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 NAWAZ SHAH vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, SE1AHER SULTAN1981 PLC (C. S.) 884 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ETC. vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application arose from a case registered against the petitioners and co-accused under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a land possession dispute resulting in the fatal shooting of a woman and injuries to eyewitnesses. The core legal question was whether accused persons who did not fire the fatal shot and only caused simple injuries to witnesses should be granted bail on the ground that vicarious liability requires further inquiry. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application for petitioners Muhammad Yaqoob and Dost Muhammad, holding that the question of vicarious liability and common intention to commit murder should not be deeply evaluated at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that where the specific role attributed to an accused involves causing simple injuries without firing at the deceased, the application of vicarious liability remains a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the question of vicarious liability should be deeply examined at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Can an accused accused of causing simple injuries be admitted to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of further inquiry into common intention?
- Whether active participation resulting only in simple injuries to prosecution witnesses brings an accused's case within the scope of further inquiry during murder proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAB AND Another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND 11 Other1981 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASARULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ KHAN AND Another1981 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a trial court could pass a conditional decree in a pre-emption suit requiring the plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court fees, with the consequence that failure to do so would result in the automatic dismissal of the plaint. The petitioner argued that such a conditional order was improper. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the trial court acted within its authority to pass a conditional order requiring the payment of court fees. The Court affirmed that the failure to make up the deficiency in court fees, despite the deposit of pre-emption money, justified the dismissal of the suit. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural requirements regarding court fees must be strictly complied with and that trial courts possess the discretion to impose conditional orders to ensure such compliance.
Questions settled- Can a trial court pass a conditional decree in a pre-emption suit requiring the payment of court fees under penalty of dismissal?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to an extension of time to make up a deficiency in court fees if no sufficient cause is shown?
- Does the failure to make up a deficiency in court fees justify the dismissal of a pre-emption suit?
- MUHAMMAD NASAR vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Muhammad Arshad. The respondent was accused of involvement in a murder case registered under Section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically for allegedly holding the deceased to facilitate the infliction of fatal injuries by co-accused. The core legal question was whether the respondent's alleged vicarious liability warranted the cancellation of his bail. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts exercised their discretionary jurisdiction appropriately in granting bail. The Court found no factual or legal error in the High Court's refusal to cancel the bail, noting that the lower courts had considered the specific circumstances and the nature of the allegations. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the High Court did not violate any legal principles applicable to criminal cases of this nature in maintaining the respondent's release on bail.
Questions settled- Does the allegation of holding a deceased person to facilitate an attack by co-accused automatically necessitate the cancellation of bail?
- Is the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by lower courts in granting bail subject to interference by the Supreme Court absent a legal or factual error?
- MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA AND Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased during a dispute over rented premises. The core legal question was whether the appellants shared a common intention with the principal accused, who inflicted the fatal knife wounds, thereby attracting constructive liability under Section 34. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a pre-concert or shared intention to kill. Evidence indicated that the appellants' initial involvement was limited to a scuffle following a heated argument, and the deceased was able to escape their grasp before being fatally attacked by the principal accused alone. The Court held that the act of killing was an independent act of the principal accused, not a product of common intention. Consequently, the Court set aside the murder convictions, altering them to convictions under Section 352/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for assault, and sentenced the appellants to the period of imprisonment already served. The principle laid down is that constructive liability under Section 34 requires proof of an overt act demonstrating pre-concert or active cooperation in the specific offence charged.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime and participation in a preliminary scuffle automatically establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused be held constructively liable for murder under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the fatal act was an independent action of the principal offender?
- Is it necessary to prove an overt act or pre-concert to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- MUHAMMAD MUNSHI vs SHAHAMAND1981 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1981 CLC 632 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs AHMAD ALLY MEMON AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 414 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR QURESHI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD , .1981 PLC 557 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUJIBUR RAHMAN SIDDIQUI vs ABDUL BARI AND 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 537 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil second appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlord against the tenant regarding a residential premises in Nazimabad, Karachi. The core legal questions involved the determination of bona fide personal use by the landlord and the alleged subletting of the premises by the tenant. The Sindh High Court held that an unchallenged assertion on oath by a landlord regarding personal requirement, consistent with the ejectment application and unshakeable in cross-examination, must be accepted as bona fide, even if an unauthorized construction had been raised on the property due to pressing accommodation needs. Furthermore, findings of fact regarding personal requirement and subletting arrived at by the first appellate court cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be based on no evidence or perverse. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an unchallenged assertion on oath by a landlord regarding personal requirement is sufficient to establish bona fide need?
- Does an unauthorized construction raised on the property negate the landlord's plea of bona fide personal requirement?
- Can a finding of fact regarding personal requirement and subletting arrived at by the first appellate court be interfered with in second appeal?
