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 SALEEM vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 62 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED ZAIDI vs MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 355 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mst. SARATUL FATIMA AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-14
  Intra-Court appealinterlocutory orderrent restrictionconstitutional jurisdictionalternative adequate remedyrelationship of landlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing in limine a constitutional petition. The petition challenged an interlocutory order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant to deposit arrears and future rent during ejectment proceedings, without first deciding the preliminary issue regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The core legal question is whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller when an adequate statutory remedy by way of appeal against the final order is available. The court held that the appeal lacks merit and dismissed it in limine, affirming that interlocutory orders of the Rent Controller that are non-appealable under the legislative scheme cannot be challenged through constitutional petitions to bypass legislative intent. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised against interlocutory orders that cause no immediate tangible damage and where an adequate, effective remedy is available through the statutory appellate hierarchy upon the conclusion of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller directing the deposit of rent?
  • Does an order directing the deposit of rent during ejectment proceedings cause imminent and tangible damage justifying constitutional interference?
  • Whether the legislative intent regarding non-appealable interlocutory orders under the rent restriction law can be circumvented through constitutional petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR vs MESSRS GHAZI INDUSTRIES LTD., MIAM CHANNU1978 PLC 267 · Labour Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs "DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 972 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 Other1978 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs Mir ADAM KHAN Etc:1978 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-05
  review petitionevacuee propertytransfer of shoppreferential claimjoint businessMuslim Lawadoption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking review of an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a civil petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee shop. The core legal question is whether a joint business partner and nephew of a deceased allottee possesses a preferential right to the transfer of an evacuee property over other legal heirs, and whether an alleged adoption confers such entitlement. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that a partner in a business carried on in the shop does not acquire an independent status of possession as a tenant and stands on an equal footing with other successors under Muslim Law, and that adoption confers no legal right to preference. The key principle laid down is that joint business operation with an allottee does not create a preferential claim to the transfer of evacuee property, and adoption is irrelevant for statutory settlement entitlements where not recognized.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint business partner of a deceased allottee have a preferential claim to the transfer of an evacuee shop?
  • Can a plea of adoption be raised for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
  • Does adoption confer any legal right to preference under Muslim Law or settlement laws regarding property transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs JAHANGIR BADAR1978 PLD Lahore 1132 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 972 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs AMIR ALAM AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 539 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ HUSSAIN vs Mst. KHURSHID FATIMA AND Another1978 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-07
  dissolution of marriagekhuladowerpre-trial conciliationconstitutional jurisdictionres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged a Family Court judgment granting the first respondent a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of khula and recovery of dower amounting to Rs. 10,000. The core legal questions involved whether the Family Court's failure to conduct pre-trial conciliation directly with the petitioner—rather than through his father—rendered the proceedings without lawful authority, whether the failure to frame a separate issue on the quantum of dower vitiated the decree, and whether the claim for khula was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularities regarding pre-trial conciliation conducted through an authorized representative did not prejudice the outcome, that the lack of a separate issue on dower caused no injustice where full opportunity to lead evidence was afforded, and that res judicata could not be raised without proper pleading and evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a Family Court to conduct pre-trial conciliation proceedings directly with a party, rather than through their father, renders the judgment without lawful authority?
  • Does the failure to frame a separate issue regarding the quantum of dower vitiate the Family Court decree where full opportunity to produce evidence was given?
  • Can a plea of res judicata be entertained when it was neither pleaded in the written statement nor supported by the production of previous judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs COLLECTOR ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others vs MUHAMMAD KAUSAR KHAN, MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., VEHARI and others1978 PLC 56 · Labour Court · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAHIM vs The STATE1978 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-14
  criminal bailattempt to murderdelay in trialabsconding co-accusedpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition directed against the order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's criminal bail application in a case involving allegations of firing and causing injuries under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions pertain to whether the applicability of Section 307 P.P.C. should be determined at the pre-trial bail stage and whether prolonged incarceration due to absconding co-accused warrants the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that determining whether the offense falls under Section 307 P.P.C. is premature at the bail stage and must be decided at trial, and further held that delay caused by absconding co-accused does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The Court dismissed the petition while directing the trial court to proceed against the absconding accused under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and expedite the trial. The key principle laid down is that the applicability of specific penal provisions must await trial and delay attributable to absconding co-accused does not automatically furnish a ground for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of whether a case falls under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be determined at the bail stage?
