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.
- NABI BAKHSH vs GHULAM QADIR1980 CLC 768 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
- N. REEMES AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed under sections 435, 439, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order and notice issued under section 112 of the same Code by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Zulfiqarabad, Karachi, arising out of proceedings initiated under sections 107 and 117. The core legal question was whether the initiation of proceedings and issuance of a notice under section 112 were justified where the underlying complaint merely alleged commercial pressure and potential labor disputes without any imputation of the use of force or threat of force by the applicants. The court held that the complaint was an abuse of process aimed at pressurizing the applicants regarding a commercial contract, as no allegations of force or breach of the peace attributable to the applicants existed. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and notices. The key principle laid down is that preventive proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be invoked on vague apprehensions of labor disputes absent specific allegations of overt acts involving force or imminent breach of the peace by the persons proceeded against.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained in the absence of any allegation of force or threat of force by the persons proceeded against?
- Can an order and notice under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be set aside when the underlying complaint is malafide and intended to exert commercial pressure?
- Whether a dispute over a commercial contract involving potential labor trouble constitutes sufficient ground for initiating security proceedings?
- N. M. NAJMI vs JOOMA AND 6 OTHERS1980 CLC 629 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-17Read full judgment →
- N. M. KHAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND OTHERS vs DR. ABDUR RAUF1980 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the demarcation of boundary lines between two residential properties, Nos. 45 and 47 Empress Road, Lahore. During the hearing, the Court had previously appointed the Chief Engineer of the Lahore Municipal Corporation as a Commissioner by consent of the parties to demarcate the boundary line using the earliest available authentic municipal and taxation record. The core legal question was whether the report submitted by the Local Commissioner complied with the directions of the Court. The Supreme Court held that instead of strictly demarcating the boundary line, the Commissioner had attempted to devise a more equitable way of dividing the houses, thereby exceeding his mandate and failing to follow the Court's directions. Consequently, the Court refused to accept the Commissioner's report. The key principle laid down is that a Local Commissioner must strictly adhere to the specific terms and directions of the judicial appointment order rather than substituting their own judgment on equitable division.
Questions settled- Whether a report submitted by a Local Commissioner who fails to follow the specific directions of the court can be accepted?
- Can a Local Commissioner devise an equitable division of properties instead of performing the ordered demarcation?
- Mxt. KARI MAT/ vs MAJNOON AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 66 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs SARDAR KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1059 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
- MUTWAKIL SHAH vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND 3 OTHERS1980 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court acquitting three respondents who had been previously convicted by the Sessions Judge under sections 148, 302, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case alleged that the respondents along with others attacked the complainant and the deceased due to a prior blood feud. The High Court acquitted the respondents, holding that the eye-witnesses were interested witnesses belonging to a rival faction. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and evidence, noting that the High Court delivered a well-reasoned judgment properly disbelieving the interested eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the ballistic evidence regarding empty cartridges did not conclusively identify the perpetrators of the fatal shots, and the prosecution had falsely implicated multiple persons where injuries could have been caused by the absconding and deceased accused alone. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to reappraise the evidence and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused based on the assessment of interested witnesses?
- Can the evidence of eye-witnesses belonging to a rival faction with a blood feud be safely relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal petition where the High Court has properly evaluated the testimony of witnesses and medical/ballistic evidence?
- MUTTAQQI HASSAN RIZVI vs SIND PROVINCE1980 PLC (C. S.) 620 · Sindh Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- MUTTAQQI HASSAN RIZVI vs PROVINCE OF SIND1980 PLC (C. S.) 597 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-24Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMED AND Other vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, KARACHI REGION, KARACHI1980 PLC (C. S.) 98 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 262 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-08-28Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 568 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
- MUSAWAAT' LTD., KARACHI vs SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SIND, HOME1980 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
- MUSA KHAN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 622 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- MUSA KHAN SILACHI vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 70 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1978-06-13Read full judgment →
- MURID HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND ANOTHERepondents1980 CLC 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents against the appellants concerning an oral land sale. The respondents claimed a superior pre-emptive right as co-sharers in the relevant khata. The trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit in favor of the respondents on the unpleaded ground that they were owners of the estate. On second appeal, the Lahore High Court examined whether a pre-emption suit could be decreed on a ground not set forth in the plaint, whether a sale for a lump-sum price to co-vendees with specified shares is divisible to avoid the doctrine of sinker, and whether a patwari's report alone proves physical possession for calculating limitation under pre-emption law.