- MUHAMMAD MASUD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 815 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL RANA AND 2 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, .(1981 PLC (C. S.) 789 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AND 7 OTHERS vs DELLINGHAM NATIONAL1981 PLC 242 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE ,1981 PLC (C.S.) 863 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-08-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 317 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, AND Other1981 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a plot of land adjacent to a house previously transferred to the respondent, Faqir Muhammad. The petitioner, Muhammad Latif, sought to overturn a Settlement Commissioner's order that had dismissed his claim to the plot, arguing that he was not bound by a prior High Court judgment in the respondent's favor because he was not a party to that specific litigation. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Department could legally transfer the plot to the petitioner after a High Court judgment had already declared the plot to be part of the respondent's property. The Supreme Court held that the Department was bound by the High Court's earlier judgment, which had declared the plot to be part of the respondent's house. Consequently, the Department lacked the authority to enter into a subsequent transaction with the petitioner. The Court affirmed that the petitioner could not bypass the binding nature of the High Court's prior adjudication, leading to the dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Settlement Department transfer property that has already been declared part of another person's property by a High Court judgment?
- Is a government department bound by a High Court judgment to which it was a party, even if a third-party claimant was not?
- Does a subsequent purchaser of property have a valid claim if the property was already subject to a prior judicial determination of ownership?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs MAHMIJD ALI1981 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order against a tenant, where the petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his second appeal. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller erred in refusing to summon the landlord for signature comparison regarding an alleged agreement to sell, and whether the courts improperly relied on evidence from a preliminary issue concerning the landlord-tenant relationship to decide subsequent issues of default and personal need. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim of possession under an agreement to sell had already been conclusively decided against him in the preliminary stage, rendering the attempt to re-litigate the issue impermissible. Furthermore, the Court held that there is no legal prohibition against a Rent Controller considering evidence previously recorded in the same proceedings, regardless of whether it pertained to preliminary or subsequent issues. The Court affirmed that once the relationship of landlord and tenant is established, the tenant cannot re-open the controversy by attempting to introduce evidence previously failed to be proved. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a tenant re-litigate the issue of possession under an agreement to sell after a final finding has been made that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists?
- Is a Rent Controller prohibited from relying on evidence recorded during a preliminary issue when deciding subsequent issues in the same proceedings?
- Does the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply where the possession has already been judicially determined to be that of a tenant?
- MUHAMMAD LATIF vs Hakim NISAR AHMED AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHURSHID vs The STATE1981 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and two-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the offence of bribery under Section 165-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner offered a bribe of Rs. 250 to an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to induce him to arrest an opponent of the petitioner's relative and to assist in a pending investigation. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming false implication by the police at the behest of his enemies. Both the trial court and the High Court found the evidence against the petitioner credible and consistent. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's contentions regarding evidentiary discrepancies and the alleged lack of motive for the bribe. Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence, and seeing no grounds to interfere with the sentence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence in a bribery case?
- Does the offer of a bribe to a public servant to influence an investigation constitute an offence under Section 165-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ABDUL KHALIQ KHAN1981 PLD Supreme Court 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns eight civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits filed by tenants against a joint sale of agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the sale was divisible, thereby allowing a suit against only one co-vendee, and whether the limitation period for such suits is governed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 or the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the sale was indivisible because the specific price contribution of each vendee was not indicated in the mutation, rendering the suit defective for non-joinder of a necessary party. Furthermore, the Court held that the right of pre-emption exercised by tenants under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 is essentially a right originating from the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913; therefore, the limitation period prescribed by Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 applies. The principle laid down is that where a sale is joint and indivisible, failure to implead all necessary parties within the statutory limitation period is fatal to the suit, and the limitation period for pre-emption suits by tenants is governed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913.
Questions settled- Is a sale of land by multiple vendees considered divisible if the mutation does not specify the separate price contribution of each vendee?
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit filed by a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 fall under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 or the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a pre-emption suit proceed if a necessary co-vendee is not impleaded within the period of limitation?
- Does the failure to implead a necessary party in a pre-emption suit result in the dismissal of the entire suit?
- MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs ZIR MIR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 129 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The original vendors (petitioners) sold land to a vendee, who subsequently transferred it to a third party, and finally, the land was re-sold back to the original vendors. The pre-emptor, claiming a superior right of pre-emption, filed a suit against the original sale. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptor. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit can be defeated if the property is re-sold to the original vendor. The Court held that the right of pre-emption cannot be defeated by a re-sale of the property back to the original vendor. The Court reasoned that the ultimate transfer of the land to the original vendors did not extinguish the pre-emptor's valid claim against the original and subsequent vendees. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, affirming that the pre-emptor's right remained intact despite the subsequent re-transfer to the vendors.
Questions settled- Can a right of pre-emption be defeated by the re-sale of the property to the original vendor?