  • Does delay in the commencement of a trial due to absconding co-accused entitle an incarcerated petitioner to be released on bail?
  • What procedure should a trial court adopt against absconding co-accused to expedite the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAHIM vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND 21978 PLC 194 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1978 PCrLJ 649(2) · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., LYALLPUR , .1978 PLC 474 · Labour Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 730 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 875 · Labour Court · 1978-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASIM vs ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD., RAHIM YAR KHAN1978 PLC 273 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Other1978 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurdercommon intentionmedical evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion properly, arguing that the First Information Report established reasonable grounds to believe the respondent was guilty of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment, and that the injuries sustained by the accused were not adequately explained by the complainant's version. The Supreme Court examined the record, noting that the injuries sustained by the accused party were inconsistent with the complainant's claim that they were caused by brickbats, particularly given the high number of injuries (18) sustained by the accused. The Court held that determining the actual aggressor required further investigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of unexplained injuries on the accused party justify a grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Is a case suitable for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the medical evidence contradicts the complainant's version of how the accused sustained injuries?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail if the order is based on a reasonable assessment of the need for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR CHAUDHARY vs PUNJAB PROVINCE ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAYEEMConvict vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 641 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs Mst. FAIZ ELAHI AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs Mst. FAIZ ELAHI AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ CHAUDHRY vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FOOD DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 88 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS vs SULTAN KHAN1978 PLD Lahore 923 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIM USMANI vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 35 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIM AGHA AND ANOTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 579 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-06
  judicial confessionvoluntariness of confessionpolice custodyidentification paradechance witnesscriminal appealbomb blastprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for a bomb blast at the Karachi General Post Office. The core legal questions concerned the voluntariness of judicial confessions recorded after an eleven-day period of police custody and the reliability of identification evidence provided by a chance witness. The High Court held that the convictions could not be sustained. The Court ruled that judicial confessions recorded after significant, unexplained delays in police custody, coupled with the Magistrate's failure to adhere to mandatory procedural safeguards—such as informing the accused they would not be returned to police custody and failing to examine them for signs of maltreatment—render such confessions involuntary and inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court established that identification evidence provided by a chance witness, particularly when conducted after a long delay and under circumstances where visibility was poor, lacks evidentiary value. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants due to insufficient, unreliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay between an accused's arrest and the recording of a judicial confession render the confession involuntary?
  • Is a judicial confession admissible if the Magistrate fails to inform the accused that they will not be returned to police custody?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of identification evidence provided by a chance witness after a long delay?
  • What are the consequences of a Magistrate failing to examine an accused for signs of physical maltreatment before recording a confession?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM SAJAD vs CHIEF TRAFFIC OFFICER, PUNJAB ROAD1978 PLC 205 · Labour Court · 1976-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR ETC. vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR ETC vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR BHATTI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME ETC1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 29(2) · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND ANOTHERConvict vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 938 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND Another vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 938 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AKBAR vs SADDAR DIN AND OTHFRS1978 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-07
  civil reviewsurplus landtransfer of propertydisplaced personslocus standisettlement scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises from an order of the Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal regarding the transfer of surplus land attached to a bungalow in Sargodha. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, as a transferee of a half portion of the bungalow, had the entitlement or locus standi under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and Settlement Scheme No. 1 to purchase an excess area of surplus land that had already been disposed of by public auction to another party. The Supreme Court held that the review petition lacks merit, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish that the excess land was part of or appurtenant to the portion transferred to him, and noting that the land was disposed of prior to his own transfer. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioner was not eligible to purchase the disputed land.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transferee of a portion of a property has locus standi to obtain surplus land previously disposed of by public auction?
  • Can surplus land be claimed as appurtenant to a transferred property in the absence of a finding by settlement authorities?
  • Whether the provisions of Settlement Scheme No. 1 permit the purchase of surplus land disposed of before the transfer of the main property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR vs Ch. KHURSHID ALAM1978 SCMR 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-27
  dismissal for defaultrestoration of appealinherent powerssufficient causenegligence of counselrent eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for the restoration of a second appeal and a subsequent review application arising out of eviction proceedings. The petitioner's second appeal before the High Court was dismissed for default when neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. An application for readmission under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed as time-barred under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, and a review application was subsequently rejected. The core legal question was whether the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code could be invoked to restore a case dismissed for default when a specific remedy is provided under Order XLI Rule 19, and whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner and his counsel failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance as negligence in checking the cause list does not warrant the invocation of inherent powers, and a litigant is not absolved of responsibility merely by engaging counsel. The key principle laid down is that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked to circumvent specific statutory provisions, and a litigant must exercise due diligence in prosecuting their case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to restore an appeal dismissed for default when a specific remedy is provided under Order XLI Rule 19?
  • Does the mere misreading or omission of a case from the cause list by a counsel constitute sufficient cause for setting aside a dismissal for default?
  • Does the engagement of a counsel absolve a litigant from the responsibility of diligently prosecuting their case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUJTABA vs RAZIA BEGUM1978 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-14
  temporary injunctioneasement rightsbalance of convenienceprima facie casecivil revisionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the grant of a temporary injunction in a civil suit. The respondent, Mst. Razia Begum, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the petitioner, Mohammad Mujtaba, seeking to restrain him from constructing a structure that would block the ventilators of her house, asserting a right of easement acquired through long user. The trial court initially vacated an interim injunction, but the appellate court reversed this, finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's revision against that appellate order. The core legal question was whether the appellate court's exercise of discretion in granting a temporary injunction was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court correctly identified a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court found no error in the High Court's dismissal of the revision petition and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the temporary injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary injunction be granted to restrain construction that blocks ventilators based on a claimed easement right?
  • Does the appellate court have the discretion to grant a temporary injunction if it finds a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff?
  • Is a High Court order dismissing a revision petition against a temporary injunction subject to interference if the lower court's reasoning is sound?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOHSIN HAIDRY AND Ottterss vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1978 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MEHDI vs Dr. HABIBUR REHMAN AND 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-26
  pending proceedingsrevisional jurisdictionadministrative powersevacuee propertyjudicial functionscompetent authoritystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, which treated a respondent's application as a "pending proceeding" under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether an application filed on the administrative side before an authority lacking revisional jurisdiction constitutes a "pending proceeding" capable of being transferred for final disposal under the Repealing Act. The Court held that the application did not constitute a pending proceeding. It reasoned that the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked revisional powers at the time the application was filed, and administrative powers under Section 9(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, could not be used to initiate or adjudicate judicial matters. The Court established the principle that "pending proceedings" saved by the Repealing Act must refer to proceedings that were competently initiated and pending before an authority with the legal jurisdiction to grant the relief sought at the time of filing; an application filed before an incompetent authority cannot be treated as a pending proceeding.

  Questions settled

  • Does an application filed before an authority lacking revisional jurisdiction constitute a 'pending proceeding' under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner exercise judicial powers under the administrative authority granted by Section 9(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • What is the legal requirement for a proceeding to be considered 'pending' for the purposes of transfer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD SULTAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 104 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND ANOTHER1978 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-10
  self-defenseright of private defensetrespassacquittalmurderappreciation of evidenceland disputecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the acquittal of the first respondent by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The prosecution alleged two separate incidents: an initial altercation over land possession followed by a subsequent attack resulting in the death of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the occurrence of two distinct incidents or if the evidence supported the respondent’s plea of self-defense during a single incident of trespass. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s version was based on unreliable witnesses and conjectures, noting that the medical evidence and circumstances contradicted the theory of two separate incidents. The Court found that the deceased and his companions were trespassers attempting to forcibly take possession of land cultivated by the respondent and his step-father. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s acquittal, ruling that the respondent acted in the exercise of his right of self-defense of person and property. The judgment reaffirms that an appellant cannot unilaterally abandon an appeal and that convictions cannot rest on fabricated prosecution narratives that ignore the realities of the incident.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellant have the right to abandon a criminal appeal at will?
  • Is a conviction sustainable where the prosecution's theory of the occurrence is based on fabricated evidence and surmises?
  • Does the right of self-defense extend to the protection of property against trespassers?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AND 5 Other vs THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE LAHORE, AND Another1978 PLD Lahore 762 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad LATIF and 5 Other vs TEE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE LAHORE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 762 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AND 5 Other vs BORDER AREA COMMITTEE AND 2 Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-26
  Border Area Schemeallotment cancellationbona fide purchaserremandMartial Law Regulationstatutory interpretationreview jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the cancellation of land allotments by the Border Area Committee. The petitioners, as vendees of land originally allotted under the Border Area Scheme, challenged the cancellation of the original allottee's allotment, arguing that they were bona fide purchasers entitled to a hearing. The core legal questions were whether the Border Area Committee retained authority to scrutinize allotments following the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and whether the High Court's order of remand was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation (M.L.R. 9) is an independent enactment distinct from the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and its operation remains unaffected by the latter's repeal. The Court further upheld the High Court's decision to remand the matter to the Border Area Committee, noting that the petitioners would have the opportunity to present their case regarding their status as bona fide purchasers before that forum. The principle established is that the Border Area Committee operates under an independent legal framework, and procedural corrections by a court to its own orders are permissible to prevent injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, affect the authority of the Border Area Committee under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation (M.L.R. 9)?
  • Can a court correct its own judgment or order under the principle embodied in Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a remand order by the High Court appropriate when a party claims they were denied a hearing before an administrative tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, CIVIL1978 PLD Lahore 731 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-29
  further investigationinterim challanpolice investigationexecutive interferencecriminal procedurewrit petitionjudicial cognizance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the refusal of the Inspector General of Police to comply with a directive from the Chief Minister of Punjab to conduct a fresh investigation into a murder case after a challan had already been submitted to the court. The core legal question was whether the executive government possesses the authority to direct or interfere with police investigations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the executive lacks any statutory power to order such investigations, as the authority to investigate is vested solely in the police under the Code. The court further clarified that while the police may conduct further investigation even after a report is submitted, such action cannot be mandated by political executives. Additionally, the court ruled that the practice of filing "interim challans" to stall judicial proceedings is legally unwarranted; once a report is filed, the court must proceed with the trial, and any subsequent police report can only be admitted as additional evidence under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the executive government have the legal authority to direct the police to conduct a fresh investigation after a challan has been submitted to the court?
  • Is the practice of filing an 'interim challan' to delay trial proceedings recognized or warranted by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the police conduct further investigation after a final report has been submitted to the court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the general superintendence of the police by the Provincial Government under the Police Act 1861 empower the executive to interfere with specific police investigations?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Other vs THE STATE AND Other1978 PLD SC 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-12
  Summary Military Courtinadmissible evidencewrit jurisdictionconvictionconspiracyextra-judicial confessionMartial Law Regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition against convictions and sentences imposed by a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulations. The petitioners contended that their convictions were vitiated by the admission of inadmissible evidence, specifically the confessional statements of third parties not on trial. The Supreme Court addressed whether a conviction can be maintained when some evidence is potentially inadmissible, provided sufficient admissible evidence remains. The Court held that even if the Magistrate's testimony regarding the confessions of outsiders were excluded, the remaining evidence—specifically the testimony of witnesses regarding the conspiracy and an extra-judicial confession—was sufficient to sustain the convictions. Relying on the principle that an appellate court may maintain a conviction after excluding inadmissible evidence if the remaining evidence clearly establishes guilt, the Court affirmed that the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The principle established is that a conviction is not automatically invalidated by the presence of inadmissible evidence if the remaining admissible evidence independently supports the finding of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained if some evidence considered by the trial court is found to be inadmissible?
  • Does the presence of inadmissible evidence automatically invalidate a conviction recorded by a Summary Military Court?
  • Is a High Court required to quash a conviction if it finds that inadmissible evidence was admitted during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 892 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KAZIM AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 210 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KAMIL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 725 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KABIR vs PAKISTAN TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1978 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAN vs FAZAL AHMAD1978 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF1978 SCMR 452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-05
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide personal needrent noteappreciation of evidencestatutory grounds for eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld an ejectment order against a tenant. The core legal questions were whether a contractual stipulation in a rent note prohibiting ejectment overrides statutory grounds for eviction, whether a prior notice is mandatory before filing an ejectment application, and whether the landlord's claim of bona fide personal need was sufficiently established despite the tenant's arguments regarding the sufficiency of existing space. The Supreme Court held that contractual stipulations cannot override statutory rights of a landlord to seek ejectment on recognized legal grounds. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that there is no legal requirement for a prior notice before filing an ejectment application. Regarding the personal need, the Court ruled that the determination of the scope and nature of a landlord's requirement is a subjective matter for the landlord, and findings of fact regarding the adequacy of space are not subject to interference in appeal. The petition was dismissed, though the tenant was granted four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual stipulation in a rent note prohibiting ejectment override the statutory right of a landlord to seek eviction on recognized grounds?
  • Is a prior notice mandatory under the law before a landlord can file an application for the ejectment of a tenant?
  • Is the determination of the scope and nature of a landlord's personal requirement a matter for the landlord to decide?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL SHAH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 754 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE Opponent1978 PLD Karachi 295 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-25
  murderinsanity plealegal insanityburden of proofcriminal liabilityocular testimonymens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who pleaded insanity, was entitled to the protection of Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby negating criminal liability. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony. Regarding the plea of insanity, the Court held that the appellant failed to prove that at the time of the offense, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. The Court emphasized that legal insanity under Section 84 differs from medical insanity; mere eccentricity, lack of motive, or impulsive behavior does not suffice. The burden of proof rests on the accused to establish legal insanity at the precise time of the commission of the offense. The appellant's attempt to flee after the act demonstrated his cognitive awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of motive for a crime automatically entitle an accused to the defense of insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity for the purposes of criminal liability in Pakistan?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when an accused raises a plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an attempt to flee the scene of a crime relevant in determining whether an accused possessed the requisite cognitive faculties to understand the wrongfulness of their act?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VIRK AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 792 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VIRK AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 792 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs LA L DIN1978 PLD Lahore 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs HIDAYATULLAH AND 2 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 724 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs HAJI MUHAMMAD & SONS1978 PLD Karachi 926 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-04
  rent restrictionevictionfunctus officioexecution proceedingsdefault in rent paymentpenal clausestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal concerns the legality of an eviction order passed in execution proceedings. The Rent Controller had dismissed the landlord's eviction application on merits, finding no default by the tenant. However, the Controller simultaneously directed the tenant to pay the difference in rent by a specific date, failing which the tenant would be liable for eviction. Upon the tenant's failure to pay, the successor Rent Controller ordered eviction in execution. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller, after dismissing an eviction application on merits, retains jurisdiction to impose a penal clause resulting in eviction for non-compliance with a payment direction. The Court held that once the main eviction application was dismissed, the Rent Controller became functus officio regarding the eviction claim. The Court established that a direction to pay rent arrears, where the statute does not explicitly prescribe the consequence of non-compliance, is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, failure to pay such arrears provides a fresh cause of action for a new eviction proceeding but does not authorize automatic eviction through execution of the original dismissed application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order the eviction of a tenant in execution proceedings after dismissing the main eviction application on merits?
  • Does the failure to pay rent arrears as directed by a Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 automatically result in eviction?
  • Is a direction by a Rent Controller to pay rent arrears, where the statute specifies no consequence for non-compliance, mandatory or directory?
  • Does a Rent Controller become functus officio after dismissing an eviction application on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 5 Other vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMA1L vs LAL DIN1978 PLD Lahore 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISLAM, DIRECROR, DILKUSHA ENTERPRISES LTD. vs SIND LABOUR1978 PLC 432 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE, GENERAL SECRETARY, PECO PEOPLE'S UNION, LAHORE vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE ,1978 PLC 303 · Labour Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs IYAZ KHAN AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 919 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 257 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHUPURA1978 PLD (Lahore 223 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs ABDUL HAQUE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 898 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-30
  ex parte orderstriking off defenceservice of noticerelationship of landlord and tenantconditional stay orderdefault in rentrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from rent proceedings initiated by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant, Muhammad Ishaq, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal requirement. The core legal questions involve the validity of an ex parte rent order and an order striking off the defence passed without service of notice to the appellant or his counsel, the competence of an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte order, and the consequences of a breach of a conditional stay order granted by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court held that passing an ex parte rent order and striking off the defence without notice or proper opportunity of hearing are illegal and void. The Court established that an order refusing to set aside an ex parte order is appealable, and that failure to comply with a condition of a stay order granted during appeal merely vacates the stay rather than warranting the striking off of the tenant's defence under rent laws. The appeal was allowed and the ejectment application remanded for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte rent order and a subsequent order striking off the defence are sustainable when passed without service of notice to the tenant or his counsel?
  • Does an order refusing to set aside an ex parte order of eviction approximate the nature of an eviction order and thereby become appealable?
  • Whether a tenant's failure to comply with a condition attached to a stay order granted by an appellate court results in the striking off of his defence under rent laws or merely vacates the stay?
  • Is a party entitled to notice when a case is transferred suo motu to a transferee court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 4 OTHERS vs Ch. SANAULLAH1978 P Cr. L J 793 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE1978 PLC 49 · Labour Court · 1975-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 802 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 573 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN AND 51978 PLC [C. S. T.] 41 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs P. I. A. CORPORATION, KARACHI1978 PLC 75 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs FACTORY MANAGER, SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LTD. OKARA, DISTRICT SAHIWAL1978 PLC 275 · Labour Court · 1975-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL FAROOQI vs SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & POWERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 25 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1973-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Another vs MEMBER. BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1978 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs DIE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 670 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-01
  murder appealdeath sentence confirmationocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtinterested witnessescriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a joint appeal against the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court for the murder of Muti-ur-Rasul, along with the reference for confirmation of those sentences. The prosecution's case rested on alleged motives, ocular evidence from three related witnesses, and medical evidence. The court examined the consistency of the prosecution's narrative, specifically the alleged motive and the eyewitness accounts. The court found the motive unconvincing and the eyewitness testimony inherently unreliable, noting that the witnesses were related to the deceased and that their account of the incident was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the distance of the shot fired. The court held that where ocular evidence is contradicted by medical evidence, the latter must prevail. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the benefit of any doubt arising from inconsistencies in the prosecution's case must be given to the accused. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence regarding the distance of a gunshot wound prevail over conflicting ocular testimony?
  • Should the benefit of doubt arising from inconsistencies in the prosecution's case be given to the accused?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be rejected if it lacks inherent worth and is contradicted by physical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 865 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 668 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM/Accused vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 700 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 868 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUBARIK ALI1978 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, WORKSHOPS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MOGHALPURA, LAHORE1978 PLC 238 · Labour Court · 1975-10-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs BUDHAI JAKE AND 7 OTHERS, .1978 PLC 326 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SANGHAR KHAN vs THE STATE THE STATE AND Another1978 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. PHAPHAN AND 37 OTHERSPLD 1978 Rev. 81 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1977-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 9 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 226 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAW vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 67 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN Alias HASSAN DIN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN alia HASSAN DIN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1978 PLD Lahore 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-10
  suspension from servicecause of actionrejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionpublic servantsrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority, filed a civil suit challenging his order of suspension as illegal and malicious. The trial court ordered the return of the plaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Services Tribunal. On appeal, the District Judge held that the civil court had jurisdiction but rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether a suspension order constitutes a penalty or affects the terms and conditions of service so as to provide a cause of action for a civil suit. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that mere suspension from service is a temporary administrative measure and not a penalty, and thus does not furnish a cause of action to challenge it in a court of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of suspension from service constitute a penalty that gives a public employee a cause of action to approach a civil court?
  • Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an employee challenges a temporary suspension order?
  • Does the executive authority possess the inherent power to temporarily suspend a public employee pending an inquiry without affecting the terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1978 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-05
  ejectmentreasonable and bona fide requirementreconstructionamalgamation of propertiesleave to appealconcurrent findingsurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's second appeal against concurrent orders of ejectment from a commercial shop. The core legal question concerns whether the landlord's requirement for the demolition and reconstruction of the shop by amalgamating it with an adjoining property was reasonable and bona fide, or merely a device to extract higher rent. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord were unexceptionable, noting that subsequent developments—namely, the vacation of the adjoining shop—corroborated the landlord's genuine intention to reconstruct, and that statutory safeguards under the relevant rent restriction law adequately protect tenants against dishonest devices. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent judgments of ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction of a rented premises is reasonable and bona fide when involving amalgamation with an adjoining property?
  • Do subsections (5) and (5-A) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 provide sufficient safeguards against dishonest ejectment devices by landlords?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the District Judge regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement be interfered with in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs The STATE1978 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-07
  post-arrest bailleave to appealattempt to murdergrievous injuryovert actcriminal assaultbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his post-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered under Sections 307, 426, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when specifically charged with an overt act of causing a grievous injury on the abdomen of the injured with a knife during an armed attack. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no justification to interfere with the High Court's order as reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty of an offense punishable with imprisonment extending to ten years. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the observation that the petitioner could approach the appropriate court for bail after some evidence is recorded during the trial. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is prima facie connected with an overt act of causing grievous injury in a heinous crime, post-arrest bail is rightly refused at the pre-trial stage, subject to renewal after recording of trial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused charged with causing a grievous injury with a knife during a criminal assault entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail be entertained when reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to an offense punishable with imprisonment up to ten years?
  • Can an accused renew an application for bail before the trial court after some evidence has been recorded during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF Alias BILLA vs The STATE1978 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-15
  murderrelated eyewitnessinjured witnessappreciation of evidencesubstitution of accusedcriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and confirming his death sentence for murder. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony from related and injured witnesses, the necessity of medical proof for establishing an injured witness's presence, and the reliability of identification in daylight. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the testimony of related eyewitnesses is not inherently unreliable, that the presence of the injured eyewitness stood established even without formal medical evidence where his injuries were uncontroverted in cross-examination, and that substitution of an accused in a daylight crime is extremely rare. The key principle laid down is that related and injured eyewitness testimony remains credible and sufficient for conviction when natural, consistent, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances, even if minor procedural evidentiary gaps exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who are real brothers of the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship to the victim?
  • Does the failure to formally prove medical evidence regarding an injured witness's injuries negate their status as an injured witness when their testimony is unchallenged in cross-examination?
  • Whether substitution of an actual culprit by an innocent person is a common occurrence in daylight crimes?
  • Is objective physical intervention required by a natural witness to establish their presence at the scene of a sudden attack?
  Read full judgment →