into an absolute estate with unrestricted powers of alienation upon the conversion of the tenancy, and that potential heirs possessed the right to challenge invalid alienations. The Court established that the statutory conversion of an occupancy tenancy into proprietorship does not abolish the traditional limitations on a widow's life estate or her husband's reversionary incidents until succession opens under the law.
Questions settled- Whether a widow holding an occupancy tenancy as a limited owner acquires unrestricted powers of alienation upon the conversion of the tenancy into proprietary rights under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887?
- Do potential heirs and reversioners have the locus standi to challenge an alienation made by a limited owner of an occupancy holding?
- Does the statutory conversion of an occupancy tenancy into proprietorship extinguish the pre-existing limitations on a widow's life estate?
- MUHAMMAD SABIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 579 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RANIZAN vs ABDUL RAZZAQ1982 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, ETC. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 20 OTHERS1982 CLC 992(2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, ETC. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 20 OTHER1982 CLC 992(2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MESSRS ASPRO-NICHOLAS (PAK.) LTD,.1982 PLC 61 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Hafiz ABDULLAH AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Hafiz ABDULLAH AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND Other1982 SCMR 987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against concurrent findings of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings regarding the tenant's default in rent payment and the landlord's personal need for the property warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case was concluded by findings of fact. The Court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of legal principles that would justify the Supreme Court's intervention in factual controversies. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters where no error of law or misreading of evidence is established by the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default and personal need in rent control matters?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable where no violation of legal principles is demonstrated?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND Another1982 PLD Lahore 75 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ALLAH DITTA AND Other1982 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the complainant arises from an order of the High Court dismissing his second revision petition against the acquittal of the respondents, after his first revision petition had been dismissed in default for non-appearance. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court were whether a criminal revision petition can be dismissed in default without a decision on merits, and whether such a dismissed petition can subsequently be restored and re-heard by the High Court under its inherent powers. The Court held that while the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain an express provision for dismissing a criminal revision petition in default, courts possess the inherent power and justification to do so to prevent the abuse of process. Furthermore, the Court held that an order dismissing a revision in default is not a judgment within the meaning of section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and therefore the High Court has the inherent power under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore and re-hear such a petition in appropriate and deserving cases where sufficient cause is shown. However, since the appellant failed to provide any explanation for his absence or for the inordinate delay of over a year in filing the subsequent petition, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal revision petition can be dismissed in default without being decided on merits?
- Can a criminal revision petition dismissed in default be restored and re-heard by the High Court?
- Does section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from recalling or reviewing an order dismissing a revision petition in default?
- Can the inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to restore a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ABDUL RAZZAQ1982 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Alias JANI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to imprisonment along with confiscation of property, filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court where his sentence was suspended for bail. Subsequently, he filed a miscellaneous application seeking suspension of the conviction itself to secure reinstatement in service. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the taint of conviction remains until the appeal is accepted and acquittal is granted. The core legal question was whether suspension of a sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure automatically entitles a convicted public servant to suspension of conviction and reinstatement in service. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the mere suspension of a sentence does not set aside the conviction or automatically entitle a convicted person to reinstatement in service, and the proper remedy is to seek an early hearing of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the suspension of a sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically result in the suspension of the conviction?
- Is a convicted government servant entitled to reinstatement in service merely because his sentence has been suspended pending appeal?
- Does the taint of a criminal conviction continue to exist until the appeal against it is accepted and the accused is acquitted?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs AHMAD YAR.AND Another1982 PLD Lahore 825 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal arose from a Constitutional petition where the learned Single Judge directed the police to register a criminal case on the application of respondent No. 1. The respondent asserted that he had not divorced his wife, that a purported notice of Talaq was forged, and that the appellant was living in sin (zina) with his wife under a false pretense of marriage. The appellant contended that a prior F.I.R. regarding the wife's abduction had already been registered, and that civil suits for jactitation of marriage and perpetual injunction were pending, which should bar the registration of a new criminal case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the earlier F.I.R. related to an entirely different transaction and was not a counter-version of the same incident. Furthermore, the court ruled that the subsequent filing of civil suits does not prevent the registration and investigation of a cognizable criminal offense where the machinery of criminal law was set in motion first. The court declined to interfere with the ongoing police investigation.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a civil suit for jactitation of marriage bar the registration or investigation of a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and zina?
- Can a second F.I.R. be registered if the earlier registered F.I.R. relates to an entirely different transaction and incident?
- What is the legal effect of failing to give a notice of divorce to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs The STATE1982 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the judgment of the High Court which maintained the conviction of the petitioner for murder while acquitting a co-accused. The petitioner and his co-accused were tried for murder, where the trial court convicted both based on eye-witness testimony, motive, and a dying declaration, sentencing the petitioner to death. On appeal, the High Court discarded the eye-witnesses and the first dying declaration, but relied partially on a second dying declaration to uphold the petitioner's conviction while reducing his sentence to imprisonment for life, and acquitted the co-accused by disbelieving the remaining portion of that same dying declaration. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in splitting a single dying declaration to convict one accused without corroborative evidence while acquitting the co-accused based on the disbelieved portion. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine this question.