- Does a re-sale of the subject property to the original vendor extinguish a pre-emptor's claim?
- MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 Others vs ABDUL MAJID AND 2 Other1981 SCMR923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court dated 14th December, 1977, which dismissed an application to recall an earlier ex parte order vacating a status quo order obtained by the appellants. The appellants sought the recall on the ground that the ex parte vacation order was obtained through misrepresentation and that their counsel had missed the previous hearing due to a genuine illness involving an eyesore. The High Court's order failed to make any mention of this illness. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that this omission constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, requiring the matter to be remanded to the High Court. The appeal was accordingly accepted, and the case remanded to the High Court for a fresh disposal after considering the counsel's illness.
Questions settled- What is the effect of the High Court failing to notice the genuine illness of a counsel when considering an application to recall an ex parte order?
- Does an omission of a material fact like counsel's illness on the face of the High Court order warrant a remand of the case for fresh disposal?
- MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 497 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL1981 PLC (C. S.) 460 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KAMAL vs WAPDA ,1981 PLC 461 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHER, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 721 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL AKHTAR vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, SOCIAL WELFARE, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 672 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1981 CLC 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAFFAR LEGHARI AND Others vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND1981 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission directing the resumption of land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal questions involve whether the Chairman was legally biased due to prior political statements against the landowners, whether the Chairman could competently exercise powers sitting singly despite an authorization naming 'Chairman and Members', and whether suo motu revisional jurisdiction could be invoked upon an application by tenants who were allegedly not aggrieved persons. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these substantial questions of law, which also arose in connected matters, and ordered that the petitioners' possession not be disturbed pending the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a Minister acting as Chairman of the Federal Land Commission can be considered legally biased after making public statements expressing hostility towards specific landowners prior to deciding their case?
- Whether the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission is competent to exercise powers sitting singly when the authorizing notification refers to the 'Chairman and Members'?
- Whether the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission can validly exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction upon an application filed by tenants who may not qualify as aggrieved persons in law?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF1981 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs HIDAYATULLAH AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a Sind High Court order that refused to cancel bail granted to respondents in an attempted murder case. The High Court had declined to cancel the bail, reasoning that doing so would constitute an impermissible review of its own previous order. The core legal question was whether a High Court is barred by the principle of review from cancelling bail it had previously granted under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its reasoning; the power to cancel bail under Section 497(5) is distinct and does not constitute a review of a judgment under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that the High Court possesses the authority to cancel bail granted by itself or subordinate courts. Despite this legal error by the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no merit in cancelling the bail due to the petitioner's own role in delaying the trial.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a bail order by the High Court under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute an impermissible review of a judgment under Section 369 of the same Code?
- Is the High Court empowered to cancel bail that it has previously granted itself?
- Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 control the exercise of power under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 361 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MEMON vs GOVERNMENT OF SEND AND Another1981 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Sind Services Tribunal dismissing a departmental service appeal filed by the petitioner against a disciplinary order imposing the penalty of stoppage of four increments. The petitioner had dispatched his appeal by post from Khipro within thirty days of receiving the final departmental order, but it was received at the Tribunal's office after the thirty-day limitation period had expired. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on grounds of improper presentation under Rule 7 of the Sind Services Tribunal (Procedure Rules) 1974 and for being time-barred under Section 4 of the Sind Services Tribunal Act 1973. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's order and dismissed the petition. The Court held that where the law or procedure rules require an act or presentation to be done in a specified manner—namely personal presentation by the appellant or counsel—it must be done in that manner and none other, making submission by post improper. Additionally, the date of actual receipt in the Tribunal's office, not the date of dispatch by post, governs the calculation of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Services Tribunal is properly instituted if submitted by post when procedural rules require personal presentation by the appellant or counsel?
- Whether the date of dispatch by post or the date of actual receipt in the Tribunal's office determines compliance with the period of limitation for filing an appeal?
- Does the failure to present an appeal in the mandatory manner prescribed by rules justify the rejection of the appeal?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND Others NIAMAT ALI AND Others vs THE PUNJAB1981 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves leave petitions concerning land disputes between petitioners claiming to be cultivating tenants and 'Mela Base evictees' seeking proprietary rights. The core legal question was whether a Provincial Cabinet decision granting proprietary rights to evictees could override previous administrative and judicial findings favoring the petitioners' status as tenants, and whether the subsequent implementation of this policy by a Minister was legally competent under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government possesses the inherent competence to formulate policy regarding State land and to confer rights upon specific classes of persons, regardless of prior contrary administrative or judicial findings, provided the authority is competent. The Court further held that the executive authority of the province, exercised through the Chief Minister and Provincial Ministers, allows for policy implementation by Ministers under the Rules of Business. The principle laid down is that the Government is not estopped from changing its policy regarding the allotment of State land, and that a Minister, acting within the scope of their department, is competent to implement such policy decisions.