The High Court held that a pre-emptor cannot succeed on an unpleaded qualification, but upon evaluating the evidence, found that the respondents were indeed co-sharers in the khata. The Court further held that a sale is indivisible when consideration is paid as a lump sum without specifying individual contributions, causing the qualified co-vendee to sink to the position of the unqualified co-vendee. Lastly, the Court ruled that a patwari's report reproducing parties' statements does not prove physical possession; limitation thus ran from the date of mutation attestation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit be decreed on a ground or qualification not specifically pleaded in the plaint?
- Does the mention of specified shares in a sale transaction render it divisible if the purchase price is paid as a lump sum?
- Is a patwari's report recording statements of parties sufficient to establish physical possession for the purpose of limitation under pre-emption law?
- MUR AD BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUNTAZIM AND OTHERS vs Haji ASLAM KHAN1980 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a dispute over a quarter in Hyderabad, where the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction was initially decreed by the civil court. The lower appellate court subsequently accepted the defendant's appeal ex parte. The plaintiff filed an application for rehearing under Order XLI, Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure, stating he had no knowledge of the hearing date as the previous date had been left unattended due to the judge's leave. The lower appellate court set aside the ex parte order and dismissed the appeal on merits, a decision upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the limitation period for an application for rehearing of an ex parte appeal under Article 169 of the Limitation Act runs from the date of the decision or from the date of knowledge when notice of the hearing was not duly served. The Supreme Court held that the notice referred to in Article 169 means the notice of the actual date on which the appeal is disposed of, and since no notice of the hearing date was served and the application was filed within time from the date of knowledge, the petition was meritless and dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the limitation period under Article 169 of the Limitation Act 1908, where notice of the hearing was not duly served, commences from the date the applicant acquired knowledge of the decree.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for an application for rehearing of an ex parte appeal under Article 169 of the Limitation Act run from the date of the decision or from the date of knowledge when notice was not duly served?
- Does the 'notice of the appeal' referred to in Article 169 of the Limitation Act mean the initial notice of the appeal or the notice of the specific date on which the appeal is disposed of?
- Can a finding of fact based on the personal affidavit of counsel regarding the absence of a hearing date be interfered with in special leave to appeal?
- MUNSHI vs ALI MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
- Munshi NEMATULLAH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 128 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- Munshi NEMAT ULLAH PATWARI vs STATE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 536 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUNIR HUSSAIN vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUREWALA1980 P Cr. L J 161 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUNIR ALAM AND 6 Other vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 131 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR vs RAZIA BEGUM ETC.1980 CLC 458 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 7 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAYS, ETC_1980 PLC (C. S.) 605 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ AND 6 OTHERS vs JEHANZEB,1980 CLC 797 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ALI vs Haji MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1980 CLC 331 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
- MULLA ABDUL HAKEEM vs COMMISSIONER KALAT AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a High Court order dismissing a writ petition concerning the restoration of possession of property following a criminal trial under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioner was initially convicted of trespass, and an order for the restoration of possession to the complainant was passed. Although the conviction was subsequently set aside on appeal and the case remanded for retrial, the order for restoration of possession remained undisturbed. The core legal question was whether the order of restoration of possession should be set aside merely because the conviction was set aside and the case remanded, or because the dispute could be civil in nature. The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the subject matter of the order could be a civil dispute does not render the restoration order unlawful. Furthermore, the Court held that since the appellate forum had the discretion to set aside the restoration order during remand but did not do so, and the petitioner is still facing prosecution, no interference is warranted. The Court clarified that if the petitioner is finally acquitted, they may move for appropriate orders regarding possession.
