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 SHARIF AND OTHERS vs LAL AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1942 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs Mst. AZRA PARVEEN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1878 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs JAMOON SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE1980 PLC (C. S.) 683 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 2 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD vs Haji ALLAH RAKHA1980 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-12
  redemption of mortgagepreliminary decreemortgage suitCode of Civil Procedureexecution of decreereconveyance of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the redemption of a mortgaged property. The respondent filed a suit for redemption, which the trial court and the first appellate court decreed in his favour, finding the transaction to be a mortgage rather than a sale. However, the decree issued was a simple decree rather than the preliminary decree required by the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal question was whether the decree in a redemption suit must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of Order XXXIV, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, even if no rendition of accounts is sought. The Supreme Court held that the decree was legally deficient as it failed to incorporate the mandatory directions for reconveyance, delivery of documents, and transfer of possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower orders and remanded the case for rectification. The key principle established is that in redemption suits, the court is mandatorily required to pass a preliminary decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, ensuring all necessary procedural directions are included to make the decree executable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree in a redemption suit valid if it fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Order XXXIV, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Must a court pass a preliminary decree in a redemption suit even when there is no dispute regarding the rendition of accounts?
  • Does the failure to include directions for reconveyance and possession in a redemption decree render it unexecutable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH ETC. vs GHULAM HASSAN SHAH ETC.1980 CLC 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 166 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-05-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Mst. JAMILA BIM AND 9 OTHERS1980 CLC 1130 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI SHAIKH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI ETC. vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 726 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAYAB KHALID vs MAJOR AURANGZEB KHAN, ExD. I.G. OF POLICE, AZAD KASHMIR1980 P Cr. L J 710 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-01-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 94 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 167 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAR WAR AND 4 OTHERS vs FAZAL DIN1980 CLC 216 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEH vs KADIR BUX AND 10 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEH AND ANOTHER vs MEHAR SHAH AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-13
  State landcivil court jurisdictiontemporary injunctionBoard of Revenuefraudlandless Harispecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld a temporary injunction granted to the respondent in a civil suit regarding the possession of State land. The core legal question was whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit, given the statutory bars under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967, particularly concerning orders passed by the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners had failed to raise the plea of jurisdiction before the trial or appellate courts. The Court held that because the objection regarding jurisdiction required evidence and the previous orders were based on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, the issue could not be summarily decided at the appellate stage. The Court affirmed that the plea of jurisdiction should be raised and adjudicated before the trial court, directing that the suit be decided on its merits within one year, while maintaining the status quo regarding the temporary injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea regarding the jurisdiction of a civil court be raised for the first time in a revision petition before the High Court?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of the Board of Revenue if the order is alleged to have been obtained by fraud?
  • Is a plea of jurisdiction that requires the leading of evidence appropriate for determination in a revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEH AND ANOTHER vs MAHER SHAH AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-02
  civil court jurisdictionbar of jurisdictiontemporary injunctionrevenue authorityex parte ordernatural justicefraudlandless hari
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts granting a temporary injunction to respondent Maher Ali Shah, protecting his possession over agricultural land originally allotted to him as a landless Hari. The land was later re-granted to the applicants by the Member, Board of Revenue, through an ex parte order. The applicants contended that civil court jurisdiction was barred under section 36 of the Colonization of the Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912, and section 172(1) of the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967. The High Court held that despite these bars, civil courts retain jurisdiction to examine whether a revenue authority acted in compliance with the law, particularly when an order is alleged to have been passed in violation of natural justice by not granting an opportunity of being heard under section 164 of the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967, or where an order is vitiated by fraud under section 44 of the Evidence Act. Finding no material irregularity in the concurrent findings regarding possession, the revision application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred to question orders passed by revenue authorities under the Colonization of the Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912 and the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Can a civil court examine a revenue order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of being heard?