Questions settled- Can a Provincial Government policy decision regarding the allotment of State land override previous administrative or judicial findings favoring existing tenants?
- Does a Provincial Minister have the authority to implement policy decisions regarding State land under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the Provincial Government estopped from conferring proprietary rights on a class of persons simply because a previous administrative decision held them ineligible?
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD F SC 278 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs MESSRS SOIL MECHANICS LTD.1981 PLC 150 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs ABID HUSSAIN AND Other1981 SCMR 1260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondent in a murder case, primarily on the finding that the respondent was under 16 years of age. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that the respondent was actually over 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence and submitting documentary evidence, including a birth entry, to contradict the affidavit previously relied upon by the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the material now presented by the petitioner was not available to the High Court at the time of the initial bail order, partly because the complainant was not represented during those proceedings. Consequently, the Court declined to adjudicate the factual dispute regarding the respondent's age directly. Instead, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with the direction that the petitioner may approach the High Court for the cancellation of bail, where all new evidence and grounds may be properly urged and considered in the first instance.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner seek cancellation of bail in the High Court based on new evidence not previously presented?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to determine a disputed question of fact regarding an accused's age in the first instance?
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN ZAFAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 203 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD AND 4 OTHERS vs SARDAR KHAN1981 CLC 124 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning a parcel of land measuring 4 kanals, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent by the lower appellate court, holding the transaction to be a sale in disguise rather than a genuine exchange. The core legal question was whether the transaction in dispute constituted a genuine exchange or a sale cloaked as an exchange to defeat the right of pre-emption. The Lahore High Court held that the transaction was indeed a genuine exchange supported by mutual delivery of possession and absence of price consideration, and that the lower appellate court's finding was based on no evidence and misreading. The court laid down the principle that while parties may lawfully structure a transaction as an exchange to evade pre-emption, a pre-emptor may challenge it by proving it is a fraudulent cloak for a sale, but findings of fact based on no evidence or misreading are vitiated and open to review in second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction purporting to be an exchange can be treated as a sale in a pre-emption suit?
- Does section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 require an equivalence of values between properties exchanged for a valid transfer?
- Can a finding of fact by a lower appellate court be interfered with in a second appeal when it is based on no evidence or misreading of the record?
- Is it lawful for parties to enter into a bona fide transaction of exchange for the purpose of evading the right of pre-emption?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MEHRAJ DIN, ETC.S1981 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's claim regarding a disputed plot. The core legal question concerned whether a portion of the auctioned property remained undisposed and available for transfer to the petitioner despite a belated application. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit because the factual plea regarding the partial auction was never raised before the Additional Settlement Commissioner nor included in the prayers of the writ petition before the High Court, and the property had already been finally disposed of in favour of the respondents via PTO and PTD long before the petitioner filed any competent form. The key principle laid down is that new factual pleas not raised before lower forums or in the constitutional petition cannot be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a new factual plea regarding a partial auction be raised for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Whether a property already transferred through a P.T.O. and P.T.D. remains available for allotment upon a belated application.
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 572 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, KARACHI1981 PLC (C. S.) 700 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 308 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 76 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE RETURNING OFFICER ETC.1981 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the election of a respondent as a Member of a Union Council but refused to declare the petitioner, who secured the next highest number of votes, as the successful candidate. The core legal question was whether votes cast for a disqualified candidate should be treated as 'thrown away' votes, thereby allowing the runner-up to be declared the winner, or whether a fresh election is required. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that votes cast for a disqualified candidate are only considered 'thrown away' if the disqualification was notorious and established at the time of the poll, leading to a reasonable inference of willful perverseness by the electors. Where disqualification depends on complex legal arguments or facts, votes are not treated as thrown away. Consequently, the Court held that the election must be held afresh rather than declaring the runner-up as the winner, dismissing the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances are votes cast for a disqualified candidate considered 'thrown away'?
- Does the disqualification of a candidate automatically result in the runner-up being declared the winner?
- Is a fresh election required when a candidate is disqualified but the disqualification was not notorious at the time of the poll?
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs AZHAR HAFEEZ SHEIKH AND 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, who was not a judgment-debtor, sought to challenge a decree obtained by the third respondent against the fourth respondent on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The core legal question was whether the term 'person' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extends to individuals other than the judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest. The Court held that the application was incompetent, ruling that the scope of Section 12(2) is strictly limited to the judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest. The Court reasoned that the provision was intended to streamline the process for judgment-debtors to challenge decrees, and allowing third parties to invoke it would facilitate abuse and cause inordinate delays in execution proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner’s proper remedy for asserting possession or title lies under Order XXI, Rules 100 and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not a judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest file an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a decree?