Questions settled- Whether a court is justified in relying on a portion of a dying declaration to convict an accused while discarding the remaining portion regarding a co-accused?
- Is independent corroboration required when a conviction is based solely on a portion of a dying declaration?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND 2 Others vs BORDER AREA COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QASIM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD PAERAL vs Mst. KHURSHID UN NISA BEGUM Alias KHURSHID NISA1982 CLC 195 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD OZAIR QURESHI vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION1982 PLC 17 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SCHOOLS), SARGODHA DIVISION1982 PLC (C. S.) 252 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER JAUHARABAD AND 21982 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a former Forest Guard against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld his dismissal from service. The petitioner was dismissed following departmental proceedings for a flagrant breach of discipline after failing to participate in the inquiry or respond to show-cause notices. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that he was denied a fair hearing and proper notice of adjourned inquiry dates due to severe illness. The Punjab Service Tribunal had recorded evidence and found that the petitioner intentionally evaded notice, fabricated pleas of illness, and moved between locations to submit medical certificates to avoid proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal were supported by the material on record and raised no question of law of public importance. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings under Article 212(3) and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with pure findings of fact recorded by a Service Tribunal?
- Does purposeful evasion of departmental inquiry notices by a civil servant invalidate an order of dismissal passed following ex-parte proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ IQBAL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER ,1982 PLC (C. S.) 87 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND ANOTHER vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1382-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the decision of the Sind Labour Court and upheld the dismissal of the petitioners from service. The petitioners, who were municipal employees working at a Fire Brigade station, had been convicted upon their own plea of guilty under the Gambling Ordinance for gambling at their place of duty. Following their conviction, they were issued a show-cause notice and subsequently dismissed from service by the respondent corporation. The core legal question was whether their conviction for gambling constituted misconduct under the applicable legal framework and whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the specific statutory service rules of the corporation governed the matter, particularly regarding the requirement of a formal inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that statutory corporations having their own service rules are exempted from the purview of the Standing Orders Ordinance where inconsistent, and that the petitioners' conduct fell within the definition of misconduct under the Sind People's Local Council Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised to protect employees who engaged in anti-social acts like gambling at their place of duty. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether conviction for gambling at the place of duty constitutes misconduct under the applicable service rules?
- Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to an establishment that has its own statutory rules of service and discipline?
- Can a competent authority dispense with a formal inquiry under the Sind People's Local Council Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974 in a fit case?
- Will the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant relief to municipal employees dismissed after being convicted of gambling on duty?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR) vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE1982 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Services Tribunal, Islamabad, which held that an appeal filed by a civil servant regarding pay fixation and salary recovery abated upon the death of the appellant. The deceased appellant had sought to challenge the reduction of his substantive pay and the subsequent refixation of his salary upon promotion. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, ruling that the right to sue was personal to the civil servant and extinguished upon his death. The petitioners, as legal representatives, contended that the claim for recovery of emoluments constituted an inheritable right, allowing them to continue the proceedings. The Supreme Court, noting that the issue of whether such service-related proceedings abate upon the death of a civil servant is a matter of public importance and a question of first impression, granted leave to appeal to determine whether the right to sue for salary arrears survives for legal representatives.
Questions settled- Does an appeal filed by a civil servant regarding salary recovery and pay fixation abate upon the death of the appellant?
- Is the right to sue for the recovery of salary arrears inheritable by the legal representatives of a deceased civil servant?
- MUHAMMAD NASIR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY1982 PLC (C. S.) 339 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASIR vs SADIQ MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 856 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision is directed against an appellate order whereby an ex parte judgment and decree for possession and mesne profits was set aside. The core legal questions involved the legality and propriety of resorting to substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, compliance with the Sind Civil Courts Rules, and the computation of limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree tainted by lack of proper service and an element of fraud. The Sindh High Court held that the lower appellate court committed no jurisdictional error in setting aside the ex parte decree due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements for substituted service and lack of proper judicial application of mind. The Court laid down that before ordering substituted service, a court must be satisfied that the defendant is actively avoiding service, and that where an ex parte decree is obtained without proper service amounting to an element of fraud, the period of limitation of thirty days for setting aside the decree is to be computed from the date of knowledge of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a court is justified in ordering substituted service without being satisfied that the defendant was avoiding service?
- Does non-compliance with the Sind Civil Courts Rules regarding bailiff reports vitiate the legality of substituted service?
- From what point in time is the period of limitation computed for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree obtained without proper service?
- Can a revisional court interfere with a well-reasoned appellate order setting aside an ex parte decree when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
- MUHAMMAD NASEEM vs The STATE1982 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant bail to an accused charged under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, having been in custody for over four months, sought bail on the grounds of the ordinary nature of the offense and a plea of continuous insanity. The Supreme Court rejected the argument regarding the ordinary nature of the offense, noting that the petitioner had disentitled himself to discretionary relief by attempting to defraud the Sessions Court during earlier bail proceedings. However, regarding the plea of insanity, the Court held that the lower courts had failed to properly conclude the inquiry required under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that when a plea of insanity is raised with supporting material, it is in the public interest for the court to examine it. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application specifically invoking the provisions of Section 466, Cr. P. C. for the court to determine whether to release the accused on security or order detention.
Questions settled- Does an attempt to defraud the court regarding bail history disentitle an accused to discretionary relief on the merits?
- Is it in the public interest for a court to examine a plea of insanity when raised with supporting material during bail proceedings?
- Can an accused person raise a plea of insanity under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even after a previous bail application was withdrawn?
- MUHAMMAD NASEEM vs AZMAT KHAN1982 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal need concerning a house in Rawalpindi. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision. On a constitutional petition, the Lahore High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the eviction order, holding that the landlord's former house was in Islamabad rather than the urban area of Rawalpindi, and that residing in a relative's house not owned by the landlord does not bar a claim for personal need under the relevant rent restriction law. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's view, finding no legal infirmity in the reasoning. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition while granting the petitioner two months to vacate upon certain conditions.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord residing in a house owned by another person, such as their mother, is barred from seeking the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal need?
- Does owning a house in Islamabad preclude a landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from a property situated in the urban area of Rawalpindi under rent restriction laws?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a landlord's bona fide personal requirement based on the duration of previous displacement by a development authority?
- MUHAMMAD NAJEEB AKBAR vs IQBALUL HAQUE AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS1982 PLC 354 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD ABDUS SALAM1982 CLC 2134 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUQEEM AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL AND OTHERS1982 PLC 712 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ AND Others vs GHULAM HASSAN SHAH AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2292 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR vs JAN-E-ALAM1982 CLC 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR vs JAN E ALAM1982 CLC 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MOHSIN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court which dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of two allegedly inimical eye-witnesses whose presence at the spot was disputed. The Supreme Court held that the case warranted a re-examination of the evidence regarding the reliability and lack of corroboration of the eye-witness testimony. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions in detail.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of inimical eye-witnesses whose presence is disputed?
- Does the absence of corroborative evidence for eye-witness accounts warrant a re-examination of the evidence by the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal?
- MUHAMMAD MOHSIN vs Haji AKHTAR HUSSAIN1982 CLC 419 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MOHSAN Alias MOHSIN ALI vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 648 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MOBIN SIDDIQUI vs Mst. SHAHZADI BEGUM AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing the petitioner's second appeal in a rent case. The core legal question was whether a person, whose claim to be a tenant was rejected by the Rent Controller via a preliminary issue, retained the locus standi to appeal against the final ejectment order passed against the original tenant. The Rent Controller had previously determined that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent landlady. The petitioner failed to appeal this preliminary finding, which effectively removed him as a party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having failed to challenge the adverse preliminary order, ceased to be a party to the ejectment case and therefore lacked the standing to appeal the subsequent final ejectment order. The Court affirmed that an interlocutory order deciding a fundamental issue of status, such as the existence of a tenancy, must be challenged immediately if it effectively terminates a party's involvement in the proceedings, rather than waiting for the final judgment.
Questions settled- Does a person whose claim of tenancy is rejected in a preliminary finding by a Rent Controller retain the right to appeal the final ejectment order?
- Is an order deciding a preliminary issue of the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship considered a final order for the party against whom it is decided?
- Can a party who has been effectively removed from proceedings by a preliminary order challenge the final judgment in the case?
- MUHAMMAD MEHDI vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND OTHER1982 CLC 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MEHDI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA vs MUHAMMAD DIN1982 CLC 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs QAMAR UN NISA AND Other1982 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to stay the execution of a maintenance order while admitting a writ petition for regular hearing. The petitioner, the father of the respondent, challenged previous orders that had enhanced the respondent's maintenance allowance from Rs. 50 to Rs. 150 per month, despite the respondent having attained majority and choosing to reside separately. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its discretion by refusing to grant a stay of execution regarding the maintenance order during the pendency of the writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's refusal to grant a stay was a discretionary order. The Court reasoned that such interim orders are subject to final determination upon the ultimate disposal of the writ petition, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal impropriety in the High Court's exercise of its discretion to deny the stay of execution pending the final adjudication of the underlying writ proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a High Court's refusal to grant a stay of execution on a maintenance order during the pendency of a writ petition a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Can a maintenance order be challenged on the grounds that the beneficiary has attained majority and resides separately?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 255 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs COLLECTOR, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 109 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs ASSISTANT INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE1982 PLC (C. S). 102 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF AND 7 Others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 490 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF Alias TEEFA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 862 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MALI AND 14 OTHER1982 CLC 639 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE1982P Cr. L J 129 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-06Read full judgment →