  • Is a civil court competent to review an order of a revenue officer alleged to have been obtained by fraud under section 44 of the Evidence Act?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact regarding possession by lower courts sufficient to warrant the issuance of a temporary injunction in a suit challenging a revenue order?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 779 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION1980 PLC (C. S.) 127 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM BEG vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT1980 PLC (C. S.) 92 (1) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-08-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKBAR vs PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY AND PUNJAB DENTAL HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 623 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAID KHAN vs SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 245 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR ALI IQBAL vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 520 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28
  pre-emptionkhasra girdawaricorrection of revenue recordaudi alteram partemLand Reforms Regulation 1972judicial reviewtenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the vendee-respondents sought to establish a superior right of pre-emption as tenants under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Pending the suit, the Collector, without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, allowed the respondents' application to correct khasra girdawari entries in their favour. While the Additional Commissioner set aside the Collector's order as unlawful, the Member, Board of Revenue, restored it in revision. The High Court declared the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court held that revenue authorities' administrative orders correcting revenue records during pending litigation, especially without hearing interested parties or properly examining the record, cannot stand. The Court further observed that correcting khasra girdawari entries is an administrative act, and permitting revenue authorities to alter records during pre-emption proceedings amounts to an unwarranted interference with the course of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Collector correcting revenue entries without notice to an interested party valid in law?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to review revenue record correction orders passed by the Board of Revenue under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Can administrative correction of khasra girdawari entries be permitted to affect the outcome of pending judicial pre-emption proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE AND 6 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 17 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE AND 31980 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS vs ABDUR RAZZAK AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-22
  ejectmentlandlord and tenant relationshipestoppelrent restrictionspecial leave to appealvesting of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing their second appeal regarding an ejectment order. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and whether the property in dispute was exempt from the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the basis that it vested in the Federal Government under the Jammu & Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1961. The Rent Controller, District Judge, and High Court concurrently held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, noting that the petitioners were estopped from denying this relationship under the Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore, the courts found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the property vested in the Federal Government. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, ruling that the definition of 'landlord' in the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, included those entitled to receive rent, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error in the lower courts' reasoning. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'landlord' under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, include a person entitled to receive rent?
  • Are tenants estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Can a tenant challenge the title of a landlord after having executed a rent note in their favour?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ABDUL KARIM AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 767 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHAN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 11 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-13
  post-arrest bailcriminal conspiracyF.I.R. omissionspecial leave to appealimminent trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which refused post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a murder case registered under F.I.R. No. 170 at Police Station Gambat, District Khairpur. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to bail because their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. Conversely, the State pointed out that the petitioners were implicated under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal conspiracy, supported by confessional and witness statements recorded during investigation. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave, holding that where the trial is set to commence shortly on a date fixed by the trial court, it is inappropriate for an appellate court to evaluate the merits of the case in a bail application. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of an accused's name in an F.I.R. automatically entitles them to bail when they are implicated under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during investigation?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will evaluate the evidentiary merits of a case for granting bail when the trial is scheduled to commence imminently?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIZWANUL HUSSAIN vs Ch. ALI AHMAD AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-23
  constitutional petitioninheritancerefugee claimmutationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an order remanding a mutation matter for fresh inquiry regarding inheritance of a refugee right-holder. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere with an order directing a factual inquiry into inheritance claims where the initial mutation recorded an incorrect relationship. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was recorded as the son of the deceased—a fact admittedly incorrect—while his alternative claims were based on adoption or will, the mutation required reconsideration through a proper factual inquiry. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that questions of fact requiring proper inquiry do not warrant constitutional interference at a premature stage, laying down the principle that entitlement based on adoption or will differs fundamentally from inheritance as a direct son, justifying administrative rectification and fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mutation recording an incorrect relationship of an heir requires reconsideration and fresh inquiry?
  • Can entitlement based on adoption or will be equated with inheritance as a direct son for the purpose of property mutation?
  • Does the High Court properly dismiss a constitutional petition where factual controversies require determination through a proper administrative inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN ETC.1980 PLC (C. S.) 682 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-08-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID BUTT vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1980 CLC 753 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Mirza NASEER BEG1980 CLC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 2 OTHERS vs ABDUL GHANI AND 4 oTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-18
  SettlementProperty TransferPermanent Transfer DeedActual PossessionEvacuee PropertySettlement CommissionerConstitutional Petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two constitutional petitions challenging an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the entitlement to open roof space situated above several shops. The core legal question was whether the roof space should be transferred to the shop owners or to the respondents who occupied a room on that roof. The Court held that the Settlement Commissioner correctly determined that the respondents were in actual occupation of the roof area, evidenced by long-standing unauthorized constructions dating back to 1957. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the petitioners failed to establish their own possession or use of the roof. The key principle laid down is that in property settlement disputes, actual possession is the decisive factor for determining the extent of the transfer, and a claim of constructive possession cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence proving actual control or use of the property by the claimant. The Court also clarified that clerical errors in property transfer deeds, such as incorrect survey numbers, may be corrected without altering the substantive rights of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Permanent Transfer Deed be amended to correct clerical errors regarding survey numbers?
  • Is actual possession the decisive factor in determining the extent of property transfer under settlement laws?
  • Can a claim of constructive possession be sustained without evidence of actual control over the property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAHIM vs MUHAMMAD BUX AND 4 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L I 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND 31980 CLC 99 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), SUKKUR AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 359 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 318 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 708 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFI vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PUNJAL MANGI vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, HYDERABAD REGION1980 PLC (C. S.) 585 · Sindh Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE1960 P Cr. L J 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 818 · Service Tribunal · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SHAHPUR FOREST1980 PLC (C. S.) 477 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 213 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ LATIF, ADVOCATE vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 170 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 365 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ZA14AN KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ FOR MUHAMMAD AHSAN vs Haji MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-12
  quashment of proceedingscriminal complaintspurious chequespremature petitionSection 561-A CrPCspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed his petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him. The complainant had filed a complaint alleging offenses under Sections 406, 419, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the issuance of spurious cheques. The High Court had declined to quash the proceedings, reasoning that the application was premature because no evidence had yet been recorded, thereby preventing a proper assessment of the parties' respective stands. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found no error in the High Court's order. The petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the impugned decision and ultimately did not press the arguments regarding the merits of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the principle that quashment proceedings are generally premature before evidence has been recorded in the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 premature if filed before any evidence has been recorded?
  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings based on the merits of the case before the trial court has recorded evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 4 OTHERS vs ALLAH WASAYA AND 6 OTHERS1980 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23
  pre-emptionwithdrawal of petitioncompetency of petitionreview applicationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from pre-emption suits filed regarding agricultural land purchased by the petitioners. The suits proceeded through the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, leading to a revision and subsequent review application in the High Court under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which were dismissed. Earlier, the petitioners had filed a civil petition in the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment, which was unconditionally withdrawn in chambers by their counsel without seeking or obtaining permission to file a fresh petition. The core legal question is whether a subsequent petition for leave to appeal is competent when a prior petition involving the same subject-matter was unconditionally withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent petition is barred under the applicable rules regarding withdrawal of suits and petitions. The key principle laid down is that where a party withdraws a petition without obtaining permission from the court to institute a fresh one based on formal defects or sufficient grounds, they are precluded from filing a fresh petition in respect of the same subject-matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent petition for leave to appeal is competent after the unconditional withdrawal of a previous petition involving the same subject-matter?
  • Does the withdrawal of a petition without permission to institute a fresh one preclude the filing of a subsequent petition?