- Is the term 'person' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limited to the judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a third party claiming possession of property subject to execution proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD IDRIS vs Mst. SHAH JAHAN BEGUM AND Other1981 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from eviction proceedings initiated against a tenant for default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether a tenant’s failure to pay rent for over four years constituted "willful default" under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether a prior practice of irregular rent collection established a binding agreement to accept rent at long intervals. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision to set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that a tenant has a statutory obligation to pay rent, and the burden of proving an agreement to pay at long intervals rests heavily on the tenant. The Court clarified that a landlord’s mere acceptance of rent at irregular intervals does not establish a binding agreement to accept rent at such intervals. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that appellate courts may interfere with concurrent findings if the discretion exercised by lower courts is perverse or contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does the mere acceptance of rent at irregular intervals by a landlord establish a binding agreement to accept rent at long intervals?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish an agreement to pay rent at long intervals?
- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts if the discretion was exercised perversely?
- Does a failure to pay rent for a period of over four years constitute willful default in the payment of rent?
- MUHAMMAD IDRIS vs FAUJI SUGUR MILLS,1981 PLC 756 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND 21981 CLC 700 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 235 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHALID vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB ETC.1981 PLC (C. S.) 576 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 848 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE GUJRANWALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST1981 CLC 863 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND Other1981 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in a rent matter. The dispute originated when the respondent filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on the ground of default. The petitioner denied the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the respondent, despite having expressly pleaded in earlier eviction proceedings initiated by a third party that he was in fact a tenant of the respondent. The Rent Controller and appellate courts relied on his prior admission and ordered his eviction. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether a party who takes contradictory positions in successive legal proceedings is entitled to equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction or leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having blown hot and cold by adopting inconsistent stances whenever suited to him, was disentitled by his conduct from receiving discretionary relief. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party taking inconsistent and contradictory stances in successive legal proceedings is entitled to discretionary constitutional relief?
- Can a prior admission of a landlord and tenant relationship made in earlier proceedings be relied upon to order eviction in subsequent proceedings?
- Does a party's conduct of blowing hot and cold disentitle them to the grant of leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1981 SCMR 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding 94 kanals and 15 marlas of agricultural land situated at Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, originally owned by a Hindu evacuee. The petitioner claimed possession through a derivative mortgage, while the respondents received an allotment from the Chairman of the Allotment Committee of the Evacuee Property on 22-6-1964. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, leading to unsuccessful appeals before the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal questions related to whether a mortgagee of evacuee property acquires a vested right to ownership and the legal consequences of failing to disclose possession under rehabilitation laws. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, as a mortgagee, was only entitled to have a charge created in his favour and acquired no vested right in the evacuee land, particularly after failing to disclose his possession under the relevant statute. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court.
Questions settled- Does a mortgagee of evacuee property acquire a vested right of ownership in the mortgaged land?
- What is the effect of failing to disclose possession of evacuee property to the Rehabilitation Authorities under Section 3 of Act XII of 1957?
- Is a mortgagee of evacuee property entitled to anything more than a charge created in their favour?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Others1981 P Cr. L J 1077 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR ETC.S1981 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of the murder of Fazal Hussain under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the respondents based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses, motive, and recovery of weapons, which the High Court subsequently set aside. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appreciation of evidence by the High Court regarding the ocular account, chance witnesses, and medical evidence suffered from legal infirmities warranting interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the medical evidence fundamentally contradicted the eye-witnesses' version of how the attack occurred and that the alleged eye-witnesses were in fact chance and interested witnesses who had not actually seen the incident. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is irreconcilable with the physical and medical evidence, and where eye-witnesses are shown to be unreliable chance witnesses, an acquittal order by the appellate court will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the ocular testimony is contradicted by the medical evidence?
- Can a witness who fails to explain their presence at the crime scene be classified as a reliable eye-witness?
- Whether the presence of specific injuries on a deceased person's body can disprove the prosecution's sequence of events regarding how the attack took place?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. , , (a)1981 PLC 203 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN PATEL vs HABIB WALT MUHAMMAD, ETC.PLD 1981 Supreme Court I · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves four civil appeals directed against a consolidated judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed second appeals filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the expression 'rent due' under section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Ordinance includes water and conservancy charges agreed upon in the rent deed, making non-payment a default warranting ejectment. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a statutory definition in the Rent Ordinance, recourse must be had to the general law, specifically section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under which anything a tenant agrees to render in consideration of property enjoyment constitutes rent. The Court ruled that 'rent due' encompasses all contractual monetary obligations agreed to be paid to the landlord, including agreed taxes and conservancy charges. Consequently, the tenants' failure to pay these charges constituted a default in the payment of rent due, and the appeals were accepted, restoring the order of ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'rent due' appearing in section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 includes water and conservancy charges agreed to be paid by a tenant?