Questions settled- Does the setting aside of a conviction and remand of a criminal case automatically invalidate an order for the restoration of possession passed during the trial?
- Is an order for the restoration of possession unlawful merely because the underlying dispute could be characterized as a civil dispute?
- Can an appellate court exercise discretion to maintain an order of restoration of possession while remanding a case for retrial?
- MUKHTAR AHMED FAROOQI vs BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD., KARACHI1980 CLC 337 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 725 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 67 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND1980 PLC (C. S.) 576 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUJEEBULLAH AIJAZ vs DIRECTORGENERAL, TELEPHONE AND TLLEGRAPH1980 PLD Quetta 58 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Full Bench reference before the Balochistan High Court addressed the interpretation of Articles 199 and 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically concerning the extent to which Article 212 bars the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 in service matters of persons in the service of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether Article 212 operates as a total bar against civil servants seeking relief under Article 199 regarding their terms and conditions of service, and what the scope of relief and governing principles are if answered in the negative. The Full Bench held that the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 is not total, but is limited strictly to the sphere occupied by the relevant service statutes, such as the Civil Servants Act 1973 and Service Tribunals Act 1973 (and their provincial equivalents). The court laid down that while matters falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals are barred from judicial review under Article 199, the High Court retains jurisdiction in cases of orders without jurisdiction, coram non judice, or where the impugned matter falls outside the statutory competence of the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan is a complete bar in respect of cases in which a Government servant seeks relief under Article 199 of the Constitution in relation to his terms and conditions of service?
- To what extent does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
- Does an order passed without jurisdiction by an Administrative Tribunal attract the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
- In which specific service matters does an appeal fail to lie before the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- MUHAMMD SHAH ETC. vs GHULAM HASSAN SHAH ETC.1980 CLC 194 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMD RAMZAN AND 9 OTHERS vs FARHAT HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 1449 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADI STEAMSHIP Co, LTD. vs MESSRS A. R. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four consolidated appeals arising from a High Court judgment regarding claims for damages for short delivery and damaged cargo during sea transit. The core legal question addressed is the burden of proof in actions for damages for short delivery or delivery in damaged condition under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. The Supreme Court held that once a cargo owner proves that goods were not delivered or were delivered in a damaged condition after shipment, the onus shifts to the carrier to prove that the loss or damage falls within the specific exceptions provided in Article IV of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. If the carrier successfully brings the case within such an exception, the burden shifts back to the shipper or consignee to prove that the damage was caused by the carrier's negligence. The Court affirmed that the carrier, as a bailee, bears the responsibility to explain the loss or damage and prove reasonable care, and that exception clauses do not protect carriers against their own negligence.
Questions settled- What is the burden of proof in an action for damages for short delivery or damaged cargo under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925?
- Does the phrase 'shipped in apparent good order and condition' in a bill of lading constitute an admission by the carrier regarding the condition of the goods?
- Can a carrier rely on the exception of 'inherent defect, quality or vice' if the damage was caused by the carrier's negligence?
- Is a carrier, as a bailee, required to prove that reasonable care was exercised when goods are delivered in a damaged condition?
- MUHAMMADA ETC.s vs MAULA DAD ETC.1980 PLD Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMEER vs ABDUL HAMID AND 2 Others1980 CLC 1881 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND 31980 PLC (C. S.) 108 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs ABDUL GHAFFAR AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 582 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a tenant's second appeal challenging an appellate ejectment order passed in terms of a mutual compromise. The core legal question is whether a consent order based on a compromise recorded by a judicial officer can be challenged in a second appeal on allegations of coercion and undue influence against the presiding judge, and whether a judge's recording of a statement is conclusive. The Lahore High Court held that statements and judicial acts recorded by a presiding officer are to be taken as absolute verity and conclusive as to what transpired in court, and cannot be lightly controverted without exceptionally strong evidence. The court laid down the principle that the presumption of correctness and legality attached to judicial proceedings under the Evidence Act can only be overturned by conclusive proof, and a consent order or decree springing from the agreement of parties is unassailable in a second appeal.
