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 SHER AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD AZIM AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 729 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-30
  forged documentregistered sale deedpresumption of registrationconcurrent findings of factburden of proofsecondary evidencesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of land, where the appellants claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 12-9-1957, while the respondent claimed ownership through a subsequent purchase via mutation sanctioned on 12-3-1961. The core legal question was whether the appellants' registered sale deed was genuine or a forged document, and whether the presumption of regularity attached to registration could be rebutted. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that the appellants' sale deed was a forgery, noting that the original document was withheld from the court, its alleged loss was unproven, and expert evidence confirmed the thumb impressions did not belong to the vendor. The High Court upheld these findings, holding that while a certificate of registration under the Registration Act 1908 provides evidence of the registration process, it does not create an irrebuttable presumption of the executant's identity or the document's genuineness. Where fraud is alleged, the court may inquire into the actual execution, and the burden of proof rests on the party relying on the disputed document.

  Questions settled

  • Does a certificate of registration under the Registration Act 1908 create an irrebuttable presumption that the document was executed by the person named therein?
  • Can a court inquire into the genuineness of a registered document if fraud is alleged?
  • Is a party entitled to lead secondary evidence of a document without proving its loss to the satisfaction of the court?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a document in a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 163 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AMIN1977 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-26
  landlord and tenantdenial of relationshipstriking of defencerent restrictionfrivolous pleajurisdiction of Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal filed by a tenant challenges an order striking out his defense under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, following his denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The core legal questions concern whether a Rent Controller must invariably frame a formal issue and conduct an elaborate inquiry upon a tenant's denial of tenancy, and whether a person collecting rent on behalf of a wife-owner must hold written authorization to qualify as a 'landlord' under the statute. The Lahore High Court held that a Rent Controller is not bound to adopt a rigid civil-court procedure or hold a formal inquiry in every instance, particularly where the denial of relationship is patently frivolous, mala fide, or capable of summary resolution from pleadings and documents. Furthermore, the Court held that the statutory definition of 'landlord' encompasses any person entitled to receive rent on behalf of another, and does not require such authorization to be in writing. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame a formal issue and hold a detailed inquiry whenever a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does a person receiving rent on behalf of another person require written authorization to be classified as a landlord under Section 2(c) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defense without affording a formal opportunity to adduce evidence when the denial of tenancy is frivolous and mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs AMANULLAH KHAN AND 7 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 118 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ALLAH DITTA AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 16 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND1977 PLC (C. S. T 1(2) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-06-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS vs SANA ULLAH AND OTHERS1977 PLD Rev. 44 · Board of Revenue · 1977-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 432 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFT vs DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., LYALLPUR1977 PLC 499-- · Labour Court · 1976-02-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs AZIZ AHMED AND ANOTHER1977 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-20
  murdergrave and sudden provocationconjectures and speculationsmitigating circumstancesfamily honoursentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the respondent's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the respondent stabbed the deceased with a knife in the street after accusing him of teasing his sister. The respondent claimed he acted under grave and sudden provocation, asserting his sister was being dragged by the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the High Court's finding of provocation was based on mere conjectures and speculations, as there was no evidence on record to show the respondent's sister was present in the street, and the eye-witnesses had repudiated the defence plea. The Supreme Court held that a conviction cannot be altered on the basis of conjectures unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the Court restored the conviction under Section 302, but reduced the sentence from death to transportation for life, noting that the respondent acted out of a sense of family honour.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court alter a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on mere conjectures and speculations without supporting evidence?
  • Whether a plea of grave and sudden provocation can be accepted in the absence of any evidence showing the presence of the provoked person's relative at the crime scene?