- Does the definition of 'rent' under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 apply for interpreting 'rent due' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Whether the failure to pay agreed conservancy charges and taxes constitutes a default in the payment of rent rendering the tenant liable to ejectment?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN vs SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 368 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 73 OTHERS vs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY /1981 PLC 289 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 293 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN KHAN AND OTHERS vs Mirza ABDUL HAMID1981 SCMR 799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the striking off of the petitioners' defence in an ejectment application under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the petitioners committed a wilful default in depositing rent pursuant to the Rent Controller's order and whether a specific issue regarding wilful default needed to be framed. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's order was clear and unambiguous, that the failure to deposit rent by the stipulated date constituted a default, and that the explanation tendered by the petitioners was untenable, rendering the default wilful. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that provisions of section 13(6) of the Ordinance are mandatory and attract the prescribed penalty unless non-compliance is shown to be due to causes beyond the tenant's control or unavoidable circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, are mandatory?
- Does a failure to deposit rent by the stipulated date attract the penalty of striking off defence under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is it necessary to frame a specific issue on the question of whether a default in depositing rent was wilful when the rent order is clear and unambiguous?
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN AMD 3 OTHERS vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1015 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 229 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 95 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MESSRS HYDRI INDUSTRIES LTD., HYDERABAD1981 PLC 825 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs BOTANIST, OILSEEDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 459 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF NIAZI vs DIRECTOR OF FOOD, SIND AND 2 OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 628 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs MESSRS SHAH NAWAZ LTD., KARACHI , .1981 PLC 511 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAMZA AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1981 SCMR 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging an order concerning the land allotment of Muhammad Bakhsh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondents, originally made in 1954. The core legal question is whether certain land could be treated as evacuee property and whether the Provincial Government had the power to declare it as such. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Punjab Government lacked the authority to declare any property as evacuee property, as such a power exclusively vested in the Custodian. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming the High Court's view that the ownership of the land continued to vest in the Provincial Government while only the occupancy rights pertained to the evacuee interest. The key principle laid down is that the Provincial Government cannot unilaterally declare property to be evacuee property without a determination by the Custodian.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Government has the power to declare a property to be evacuee property?
- Does an evacuee interest confined to occupancy rights vest ownership in the beneficiary?
- Can a notification by the Provincial Government override the statutory requirement for declaring evacuee property?
- MUHAMMAD HAIDER vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION , . (a) Industrial1981 PLC 235 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), SARGODHA1981 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petitions by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld revenue court decisions finding him to be a tenant and ordering his ejectment and a money decree. The petitioner's maternal grandfather had gifted agricultural land via registered deeds to another grandson, whose successor subsequently initiated revenue proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the revenue court should have stayed proceedings pending a civil suit challenging the gift deed, and that the mandatory sixty-day timeline under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 was violated. The Supreme Court held that the revenue court possessed exclusive jurisdiction over tenancy matters under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, and the mere raising of a question of title did not oust that jurisdiction or necessitate staying the revenue proceedings. Furthermore, the timeline objection could not be raised for the first time in a constitutional petition without prior rectification attempts. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the mere raising of a question of title in a pending civil suit oust the jurisdiction of a revenue court in a tenancy matter?
- Must revenue court proceedings be kept in abeyance until a civil suit concerning the underlying property title is finally decided?
- Can an objection regarding the violation of a statutory timeline for deciding an ejectment suit be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ KHAN vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAHORE AND Other1981 SCMR 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine. The petitioner, a former employee of the Lahore Development Authority whose services were terminated, had previously challenged his removal through a writ petition. That earlier petition was disposed of on the basis of a consent order wherein the Lahore Development Authority agreed to give the petitioner a fresh appointment with compatible emoluments, and both the petitioner and his counsel consented to the arrangement in court. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to set aside the consent order and filed fresh writ petitions alleging lack of consent and breach of the undertaking. The core legal question revolves around whether a party can resile from a valid consent order and whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge the same. The Supreme Court held that the consent order was passed with the free consent of the petitioner and his counsel, and the petitioner's subsequent attempt to resile from it was untenable. The Court laid down that a party cannot unilaterally resile from a lawful consent order duly accepted in court by the party and their counsel, and dismissed the petition as frivolous.
Questions settled- Whether a party can subsequently resile from a consent order passed by the court with the mutual consent of the parties and their counsel?
- Is a writ petition maintainable to challenge a lawful consent order previously accepted by the petitioner in court?
- Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition in limine when the petitioner attempts to resile from a binding commitment made in judicial proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ AND 4 OTHERS vs ABDUL RASHID KHAN1981 CLC 796 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HABIB ASGHAR vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 774 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GULZAR vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAP AND 3 Other1981 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges the acquittal of respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The core legal question concerns the legality of a trial judge disposing of a criminal case by relying on evidence and reasons recorded in a separate cross-case rather than discussing the evidence on record independently. The Supreme Court held that deciding a case on the basis of testimony appearing in a cross-case is entirely illegal, not permissible under the law, and vitiates the judgment, with the defect being incurable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further affirmed the High Court's discretion refusing to order a retrial under the circumstances and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that each cross-case must be decided independently on its own evidence, and a trial judgment relying upon evidence from another case stands vitiated.