Questions settled- Is a consent order based on a compromise appealable in a second appeal?
- Are the statements and notes of a presiding judge regarding what occurred in court conclusive?
- What standard of proof is required to overturn the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD ZAHIR KHAN vs Ch. SHAH MUHAMMAD1980 PLD Lahore 125 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the appellant by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently affirmed by an Additional District Judge. The respondent sought the eviction of the appellant on the ground that the disputed premises were required for the occupation of his grandchildren for their educational purposes. The core legal question was whether the term "children" in the relevant rent restriction legislation encompasses grandchildren, thereby allowing a landlord to seek eviction for their occupation. The Court held that the term "children" used in the statute refers strictly to the first generation of offspring, namely sons and daughters, and does not extend to grandchildren or remoter descendants. The Court reasoned that the statutory framework places the responsibility on the landlord to provide for his immediate children, but not for subsequent generations. Consequently, the Court set aside the eviction orders, holding that the requirement for grandchildren is not a valid ground for ejectment under the law. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's application for eviction was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the term 'children' in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include grandchildren?
- Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant on the ground that the premises are required for the occupation of his grandchildren?
- Is the requirement of a house for grandchildren a valid ground for ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- MUHAMMAD ZAHID vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 301 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 117 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN1980 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs Mst. NAFEESA KHATOON AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent decisions of the lower courts and the High Court dismissing the petitioner's challenges against a maintenance decree granted to his wife. The core legal question was whether a Family Court possesses the jurisdiction under Hanfi law to grant past or arrears of maintenance to a wife. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Family Courts possess jurisdiction to grant past maintenance as no prohibition against it is prescribed under the relevant statutory framework, affirming the prior binding precedent of the court on the matter. The key legal principle laid down is that the jurisdiction of Family Courts regarding the grant of maintenance is governed by statute rather than strict traditional interpretations of Hanfi law that prohibit past maintenance.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court has the jurisdiction under Hanfi law to grant a decree for past maintenance?
- Does the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 prohibit the award of past maintenance?
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF AND 2 OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 Others1980 CLC 744 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs IQBAL BEGUM1980 PLD Lahore 577 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant regarding a shop on the ground of default in rent, bona fide need for reconstruction, and personal use of her husband. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, finding no wilful default, no bona fide need for reconstruction due to an expired site plan and increased rent motives, and that the statute did not permit eviction for a husband's need in a non-residential building. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding the site plan valid and including the husband under family occupation. The core legal question concerns whether a non-residential building can be recovered for a husband's personal use under the rent restriction law and whether the plea of reconstruction was established in good faith. The Lahore High Court held that a husband is not among the specified categories (self or male children) for whose benefit a non-residential building can be vacated, and that the reconstruction plea lacked good faith. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the appellate order and restoring the Rent Controller's dismissal of the eviction petition.
Questions settled- Whether a non-residential building can be got vacated by a landlady for the personal use of her husband under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does the term 'for his own use' in relation to non-residential buildings include the husband of a female landlord?
- Are the pleas of reconstruction and good faith relevant when the landlord refuses to offer the reconstructed premises back to the tenant?
- Does the expiry of the sanction period for a site plan affect the bona fides of a reconstruction eviction application?