  • Does acting out of a sense of family honour constitute a mitigating circumstance sufficient to reduce a death sentence to transportation for life under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHABAN vs Master MUHAMMAD SADIQ1977 P Cr. L J 578 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 899 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARDAR KHAN vs 7FM STATE1977 P Cr. L J 503 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 75 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAJJAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 219 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAIEN vs MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES, JEHANGIRA1977 PLC 646 · Labour Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 141 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAHORE AND OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 320 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-06
  criminal appealocular evidencedying declarationplea of alibicorroborationmurder convictioncommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that modified the appellants' convictions from Section 302/149 to Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining death sentences for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence, the validity of the appellants' alibi, and whether alleged evidentiary infirmities—such as inconsistencies in the time of occurrence and the failure to send a weapon for ballistic analysis—undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular evidence, corroborated by medical reports and dying declarations, sufficiently established the appellants' guilt. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in testimony do not necessarily invalidate a prosecution case when the core narrative is supported by independent evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that a plea of alibi must be substantiated by credible evidence and that the physical proximity of the alibi location to the crime scene rendered the defense's claim improbable. The judgment reinforces the principle that consistent ocular evidence, when corroborated by medical findings, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to send a weapon for ballistic examination necessarily invalidate a conviction based on other corroborating evidence?
  • Can a plea of alibi be rejected if the accused's location at the time of the offense was in close proximity to the crime scene?
  • Does a minor inconsistency regarding the time of occurrence in a dying declaration automatically discredit the entire prosecution case?
  • Is ocular testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by medical evidence, even if some witnesses are excluded?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs ABDUL REHMAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 456 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZAULLAH KHAN DURRANI, MUHAMMAD IDRIS vs TM OFFICIAL1977 PLD Karachi 434 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-05
  insolvencyproof of debtofficial assigneecreditors meetingvoting rightsdividend paymentledger entryrejection of claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 86 of the Insolvency (Karachi Division) Act, 1909 arises from a decision of the Official Assignee of Karachi rejecting the appellant's claim of Rs. 16,000 as a creditor of the insolvent, Muhammad Razaullah Khan Durrani. The core legal questions were whether an entry scored out by the insolvent in his ledger book constituted sufficient proof of debt, and whether allowing a creditor to vote at a creditors' meeting under the First Schedule of the Act amounted to a binding acceptance of the debt for all purposes, including dividend payment. The Sindh High Court held that the Official Assignee rightly rejected the claim because the scored-out ledger entry was not contemporaneous or reliable, and the oral statement of the claimant lacked corroboration. Furthermore, the court held that admission of a creditor to vote at a meeting under rule 15 of the First Schedule is exclusively for voting purposes and distinct from the admission of proof for payment of dividends under rule 25 of the Second Schedule. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does allowing a creditor to vote at a meeting of creditors under the Insolvency (Karachi Division) Act, 1909 amount to a final acceptance of the creditor's claim for the purpose of paying dividends?
  • Can a scored-out entry in an insolvent's ledger book serve as sufficient legal proof of a debt in the absence of corroborating oral or documentary evidence?
  • Are the powers of the Official Assignee to admit or reject a proof of debt for voting purposes distinct from his powers to admit or reject proofs for the payment of dividends?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 188 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN AND Another vs MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ KHAN AND Other1977 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-04-11
  evacuee landRehabilitation Settlement Schemeimplied revocation of willMuslim Law of inheritancecustomary lawgift deedreview petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenged the dismissal of a special leave to appeal concerning the allotment of evacuee land. The petitioners sought to enforce a 1942 will and a 1947 gift made by their father, which the Settlement authorities had declined to recognize, opting instead to distribute the estate according to Muslim Law under Paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The core legal questions were whether the 1947 gift impliedly revoked the 1942 will under customary or Muslim law, and whether the Settlement authorities erred in excluding the dispositions. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent gift of the same property by the testator during his lifetime effectively and impliedly revoked the earlier will under both Muslim and customary law. Consequently, the will became inoperative, and the estate was correctly distributed according to the personal law of the deceased. The Court affirmed that the petitioners could not benefit from the gifts due to their failure to establish them in the revenue records, thus upholding the application of Paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent gift of property by a testator during his lifetime impliedly revoke an earlier will under Muslim and customary law?
  • Is a will enforceable under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme if the testator dies after the partition of the subcontinent?