  • How do the provisions regarding the withdrawal of suits apply to petitions before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH KHAN vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE;1980 PLC (C. S.) 558 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH KHAN vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, SHEIKHUPURA1980 PLC (C. S.) 206 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1980 PLC (C: S.) 650 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1980 PLC (C. S.) 685 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEER JHANGIRI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1980 CLC 734 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 377 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-12
  pre-arrest bailmilitary court jurisdictioncognizance of offensefoodstuffs controlinterim bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This was a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner accused of offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act. The core legal questions were whether the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted by the potential transfer of the case to a Military Court and whether section 9(d)(ii) of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act 1958 barred the court from granting bail. The Court held that the mere existence of a directive to forward the case to a Military Court does not oust the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts until the Military Court actually takes cognizance of the matter. Finding the evidence regarding the culpable homicide charge weak and noting that the statutory bar issue was pending before a larger bench, the Court granted interim pre-arrest bail. The principle established is that the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts remains intact until a Military Court formally takes cognizance of an offense, and interim bail may be granted pending the resolution of complex jurisdictional questions by a larger bench.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of a directive to forward a case to a Military Court oust the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts?
  • Can a Military Court take cognizance of an offense without receiving a formal complaint or report of facts?
  • Is the High Court barred from granting interim bail while a legal question regarding statutory bars on bail is pending before a larger bench?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNSHI vs GHULAM HABIB AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1965 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUJTABA vs GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-30
  pre-emptionlis pendenspendente lite transferright of pre-emptionlimitation periodrepresentative-in-interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the pre-emption of a land sale. The original vendees purchased land in 1961, and the plaintiff filed a pre-emption suit. During the pendency of this suit, and after the limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit had expired, the original vendees transferred the land to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that he possessed an equal right of pre-emption, thereby defeating the plaintiff's claim. The Supreme Court addressed whether a transfer of property made by a vendee pendente lite, after the limitation period for a pre-emption suit has lapsed, can defeat the original plaintiff's right of pre-emption. The Court held that such a transfer is subject to the principle of lis pendens and cannot defeat the plaintiff's suit. The subsequent transferee is merely a representative-in-interest of the original vendee and cannot assert his own pre-emptive rights to defeat the pending litigation. The Court affirmed that the law prevents a vendee from transferring property to a third party to frustrate a pre-emption suit once the limitation period has expired.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendee defeat a pending pre-emption suit by transferring the property to a person with an equal or superior right of pre-emption after the limitation period has expired?
  • Does the principle of lis pendens apply to a transfer of property made by a vendee during the pendency of a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a subsequent transferee of property, acquired during the pendency of a pre-emption suit, entitled to assert his own pre-emptive rights to defeat the plaintiff's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUBARIK KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT & REB BILITATION1980 CLC 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-03
  Permanent Transfer Deedfunctus officiocompensation poolpast and closed transactionsettlement authoritieswrit jurisdictionexcess land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order by the Settlement Commissioner that authorized the auction of 'excess' land attached to a bungalow previously transferred to him. A Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) had been issued for the property, and the petitioner argued that upon its issuance, the property exited the compensation pool, rendering the Settlement Authorities functus officio. The respondents contended that the auction was valid and raised preliminary objections regarding the petitioner's standing and the timing of the writ petition. The Court held that once a PTD is issued, the Settlement Authorities lack the jurisdiction to reopen the matter or auction the property, as it constitutes a past and closed transaction. The Court emphasized that the authorities could not unilaterally determine rights afresh. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed. However, the Court clarified that if the authorities determine that excess land was indeed transferred, they are entitled to recover the prevailing market value of that land from the petitioner, rather than subjecting the property to auction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed render the Settlement Authorities functus officio regarding the property?
  • Can Settlement Authorities reopen a case to auction alleged excess land after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Does the pendency or withdrawal of a civil suit deprive a party of the right to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is a person who has alienated property still an aggrieved party entitled to challenge the transfer of that property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MITHAL vs THE STATE1980 PLD Karachi 397 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 82 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs Mst. HANIFAN BIBI AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 122 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF QURESHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 2125 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SARFARAZ KHAN ETC.1980 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30
  local government electionsdisqualification of candidatesservice of Pakistannomination paperslegislation by referencestatutory bodywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of certain candidates for elections to local councils under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether section 21(f) of the Ordinance, read with Article 10(2)(b)(4) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, disqualifies a candidate who was in the service of Pakistan or a statutory body and two years have not elapsed since ceasing service. The Lahore High Court held that section 21(f) incorporates by reference all disqualifications applicable to members of Parliament or Provincial Assemblies under any law for the time being in force, including the two-year bar on former civil servants or government-controlled corporation employees. The Court laid down that disqualification under section 21(f) operates by operation of law and does not require a prior specific order of disqualification, and that provisions of earlier laws incorporated by legislative reference form an integral part of the subsequent statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 disqualifies a person from being a candidate for a local council if they are disqualified from membership of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force?
  • Does a disqualification under section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 require a specific prior order of disqualification, or does it operate by operation of law?
  • Whether the provisions of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 can be incorporated by reference into the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the two-year restriction on former employees of the government or statutory bodies holding public office apply to local council elections?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MASEEL, AHM A D AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs Mst. ZAINAB BI131 AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JUMAN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. AQLAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 108 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-20
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceregistered lease deedunregistered lease agreementpossessionrevisional jurisdictionsite inspection
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent orders passed by the lower courts refusing to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance, declaration, and permanent injunction filed by the applicants regarding agricultural land. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants established a prima facie case of possession and entitlement to interim relief based on an unregistered lease agreement as against a subsequent registered lease deed. The Sindh High Court held that the subordinate courts exercised their discretion on sound principles based on the material on record and were justified in refusing the temporary injunction. The court laid down the principle that inspection of a site by a court is not a substitute for evidence, and that the limited revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is meant primarily for correcting jurisdictional errors rather than discretionary decisions unless exercised arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on a local inspection as a substitute for evidence to determine possession of agricultural land?
  • Whether an unregistered lease agreement can take effect against a registered document under section 50 of the Registration Act without proof of taking possession in part performance?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in revision with the discretionary orders of subordinate courts regarding temporary injunctions?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVAID vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 263 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs SECRETARY, REHABILITATION AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 284 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CITY), LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 561 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, MIRPURKHAS AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 47 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs HIDAYATULLAH AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 87 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MEMON vs SIND GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 667(1) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-07-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ETC. vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR ETC.1980 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-17
  pre-emption suitminor defendantguardian ad litemlimitation periodamendment of plaintmisdescription of partynullity of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arises from a pre-emption suit instituted against multiple defendants, including one who was initially misdescribed as a major in the plaint but was later recognized as a minor, leading to an amendment of the plaint to appoint a guardian ad litem. The core legal question was whether a suit filed against a minor defendant described as a major is a nullity and whether amending the plaint to properly represent the minor after the period of limitation has run out amounts to adding a new party, thereby rendering the suit time-barred under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that the initial institution of the suit against the minor remains competent and does not constitute a nullity, and the subsequent appointment of a guardian ad litem is not a substitution or addition of a new party. The Court established that correcting the description of a minor defendant or appointing a guardian is a procedural step subsequent to institution, meaning the limitation period is saved from the original date of filing and does not attract Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

  Questions settled

  • Is a pre-emption suit filed against a minor defendant described as a major considered a complete nullity?
  • Does the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a minor defendant amount to the addition or substitution of a new party under Section 22 of the Limitation Act?
  • Can a plaint be amended to correct the description of a minor defendant and appoint a guardian ad litem after the period of limitation for the suit has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL alias KALA vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND 3 OTHERS vs DILAWAR AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs ABDUL QAYYUM AND. ANOTHER1980 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-02
  leave to appealsettlement authoritiestransfer of propertyclaimant statusfraudulent claimpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which directed the Settlement Authorities to reconsider the entitlement of respondents for the transfer of a disputed house. The petitioner had originally secured the transfer of the property on the sole ground of being a claimant. However, subsequent proceedings before the Claims Commissioner established that the petitioner's claim verification was fraudulent and he was an imposter, resulting in the cancellation of his verified claim and compensation book. Although initial litigation protected the transfer of the house as not being a direct consequence of the claim verification, the Supreme Court ultimately restored a judgment that left the question open for the Settlement Authorities. The core legal question was whether the transfer of property based on a fraudulent claim could be re-examined and whether the matter was a past and closed transaction. The Supreme Court held that the matter was not past and closed, and the Settlement Authorities were fully competent to re-examine the petitioner's entitlement since his initial preference was entirely based on his status as a claimant. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the transfer of evacuee property obtained on the basis of a fraudulent claim can be reconsidered by the Settlement Authorities?
  • Does a finding by the Claims Commissioner that a person is an imposter affect their entitlement to property transferred on the basis of being a claimant?
  • Can proceedings regarding the transfer of property be treated as a past and closed transaction when the foundational claim has been set aside by superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN vs WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER1980 PLC (C. S.) 458 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-12-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs Syed MUMTAZ HUSSAIN1980 CLC 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MESSRS AHMAD CHEMICAL COMPANY, KARACHI1980 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs ABDUL RASHID AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL FASIH vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE1980 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-22
  small cause courtcivil revisionsummons for final disposalstatement of accountsmaterial irregularityright of rebuttal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Lahore, in favor of the respondent bank for the recovery of a loan. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by issuing a notice to file a written statement instead of issuing a summons for the final disposal of the suit under the proviso to rule 5 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the defendant was prejudiced by being deprived of the opportunity to defend the suit or present rebuttal evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed a fatal material irregularity by failing to issue the proper summons for the final disposal of the suit, thereby prejudicing the petitioner who appeared without witnesses or counsel and was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the statement of accounts. The court established the principle that while a statement of accounts may be received in evidence without formal proof, it is not conclusive and the opposing party must be given a fair opportunity to present rebuttal evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to issue a summons for the final disposal of a suit under Order V Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a Small Cause Court proceeding vitiates the judgment?
  • Is a statement of accounts conclusive evidence that leaves no scope for rebuttal evidence?
  • Does a statement made by a defendant admitting the execution of certain documents constitute a confessional statement admitting the entire claim?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL BUTT vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EXCISE1980 PLC (C. S.) 19 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs NAZIR AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER1980 PLC (C. S.) 277 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AHMAD QURESHI vs Mst. JALEESA BEGUM1980 PLD Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-27
  second appealejectmentstatutory noticedisplaced personsrepeal of statuteaccrued rightslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent orders of the lower forums directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from a property purchased by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the service of a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was a mandatory prerequisite for seeking ejectment, notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act. The Lahore High Court held that the repeal of a statute does not affect rights or protections already accrued, as preserved under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the statutory protection and tenancy terms under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 subsist despite the repeal, and an ejectment petition filed without serving the mandatory notice is ab initio incompetent. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the ejectment orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 is a prerequisite for ejectment?
  • Does the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 destroy the accrued rights and protections of tenants under section 30?
  • Is an ejectment petition filed without serving the statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 competent?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAM KHAN AND 24 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRIGULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND FISHERIES AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 264 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 994 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1976-07-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1023 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE 'A', PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 438 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDREES vs Mst. SHAMIM AKIITAR1980 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-28
  ex parte ejectmentdefault in rentnon-appearancesufficient causepetition for leave to appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner-tenant's second appeal against an ex parte ejectment order. The landlady sought the tenant's eviction on the ground of default in rent payment, leading to an ex parte ejectment order by the Rent Controller after the tenant failed to appear. The tenant's applications to set aside the ex parte order and subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were successively dismissed. The core legal question was whether the tenant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance and whether the ex parte order and subsequent findings on default were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the tenant's explanation for non-appearance was false and rightly disbelieved by the lower forums, noting that the tenant admitted he had not even engaged counsel prior to the ex parte order. The Court concluded that without establishing sufficient cause for absence, the High Court erred in examining evidentiary receipts without first crossing the hurdle of the ex parte ejectment order. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can seek the setting aside of an ex parte ejectment order without establishing sufficient cause for non-appearance?
  • Is a plea of searching for counsel sufficient to excuse non-appearance when the party failed to appear before the Rent Controller throughout the day?
  • Whether an appellate or revisional court should examine evidentiary receipts without first determining the validity of an ex parte ejectment order?
  Read full judgment →