Questions settled- Is it legally permissible for a trial judge to decide a criminal case based on evidence and reasons recorded in a separate cross-case?
- Does a judgment that relies on testimony from a cross-case stand vitiated by an illegality?
- Is the illegality of basing a judgment on evidence from a cross-case curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances may an appellate court decline to order a retrial after setting aside a vitiated judgment?
- MUHAMMAD FIAZ AND 3 OTHERS vs MOMS FARHAN SILK INDUSTRIES, KARACHI ,1981 PLC 634 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FEROZ KHAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_COLLECTOR, LODHRAN AND ANOTHER,1981 PLC (C. S.) 497 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs ASHFAQ BROTHERS, KARACHI1981 CLC 1519 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sukkur, granting an interim injunction in favour of the respondents under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the infringement of a trade mark, passing off, and damages under Sections 20(2) and 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1940. The core legal question involves determining whether the appellants' trade mark and get-up are deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered trade mark of the respondents so as to mislead unwary purchasers, despite differences in certain words and numerals. The Sindh High Court held that a close examination of the competing labels revealed striking similarities in size, colour scheme, design, printing, and layout, going far beyond mere differences in numerals or words, thereby establishing a strong prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction. The court affirmed the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that where an overall visual and structural comparison of trade mark labels demonstrates substantial resemblance in get-up, colour scheme, and layout capable of deceiving unwary purchasers, temporary injunction against infringement and passing off is rightly granted.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction can be granted in a trade mark infringement suit when competing labels share identical colour schemes, designs, and layouts despite differences in words and numerals?
- Does a strong prima facie case of passing off arise when the overall get-up and visual presentation of a defendant's trade mark label closely resembles that of the registered proprietor?
- Are minor variations in numerals and brand names sufficient to negative consumer deception where the cumulative visual impression of the trade mark labels indicates confusing similarity?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1981. SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the eviction of the petitioner from a shop in Lahore ordered by three lower courts on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the respondent landlord's personal bona fide requirement for business. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner's refusal to attorn to the respondent after a partition among co-owners constituted wilful default and whether the plea of collusion regarding the partition was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner committed wilful default by failing to pay rent to the respondent despite being directed to do so by the co-owners, that the concurrent findings of fact regarding partition and default cannot be disturbed, and that the respondent's personal requirement for the shop is established. The Court laid down that a tenant who persists in denying the landlord's title after partition among co-owners is liable to eviction for wilful default, and that concurrent factual findings on partition and personal need supported by evidence will be maintained.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's refusal to pay rent to the transferee or partition-holder after a partition among co-owners amount to wilful default?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the partition of property and tenant default be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a tenant liable to eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement when the landlord proves he has no other suitable shop?
- MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND Another vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1981 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning the disputed transfer of an evacuee house in Kharian. The core legal question involved whether the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court correctly evaluated concurrent findings and the necessity of documentary evidence under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, as well as whether an auction-purchaser of an adjacent plot held title to the disputed house. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner acted within his lawful discretion in setting aside the transfer of the house to Sufi Muhammad Karim due to a lack of supporting documentary evidence upon remand, and that the auction-purchaser, Muhammad Fazil, had no valid claim over the house as it formed no part of his auctioned plot. The Court affirmed the dismissal of both writ petitions, establishing the principle that superior tribunals and constitutional courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence and falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Department.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner interfere with the orders of subordinate tribunals when those tribunals act contrary to previous remand directions?
- Does the purchase of an evacuee plot at an auction confer title over a separate neighboring house structure?
- Is a formal separate notice required for the cancellation of a property transfer when the affected party has already been given a full opportunity of being heard?
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AWAN vs MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI , ,1981 PLC 29 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FARID vs DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, PAKISTAN1981 PLC 739 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ETC vs ALLAH DITTA1981 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a declaratory suit filed by the appellants regarding land ownership, following an earlier declaratory decree and subsequent revenue authority orders mutating only specified khasra numbers. The trial court had directed the appellants to provide complete descriptions of the property under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Upon their repeated failure to comply, the trial court dismissed the suit, invoking Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court evaluated whether the dismissal order was appealable, whether the appeal was barred by time and court-fee deficiencies, and the merits of the dismissal.