  • Can a party claim the benefit of a gift in evacuee land proceedings if the gift was not recorded in the revenue records?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs The STATE1977 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-05-15
  extra-judicial confessionretracted confessionmurdercircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentcorroborationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death for the murder of his cousin. The prosecution case rested primarily upon an extra-judicial confession made to independent villagers, a motive involving illicit relations with the deceased's wife, the appellant's unexplained absence from employment, and subsequent recoveries of incriminating articles and the weapon of offence. The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility and evidentiary value of a retracted extra-judicial confession, the reliability of independent witnesses regarding extra-judicial confessions, and the sufficiency of circumstantial corroboration. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, ruling that a retracted extra-judicial confession, when voluntarily made and duly corroborated by unimpeachable recoveries and circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The key principle laid down is that the retraction of a confession has no bearing on whether it was voluntarily made in the first instance, provided independent corroborative evidence firmly establishes the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retraction of an extra-judicial confession destroy its evidentiary value regarding its initial voluntary nature and truth?
  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made to village lambardars and independent citizens can form the basis of a conviction without corroboration?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession rendered inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act 1872 simply because it was made to a village Lambardar in the absence of any threat, promise, or inducement?
  • What is the legal weight of incriminating recoveries and motive when assessing the reliability of a retracted extra-judicial confession in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA1977 PLC 507 · Labour Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 585 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs MESSRS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL, DEVELOPMENT1977 PLC 262 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ man ANoTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 518 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASIM vs GENERAL MANGER, ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD., RAHIMYAR KHAN1977 PLC 557 · Labour Court · 1976-08-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 449 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZ1R vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 7 OTHERSs1977 PLD Lahore 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs VICE-CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1977 PLC 629 · Labour Court · 1976-03-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS vs The STATE1977 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-05
  death sentencemurderhatchet injuriescommon objectmitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where he was sentenced to death for the murder of a co-villager over a land dispute. Leave to appeal was granted solely to consider the propriety of the death sentence, as the appellant contended that the fatal injuries on the deceased were caused by blunt weapons, whereas he was armed with a hatchet. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence and found that the appellant had inflicted multiple forceful incised wounds with a hatchet on the head of the deceased and had also injured other prosecution witnesses. The Court observed that the appellant had a strong motive, played the major role in mounting the armed attack, and was the chief culprit in the incident. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the death sentence was rightly awarded and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a death sentence is appropriate for an accused armed with a sharp-edged weapon when the fatal injuries are caused by blunt weapons, but the accused played the major role in the attack?
  • Does the infliction of multiple forceful hatchet blows on vital parts of the body justify the imposition of the capital sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 129 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA ABBAS AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 677 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs KOH-I-NOOK SPINNING MILLS LTD.1977 P L C213 · Labour Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR BUTT vs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA1977 PLC 109 · Labour Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ alias BHOLI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 752 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR RANA vs SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER- Respondents1977 PLD Lahore 524 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-04
  constructive res judicataspecial tribunalequality clausewrit jurisdictionmala fideemergency legislationfundamental rightsclassification of offences
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged proceedings before a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971, alleging mala fide, unconstitutionality, and violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 4, 24, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner contended that the Ordinance provided an inadequate procedure for a fair trial, violated the equality clause, and that the prosecution was motivated by mala fide intent. The Court held that the petition was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, as the petitioner failed to raise these arguments in a previous writ petition challenging the same Tribunal's proceedings. On merits, the Court rejected the constitutional challenges, ruling that the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971, created a valid classification of offences and offenders, which is not arbitrary or capricious. The Court affirmed that exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon a Special Tribunal, even with procedures differing from the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is constitutional provided the classification is rational and bears a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation, which the Ordinance satisfies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to writ petitions challenging criminal proceedings?
  • Is the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971, violative of the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a law establishing a special tribunal with procedures different from the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered constitutional?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the trial of an offence under a different law if that law existed at the time of the commission of the act?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MASUD vs AZIZ AHMAD1977 PLC 656 · Labour Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALOOK vs H. R. PASHA AND ANOTHER1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 210 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1974-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs KHIZAR HAYAT AND AND Other1977 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-24
  criminal appealcommon intentionwitness credibilitycorroboration of evidencecriminal trespasshurtappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's order regarding the conviction of the respondent, Khizar Hayat, for various offences arising from a land dispute. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish the respondent's criminal liability, particularly given the inconsistencies in eye-witness accounts regarding his specific overt acts. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent was not implicated in the assault on the deceased in the FIR or by witnesses. Furthermore, witness testimony regarding the respondent's role in assaulting two prosecution witnesses was contradictory and lacked corroboration. However, the Court found credible evidence that the respondent participated in the assault on one specific witness, P.W. Riaz. Consequently, the Court set aside the original convictions for more serious charges and convicted the respondent under sections 447 and 323 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle laid down is that where multiple accused are lumped together in testimony, conviction requires specific, corroborated evidence of individual participation, and general allegations are insufficient to sustain convictions for serious offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the evidence fails to attribute specific overt acts to him?
  • Does the lumping of multiple accused persons in witness testimony without specific attribution of injuries suffice for a conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the evidence only corroborates the assault on one of several alleged victims?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs KARIM BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 747 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-28
  Rehabilitation Settlement SchemeJammu & Kashmir refugeestemporary allotmentallotment of landwrit petitionintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of 49 kanals and 17 marlas of land in District Sialkot, originally allotted to Ghulam Rasul, a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, in 1955 under the Rehabilitation Act. The appellants, also refugees, sought the allotment of this land after Ghulam Rasul's death, arguing that as claimants, they were entitled to the land over the heirs of the original allottee. The core legal question was whether the appellants could claim land that had been allotted on a temporary basis to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Court held that the land in question was explicitly excluded from the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme pursuant to paragraph 4-A, Chapter II of the West Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Consequently, the appellants had no legal right to claim the land under that scheme. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the appellants' writ petition, establishing the principle that land allotted on a temporary basis to Jammu & Kashmir refugees is excluded from the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and is not available for allotment to other claimants.

  Questions settled

  • Is land allotted on a temporary basis to Jammu & Kashmir refugees available for allotment under the West Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Does the death of a temporary allottee of land under the Rehabilitation Act create a right for other claimants to seek allotment of that land?
  • Are heirs of a temporary allottee of land under the Rehabilitation Act entitled to succeed to that allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAN vs FAZAL AHMAD1977 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAN GHAZNAVI vs CAPTAIN Haji MUHAMMAD KABIR AND 31977 PLD Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-07
  transfer of propertyostensible ownerbona fide purchasermutation entryreasonable careforged power of attorneytitle
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal and connected cross-objections arise out of a civil suit concerning a disputed property transaction involving a forged power of attorney. The core legal question centered on whether subsequent purchasers of the property were entitled to the protection afforded to bona fide transferees from an ostensible owner under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether mere reliance on revenue mutation entries constituted reasonable care. The Balochistan High Court held that the initial purchaser could not claim protection because no valid power of attorney or payment of consideration was proved, rendering his purchase mala fide. Furthermore, subsequent purchasers relying solely on mutation entries—which do not create title or carry a presumption of truth—failed to exercise reasonable care as required by law. The court laid down the principle that mutation entries in revenue records have merely evidentiary value and do not confer proprietary title, and a purchaser who relies solely upon them without investigating the underlying title does so at his own risk and cannot claim the benefit of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a purchaser who relies solely on revenue mutation entries without investigating the underlying title can be considered to have acted with reasonable care under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Do entries in a register of mutations create or extinguish proprietary title or carry a presumption of truth under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Whether a person claiming the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as a transferee from an ostensible owner bears the burden of pleading and proving the elements of the section?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs IQBAL AHMED1977 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-30
  arbitration agreementpartnership at willsham documentappointment of receiverexistence of disputerent laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking an order to direct the defendant to file a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause, for the appointment of an arbitrator, and for the appointment of a Receiver pending the award. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that no sufficient cause was shown as there was no dispute and that the partnership deed was a sham document designed to circumvent rent laws, constituting a landlord-tenant relationship instead. The Court held that allegations and counter-allegations regarding rendition of accounts, dissolution, and secret profits sufficiently demonstrate the existence of disputes. Furthermore, the explicit partnership deed, capital contribution, and sharing of profits established a valid partnership under Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The Court also held that an arbitration clause lacking a specified number of arbitrators is governed by the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Finally, the Court allowed the application, directed the appointment of an arbitrator, and appointed a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether allegations of a partnership deed being a sham document demonstrate the existence of a dispute under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • What are the essential ingredients of a partnership under Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932?
  • Does an arbitration clause that fails to specify the number of arbitrators or the mode of their appointment become void, or does the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940 apply?
  • When should a Receiver be appointed in a partnership at will involving two equal partners?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs IQBAL AHMAD1977 PLD Karachi 886 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-30
  arbitration agreementpartnership-at-willappointment of receiversham partnershipexistence of disputearbitration clauserendition of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940, seeking a court order to file a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause, the appointment of an arbitrator, and the appointment of a Receiver for the firm's assets. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that no dispute existed and that the partnership deed was a sham document intended to circumvent rent laws. The Court held that the allegations and counter-allegations regarding the rendition of accounts and secret profits sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a dispute. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim that the partnership was a sham, finding that the essential ingredients of a partnership under Section 4 of the Partnership Act 1932 were satisfied. The Court ruled that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, with the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1940 governing the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the Court appointed a Receiver for the partnership business, establishing that in a partnership-at-will, a Receiver is appropriate when partners are in conflict and allegations of mismanagement exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause that fails to specify the number of arbitrators or the mode of appointment remain valid?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish a partnership under the Partnership Act 1932?
  • Is the appointment of a Receiver justified in a partnership-at-will where partners are in conflict and allegations of secret profits are made?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL Alias LOLI AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1977 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-12-17
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymurdercriminal liabilityjoint liabilityappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of two appellants for the murder of one Rab Nawaz. The core legal question was whether Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was correctly applied in convicting both appellants, given that only one bullet struck the deceased while the other missed. The Court held that the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was legally sound. The evidence established that both appellants arrived armed and fired shots at the deceased simultaneously, demonstrating a shared common intention to commit the murder. The Court affirmed that even if it were uncertain which specific appellant fired the fatal shot, their joint action and presence with a common purpose brought them within the ambit of Section 34. The key principle laid down is that where multiple accused act in concert with a shared intent to kill, they are vicariously liable for the resulting death, regardless of which specific act caused the fatal injury.

  Questions settled

  • Does the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require that the fatal injury be attributed to a specific accused?
  • Can two persons be convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when only one bullet strikes the deceased?
  • Does the presence of multiple armed assailants acting in concert satisfy the requirement of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISRAR KHAN vs GENERAL/PROJECT MANAGER, SUGAR MILLS, SERAI1977 PLC 650 · Labour Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 523 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY IRRIGATION AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISLAM SHAH vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs TiE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI1977 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs AFZAL ELAHI USMANI1977 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-14
  ejectmentdefault in rentrestoration of appealdismissal in defaultdiscretion of courtservice of noticelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's dismissal of a second appeal in default and the subsequent refusal to restore it. The petitioner, a tenant facing ejectment, had contested the service of a notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, arguing that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge had concurrently found that the petitioner refused the notice, thereby establishing the tenancy and confirming the ejectment order due to default in rent payment. In the High Court, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner sought restoration, citing his counsel's lack of access to the cause list and the counsel's illness, both of which were rejected by the High Court for lack of evidence and negligence. The Supreme Court held that no question of law arose and that the High Court had exercised its discretion neither illegally nor arbitrarily. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the petitioner was granted two months to vacate the premises subject to continued rent payments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's refusal to restore an appeal dismissed in default constitutes an illegal or arbitrary exercise of discretion?
  • Can a tenant who refuses to accept a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, claim that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established?
  • Is the illness of counsel a sufficient ground for restoration of an appeal dismissed in default if not supported by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL ZAFAR vs The STATE1977 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-16
  post-arrest bailcorruptionsanction for prosecutiongovernment servantdelay in trialforged billsFederal Investigation Agency
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal by Muhammad Iqbal Zafar, an Assistant Food Controller, challenging the High Court's dismissal of his post-arrest bail application. The appellant was arrested on 7 September 1976 pursuant to a case registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) under Sections 402, 409, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, regarding allegations of connivance in preparing false and forged bills for wheat transportation. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to bail considering the prolonged nature of judicial custody, the status of investigation, the requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants, and the anticipated delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail, observing that although the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, requisite prosecution sanction for government servants had not been obtained, the case involved approximately seventy prosecution witnesses alongside voluminous records, and the trial would foreseeably take years to conclude.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused government servant is entitled to bail when sanction for prosecution has not yet been obtained despite the submission of the challan?
  • Whether the likelihood of protracted trial due to voluminous records and numerous prosecution witnesses constitutes a valid ground for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAMULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1279 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS/Decree-Holder vs HAROON TEXTILE MILLS AN ANOTHER-1977 PLD Karachi 681 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IKRAM QURESHI vs MEHRAJ DIN AND 3 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 437 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IJAZ AHMAD KAHLOON vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH I.G.1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 180 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs RAHMATULLAH1977 PLD Rev. 15 · Board of Revenue · 1977-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA1977 PLD Rev. 18 · Board of Revenue · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs I.-G. OF POLICE, SIND AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 24 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAH1M vs RAHIM DAD AND 4 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs The STATE1977 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-08
  post-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionparity in bailage as ground for bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case where the petitioners sought bail in connection with an altercation resulting in culpable homicide amounting to murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner Muhammad Hussain was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of age and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the co-accused who was released, as the petitioner was specifically alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased, and that advanced age alone at 70 years does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail in such circumstances. The court established the principle that parity in bail cannot be claimed when the factual role and attribution of injuries differ among co-accused, and age alone is insufficient for bail in serious offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether advanced age alone entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Can an accused claim parity for bail when his role is distinguishable from a co-accused who has been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUBARAK ALI1977 PLD Lahore 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs HABEEB WALT MUHAMMAD AND OTHEER1977 PLD Karachi 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs GHULAM ALI1977 PLD Karachi 285 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-04
  evictiondefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide useunregistered leasecollateral purposeadmissibility of documentburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant concerning shop premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide use. The landlord claimed a monthly rent of Rs. 230 and later demanded Rs. 250, while the tenant asserted the rent was Rs. 115 with a monthly adjustment of Rs. 15 from a security deposit, leaving a payable amount of Rs. 100, which he had tendered via money orders. The Rent Controller found the tenant to be a defaulter but granted eviction on the ground of personal use. The First Appellate Court reversed this finding, holding that the tenant was not a defaulter and that the landlord's personal need was not established. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unregistered lease agreement could be looked into for collateral purposes such as proving the rate of rent, that a document admitted without objection cannot later be challenged on admissibility, and that the landlord failed to prove a genuine personal requirement for the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unregistered lease agreement be looked into for collateral purposes to show the rate of rent?
  • Does a document admitted into evidence without objection preclude a party from raising admissibility objections at a later stage?
  • What constitutes proof of signature under the Evidence Act when the author of the document has died?
  • Whether a landlord demanding excessive rent can claim the tenant is in default when the tenant tenders the actual lawful rent.
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR AND ANcrrHER1977 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYATULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1977 PLD Lahore 166 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-04
  land reformsinterchange of landconsolidation of holdingtenanted landfamily holdingFederal Land Commissionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the orders of the Land Commission authorities rejecting a landowner's proposed scheme for the interchange of land with members of his family under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question concerns whether the interchange of land under the said provision is restricted by whether the land is tenanted or untenanted, and whether consolidation refers solely to the declarant's holding or the family holding as a whole. The Lahore High Court held that the Land Commission's refusal based on the presence of tenanted land and the narrow interpretation of consolidation was illegal and based on extraneous considerations. The Court ruled that paragraph 11 does not distinguish between tenanted and untenanted areas, that tenant rights under paragraph 18 only accrue after final resumption subsequent to the declarant's choice, and that 'consolidation' encompasses the family holding as a whole rather than the declarant's holding in isolation. The impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does paragraph 11(2) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 prohibit the exchange of tenanted land?
  • Whether the requirement of consolidation under paragraph 11(2) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 applies to the declarant's holding alone or to the family holding as a whole?
  • Do tenant rights under paragraph 18 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 precede a landowner's right of choice and exchange under paragraph 11?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-09
  culpable homicidegangrene as cause of deathinterested witnesssudden provocationreduction of sentenceknife blow
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali. The core legal questions involved whether minor discrepancies in recording police statements affected credibility, whether a witness associated as a disciple of the deceased was an interested witness, and whether death caused by gangrene resulting from a stab wound warranted altering the conviction to a lesser offence. The Lahore High Court held that minor discrepancies in recording statements did not undermine the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., that a spiritual association without motive did not render a witness 'interested', and that death resulting from gangrene or infection flowing naturally from a severe bodily injury does not absolve the assailant of responsibility for the culpable homicide. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced the sentence from ten to seven years rigorous imprisonment due to sudden provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies regarding the exact place and sequence of recording police statements vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Does an association between a prosecution witness and the deceased as a spiritual follower render the witness 'interested' in the absence of a proven motive?
  • Does the intervening development of gangrene from a stab wound relieve the assailant of criminal liability for culpable homicide?
  • Whether a single blow delivered in a sudden quarrel under the heat of passion caused by a dirty joke warrants reduction of sentence under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs MANAGER, W. P. I. D. C., SALT MINES, KHEWRA1977 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-18
  Miner BookWrit jurisdictionW.P.I.D.C.Employment disputeConstitutional petitionNatural justiceMisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the possession of a "Miner Book" at the Khewra Salt Mines, which functioned as a permit for employment. The appellant challenged an order by the Manager of the Salt Mines that re-allotted a Miner Book to the respondent, contending that the order was passed ex parte without notice and that a prior administrative decision had attained finality. The High Court dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition, citing the appellant's conduct and the lack of necessity for a formal show-cause notice given the public nature of the inquiry. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had misread the evidence regarding the appellant's medical incapacitation. However, the Court held that the appeal must fail on broader grounds. Relying on the precedent established in The Chairman, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca and another v. Rustam Ali and another, the Court determined that the appellant, as an employee of the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, could not invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation by its employees?
  • Does a misreading of evidence by the High Court automatically entitle an appellant to relief if the underlying petition is not maintainable?
  • Can an administrative order be challenged in writ jurisdiction if the petitioner is an employee of a statutory corporation not subject to constitutional guarantees?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER13 1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 15 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-06-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 4 OTHERS vs Mr MUHAMMAD MURAD AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 3 others vs THE STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 652 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 3 OTHERS vs MIR MUHAMMAD MURAD AHD1977 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASHIWI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 957 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATEApplicant1977 P Cr. L J 383 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-15
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicide not amounting to murdermurder convictionfirst information reportappreciation of evidencestatement of accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal from jail challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Muhammad Sadiq, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve determining the reliability of the prosecution's eyewitness and FIR evidence, and whether the appellant's act fell under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to grave and sudden provocation arising from the deceased's illicit advances towards the appellant's wife. The Lahore High Court held that the first information report was recorded at the spot after a preliminary inquiry and lacked evidentiary value, and that imported eyewitnesses were untrustworthy. Accepting the appellant's version supported by prosecution admissions, the court concluded that the deceased's arrogant taunts in a public place deprived the appellant of self-control. Consequently, the conviction was altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that whether a provocation is grave and sudden is a question of fact to be assessed in light of the culprit's social background, family traditions, and surrounding circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a first information report recorded at the spot after a preliminary inquiry retain its sanctity and evidentiary value?
  • Whether the statement of an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected as a whole?
  • Does the hurling of an arrogant taunt regarding an illicit liaison in a public place constitute grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • How does the social and cultural background of an offender affect the determination of grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1977 PLD Lahore 1214 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs ASIF SILK FACTORY1977 PLC 693(1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs ABDUR RAHMAN AND Other1977 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-13
  compensation to victimmandatory dutycriminal procedureenhancement of sentencefine recoverygrievous injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the sentencing of respondents convicted of attempted murder and being armed with deadly weapons. The core legal question was whether the High Court failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements of Sections 544-A and 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by not awarding compensation to the appellant, who suffered grievous physical and mental injuries, including the loss of sight and speech, out of the fine imposed on the respondents. The Supreme Court held that Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, imposes a mandatory duty on the court to award compensation to the victim unless reasons for not doing so are recorded. The Court emphasized that the purpose of this provision is to alleviate the suffering of the injured and act as a deterrent against violent crime. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that a portion of the fine imposed on the respondents be paid to the appellant as compensation for his injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Is the duty to award compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for the court?
  • Can the appellate court direct that a fine imposed on a convict be paid to the victim as compensation?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to award compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a legal error that can be rectified on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haleem, MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 499 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haleem, Khawaja ABDUL LATIF vs ADMINISTRATOR, ABANDONED1977 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 99 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-06-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN vs SULAIMAN A. G. PANJWANI AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 88 · Sindh High Court
  partnership dissolutionnotice of dissolutionequitable mortgagedeposit of title deedsoverdraft facilitydeclaratory suitspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Sindh High Court disposes of two connected suits: a declaratory suit filed by a partner seeking absolution from liability regarding overdraft facilities obtained by his co-partner post-dissolution, and a recovery suit filed by the lending bank against the partnership firm and its partners. The core legal questions involved whether the firm's dissolution was duly communicated to the bank so as to absolve the plaintiff partner of subsequent liabilities, whether the bank had implied notice, and whether the deposit of title deeds constituted a valid equitable mortgage without registration. The court held that individual or actual notice of dissolution was not proved, implied notice could not be established from the circumstances, and the memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds was a record of a past transaction requiring no registration. Consequently, the court decreed the bank's recovery suit and preliminary mortgage decree, while dismissing the partner's declaratory suit as not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The key principles laid down relate to the requirements of notice under partnership law, the admissibility of memoranda of equitable mortgage, and the limits of declaratory relief in pecuniary disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether individual notice of partnership dissolution to a third-party creditor is sufficient to relieve a partner from subsequent liabilities in the absence of public notice?
  • Does a memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds require registration if it records a past transaction rather than operating in praesenti to create a mortgage?
  • Can a suit for a negative declaration regarding pecuniary liability and to restrain legal proceedings be maintained under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM QADIR AND 2 OTHERS -1977 PLD Lahore 513 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) vs BASHIR AHMAD1977 PLD Lahore 267 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DAUREZ vs The STATE1977 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-23
  criminal appealdouble murderhostile witnessesocular evidenceballistic evidencedeath sentencecommutation of sentencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the double murder of Muhammad Azeem and Ghulam Hussain, and for a murderous assault on Ghulam Abbas. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the testimony of two hostile witnesses—the deceased’s wife and son—who attempted to exonerate the appellant, and whether the prosecution’s ocular evidence, corroborated by forensic ballistic reports and physical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences. The Court held that testimony from witnesses who are closely related to the accused and have been won over by the family can be rejected, particularly when contradicted by independent, natural witnesses and forensic evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that minor, trifling contradictions in ocular testimony do not invalidate the evidence of otherwise trustworthy witnesses. Finally, the Court ruled that the time taken in the finalization of a capital case, unless extraordinary or inordinate, does not automatically justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment in cases of cold-blooded murder.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of witnesses who are closely related to the accused and have been won over by the family be rejected by the court?
  • Does the presence of minor or trifling contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses invalidate their entire testimony?
  • Does the delay in the finalization of a capital case automatically justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the evidence of a single, disinterested, and natural witness?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 744 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 593 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR SIDDIQUIE vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-08Read full judgment →