- MUHAMMAD YUNUS MALIK vs Mst. ZAHIDA IRSHAD1980 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave arose from an ejectment order against a tenant for non-payment of rent. The petitioner, having leased a bungalow, continued as a tenant holding over after the lease expired. The landlady sought eviction, alleging default in rent payments starting from January 1975. The Rent Controller found the tenant a willful defaulter, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the statutory term "rent due" under Section 13(2)(i) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 encompasses rent stipulated to be paid in advance under a tenancy agreement, or if it only accrues at the end of the rental period. The Supreme Court held that the agreement between the parties governs the timing of payment. Consequently, "rent due" includes rent payable in advance as per the contract. Failure to pay such rent within the statutory grace period constitutes default, justifying ejectment. The Court affirmed that contractual stipulations for advance rent are enforceable and do not lose their character as rent.
Questions settled- Does the term 'rent due' under Section 13(2)(i) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include rent stipulated to be paid in advance under a tenancy agreement?
- Can a tenant be evicted for failing to pay rent in advance where the tenancy agreement stipulates such payment?
- Does a tenant holding over after the expiry of a lease remain bound by the original terms and conditions regarding rent payment?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs SHAMSUDDIN1980 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to restore a second appeal that had been dismissed in default for non-prosecution. The petitioner, a tenant facing eviction for the reconstruction of a shop, had his second appeal dismissed after neither he nor his counsel appeared on the scheduled hearing date. The petitioner sought restoration, citing his counsel's absence abroad and the failure of the counsel's clerk to note the case in the cause list. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's refusal to restore the appeal constituted an illegality or an improper exercise of judicial discretion. The Court held that the explanation provided for the non-appearance was insufficient to warrant restoration. It found no illegality in the High Court's decision, noting that the discretion was exercised in accordance with accepted principles of justice and equity. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had already surrendered possession of the premises in execution of the ejectment decree, rendering the petition meritless. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the failure of a counsel's clerk to note a case in the cause list a sufficient ground for the restoration of an appeal dismissed in default?
- Does the refusal of a High Court to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution constitute an illegality if the explanation for absence is deemed insufficient?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs FAIZUDDIN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 53 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN AND 2 OTHERS vs BASHIR AHMED SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 629 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONERCUMPOLITICAL AGENT, LORALAI AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's domicile certificate by the District Magistrate, Loralai. The core legal question concerned whether the District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to cancel the domicile certificate, and whether concepts of domicile and permanent residence were distinct. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that 'domicile' of Pakistan and 'permanent residence' in a specific locality are distinct legal concepts, noting that a domicile certificate signifies domicile of the country rather than of a specific province or district, and that Form P-1 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules had previously caused confusion regarding this distinction. The Court ruled that the District Magistrate possessed the authority to cancel a domicile certificate obtained upon incorrect assertions or false claims, particularly where it was utilized to secure reserved educational seats under a misrepresentation of permanent residency. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Are domicile and permanent residence distinct legal concepts under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951?
- Does a domicile certificate granted under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 confer domicile of Pakistan or of a specific province or district?
- Does a District Magistrate have the jurisdiction to cancel a domicile certificate obtained through false representations or material concealment?
- Is a citizen of Pakistan by birth required to apply for a domicile certificate to be considered domiciled in Pakistan?
- MUHAMMAD YAR AND 8 OTHERS vs GHULAM (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1980 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_COLLECTOR, PIND DADAN KHAN, ETC_1980 PLC (C. S.) 551 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARGARH1980 PLC (C. S.) 215 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB KHAN vs PAKISTAN AND 6 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 514 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB ETC. vs ALLAH DITTA ETC.1980 P Cr. L J 588 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD alias FAQIRO AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 424 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Erc. vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 992 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 613 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs MASHROOFULLAH KHAN1980 CLC 848 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an eviction order passed against the appellant-tenant for alleged default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the appellant committed a willful default in paying rent for the period of 23rd April 1972 to 22nd May 1972, given that he had filed an application to deposit rent in court before the statutory deadline, which was granted on 22nd July 1972, with the actual deposit occurring on 24th July 1972 due to an intervening Sunday. The High Court held that the appellant had not committed a default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as the rent was deposited immediately following the court's permission and the holiday. Furthermore, the Court established that even if a technical default occurred, it was not willful, as the tenant had demonstrated a clear intention to pay by filing the application well before the deadline. The Court emphasized that Rent Controllers possess the discretion to refuse ejectment where the default is not willful, and failure to consider this discretion constitutes a legal error by lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether a delay in depositing rent caused by an intervening public holiday constitutes a willful default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to refuse an eviction order if the default in rent payment is found to be non-willful?
- Can a tenant be held in default for rent payment if they have filed an application to deposit rent in court before the expiry of the statutory period?
- MUHAMMAD YAMEEN KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SINDH AT1980 CLC 580 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YA KOOS vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE1980 CLC 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the applicant's suit for possession and mesne profits and decreeing the respondent's cross-suit for a declaration regarding the right of possession in a disputed property. The parties, being real brothers, disputed the title and possession of a plot and the structure built thereon. The trial and appellate courts found that while the applicant was the initial allottee, the construction was raised jointly by the family members, and the allotment was not held exclusively in the applicant's own right. The core legal question addressed is whether a court can grant an altered relief of possession after demolition of structures not pleaded in the plaint, and whether the respondent was entitled to a declaration of possession. The Sindh High Court held that courts cannot grant relief on a cause of action lacking foundation in the pleadings or inconsistent with the plaintiff's case, and upheld the respondent's right to possession based on joint construction. The key principle laid down is that altered or general relief under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be granted if it introduces a new case inconsistent with the pleadings or prejudices the opposing party.
Questions settled- Can a court grant relief to a plaintiff on a ground or cause of action not pleaded in the plaint?
- Whether an altered relief can be granted if it is inconsistent with the plaintiff's original pleadings and prejudices the defendant?
- Is a party entitled to a declaration of a right to possession of immovable property under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 when joint contribution to construction is established?
- MUHAMMAD Y ASIN vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM1980 CLC 367 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1980 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SHARFAN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's second appeals by the High Court, which had overturned the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. The petitioner sought a declaration of his status as a 'Mustagil Doam', a specific category of occupancy tenant, regarding the suit land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established his claimed tenancy rights, particularly in light of conflicting oral evidence and entries in the revenue records. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the findings of the lower appellate courts. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim through either oral evidence or the revenue records. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the findings of the lower appellate courts that the petitioner did not establish the requisite tenancy status. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the evidence, including revenue records, fails to support the petitioner's claim and no legal justification for interference is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff succeed in a claim for declaration of tenancy status based on oral evidence alone when revenue records do not support the claim?
- Does an appellate court have grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy status when the evidence is insufficient?
- MUHAMMAD USMAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs BEGUM BILQEES NAZIR1980 CLC 418 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs SIND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION1980 PLC (C. S.) 629 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION1980 PLC (C.S.) 491 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR AND ANOTHER vs ADAM KHAN AND OTHERs1980 PLD Rev. 2 · Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa · 1978-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL/Accused vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 173 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL KHOKHAR vs Tiro` INSPECTORGENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 3 oTHERs1980 PLD Lahore 162 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TAJ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed by two brothers convicted of four murders and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted their sister/wife and subsequently killed four unarmed relatives who attempted to intervene and save her by climbing onto the roof. The main legal questions pertained to whether the complainant party was the aggressor, whether the petitioners were entitled to the plea of self-defence, whether the sole eyewitness required corroboration, and whether the trial court was required to hold an inquiry into the petitioner's sanity under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the physical evidence, number of injuries, recovery of blood-stained weapons, and motive fully corroborated the prosecution eyewitness and established the petitioners as the aggressors. Furthermore, the record failed to show that the accused appeared of unsound mind at trial so as to trigger Section 465. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- When does the duty of a trial court to hold an inquiry into an accused's unsoundness of mind under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 get triggered?
- Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when physical evidence and circumstances demonstrate that the accused was the aggressor against unarmed victims?
- Is the testimony of a single natural eyewitness sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder if corroborated by recovery of blood-stained weapons and medical evidence?
- MUHAMMAD TAHIR AND ANOTHER vs DIRECTORGENERAL, NATIONAL GUARDS1980 PLD Lahore 802 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULEMAN JUNEJO vs CHIEF SECRETARY, SIND AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 694 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIRAJ vs PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs QAIM ALI KHAN1980 CLC 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE QURESHI AND 3 OTHERS vs S. NASIR AHMAD SHAH1980 PLD Rev. 62 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER vs GUL MAJEED AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 78 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for damages was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885, by parents seeking compensation for the death of their son, who died following a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the defendant. The core legal questions concerned the liability of the driver and the owner, the liability of the insurance company regarding a driver holding only a learner’s license, and the appropriate quantum of damages. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable, finding sufficient evidence of rash driving. Regarding the insurance company, the court ruled that it remained liable because it failed to produce the policy or prove it had reserved the right to exclude liability for drivers lacking a regular license. The court further held that there is no rigid formula for calculating compensation; rather, damages must be assessed based on the specific facts of each case, including the deceased's expected life span and the financial dependency of the claimants. The court awarded Rs. 15,600 with interest.
Questions settled- Is an insurance company liable to indemnify an insured if the driver held only a learner's license at the time of the accident?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the insurance company to show that the policy excluded liability for drivers without a regular license?
- Is a statement made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death admissible in evidence?
- What is the appropriate method for calculating compensation in a fatal accident claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 PLD Rev. 70 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs THE STATE Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 769 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs ABDUL SHAKOOR1980 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit for default and the subsequent refusal of the High Court to restore it. The core legal questions concern whether the dismissal of the suit for default was justified despite the petitioner's claim of non-service, and whether a party may raise a new argument regarding the nature of the hearing date for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that service of notice upon the petitioner’s counsel constituted valid service on the petitioner, and the repeated absence of both the petitioner and his counsel amounted to gross negligence, justifying the dismissal for default. Furthermore, the Court held that a party cannot raise new questions of fact or law in the Supreme Court that were not agitated in the courts below. The Court also emphasized that the suppression of material court orders is fatal to a petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that procedural defaults by counsel bind the litigant and that appellate review is limited to issues raised in lower forums.
Questions settled- Does service of notice on a party's counsel constitute valid service on the party?
- Can a party raise a new question of fact or law in the Supreme Court that was not raised in the courts below?
- Is the dismissal of a suit for default justified where both the party and their counsel are absent on multiple hearing dates?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ CHEEMA vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 738 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT TARAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 400i · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Sharif against the orders of the Sessions Court and the High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioner was specifically charged along with co-accused for the murder of Khushi Muhammad, having allegedly inflicted a soti blow in furtherance of common intention. The core legal questions involved whether a two-day delay in the FIR and conflicting statements gathered during re-investigation pointing towards another person constituted grounds for further inquiry warranting bail under criminal procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing bail, as the petitioner was directly named in the FIR, supported by medical evidence and a challan submitted by the investigating officer. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly implicated by name in the FIR for a capital offence and challaned, minor discrepancies like delayed reporting and statements recorded during re-investigation favouring third parties do not automatically establish a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Does a delay in lodging the first information report automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Whether statements collected during a re-investigation pointing toward another person create a case for further inquiry when the petitioner is directly named in the FIR?
- Is an accused charged with an offence punishable with death or transportation for life entitled to bail when a challan has been submitted against him and he is directly implicated by the complainant?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 5 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Syed CHIRAGH SHAHPLD 1980 Rev, 5 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT1980 PLC (C. S.) 594 (1) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SAIF ALI AND OTHERS1980 PLD Azad J & K 31 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ROSHAN DIN AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 635 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JARANWALA1980 CLC 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1223 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN vs GHULAM FARM AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 545 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN LODHI AND Other vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL- OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS,1980 PLC (C. S.) 101 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS vs RAHMAT ALI AND OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-30Read full judgment →