The High Court held that the dismissal was an exercise of the court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rather than Order XVII Rule 3, making it non-appealable. Additionally, the appeal was time-barred as the application for the decree copy was made after limitation expired, delay was unexplained, and the memorandum was insufficiently stamped without timely deficiency make-up under Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is an order dismissing a suit for non-compliance with court directions to provide property descriptions under Order VII Rule 3 appealable when passed under inherent powers of the court?
- Does merely citing Order XVII Rule 3 CPC change the non-appealable nature of a suit dismissal order actually passed under inherent powers or Order IX Rule 2 CPC?
- Is an appeal properly presented if the certified copy of the decree sheet is applied for after the expiration of the limitation period?
- On what date is an appeal deemed to be validly filed when the memorandum of appeal is initially insufficiently stamped?
- MUHAMMAD DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs The STATE1981 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partly allowed a criminal appeal by converting the petitioners' convictions from section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with corresponding reductions in sentences, while maintaining convictions under sections 452 and 323 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether common intention or similar intention was established among the petitioners during the assault and whether the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' subsequent conduct demonstrated a clear common or developed intention to cause grievous hurt upon entering the victim's house, and that the acquittal of co-accused did not warrant the petitioners' acquittal given specific incriminating evidence against them. The Court laid down that concurrent factual findings based on proper appreciation of ocular and medical evidence by lower courts will not be disturbed in the absence of a contravention of law or principle, and that the acquittal of some co-accused does not automatically entitle remaining accused to acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons on the basis of benefit of doubt is a valid ground for the acquittal of remaining convicted co-accused?
- Can common intention develop spontaneously during the course of an occurrence when the accused enter a premises?
- Does minor discrepancy between ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number of blows render the eye-witness testimony unreliable?
- MUHAMMAD DIN Alias PINDO AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD FSC 191 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DAWOOD vs MAYOR, KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION , . (1981 PLC 879 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DAWOOD vs GHULAM HUSSAIN MEMON, COMMISSIONER1981 PLC 369 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs MUNIR HUSSAIN AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal concerning eviction proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller, having previously struck off the petitioner's defence for failure to deposit rent, became functus officio and lacked the jurisdiction to subsequently order physical eviction once a pending settlement dispute regarding property ownership was resolved. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's initial order was not a final determination of the entire lis, as it explicitly deferred physical eviction pending the outcome of settlement proceedings. Consequently, the subsequent order for eviction was not a review of the earlier order but a continuation of proceedings. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction to implement the eviction once the condition precedent—the settlement decision—was met. The principle laid down is that where an order explicitly keeps proceedings in abeyance pending a collateral determination, the court does not become functus officio and may proceed with execution once that condition is satisfied.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller become functus officio after striking off a tenant's defence if the order explicitly defers physical eviction pending a settlement dispute?
- Can a Rent Controller proceed with physical eviction after the resolution of a pending settlement dispute if the initial eviction order was kept in abeyance?
- Does the implementation of an eviction order, following the resolution of a condition precedent, constitute an impermissible review of a previous order?
- MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 4 Other vs FEROZE DIN AND 5 Other1981 PLD Lahore 689 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE AND Another1981 PLD Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND 7 OTHERS /BWP, ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 880 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAQIR RIZVI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB,1981 PLC (C. S.) 523 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAQIR QURESHI vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM1981 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959. The petitioner challenged the eviction on two primary grounds: first, that the Ordinance does not permit eviction for failure to pay rent in advance, even where such an agreement exists between the parties, as the statute only recognizes default in payment after the due date (the end of the month); and second, that the High Court erred by failing to hear arguments regarding the landlady's personal need, dismissing it summarily as a conclusive finding of fact. The Supreme Court found that the points raised by the petitioner regarding the interpretation of the rent statute and the procedural fairness in the High Court required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the petitioner to furnish security, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo, conditional upon the tenant continuing to pay rent in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 permit eviction for failure to pay rent in advance when such payment is stipulated by agreement?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction for non-payment of rent before the expiry of sixty days from the date the rent became due?
- MUHAMMAD BAQAR QURESHI vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM1981 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the ejectment of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in the payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The core legal question was whether an agreement between the parties to pay rent in advance overrides the statutory provision allowing sixty days for payment, or if failure to pay by the agreed date—plus a statutory grace period—constitutes a default under the rent restriction law. The Supreme Court held that clause (i) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance comprises two distinct situations: where time is fixed by agreement, rent becomes due on that date and must be paid within fifteen days thereafter, preserving the sanctity of the contract; whereas the sixty-day period applies only where there is no agreement. The Court concluded that the tenant committed a default by failing to pay the advance rent within the statutory grace period following the agreed dates, thereby dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to pay rent in advance override the sixty-day statutory period for rent payment?
- What is the effect of a fixed time for payment in an agreement of tenancy under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- When does rent become due under the first part of clause (i) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- MUHAMMAD BAQAR AND Another vs MUHAMMAD RAFI AND Another1981 P Cr. L J 432 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →