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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Messrs Masoomi Enterprises Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited and 2 others vs Messrs Ping Tan Fishery Company and 5 others2002 PLD Supreme Court 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-24
  Admiralty jurisdictionAction in remFishing licenseAdmiralty suitSister shipMaritime claimAdmiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the invocation of admiralty jurisdiction. The petitioners entered an agreement with the respondents allowing the latter to operate fishing trawlers under the petitioners' license. Upon the respondents' default on payments, the petitioners filed admiralty suits seeking the arrest of the respondents' vessels. The core legal question was whether a claim arising from a license agreement for fishing rights falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, specifically regarding actions in rem. The Supreme Court held that the agreement was for the use of a license, not for the carriage of goods, use, or hire of a ship, and thus did not satisfy the conditions of Section 3(2)(h) of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the vessels in question were not subject to the agreement, nor did they meet the requirements for an action in rem against sister ships under Section 4(4). Consequently, the High Court correctly transferred the suits to its original side.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim arising from an agreement to use a fishing license fall under the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can an action in rem be maintained against a vessel for a claim that does not arise from the use or hire of that specific ship?
  • Under what conditions can an action in rem be invoked against a ship under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lyallpur Oil & General Mills And 6 Others vs Habib Bank Limited2002 P.C.T.L.R. 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-09-26
  banking lawrecovery of loanpre-depositdecretal amountstatutory compliancemortgage securityentertainment of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a leave to appeal petition challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellants' appeal against a Banking Court's decree for the recovery of a loan amount. The High Court's dismissal was based on the appellants' failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question was whether the existence of mortgaged property securing the loan could substitute for the statutory requirement of depositing the decretal amount to entertain an appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that unlike preceding banking laws, the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 contains no provision allowing the substitution of the decretal amount deposit with alternative security such as a mortgage. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing that the deposit of the decretal amount is an absolute statutory precondition for the entertainment of an appeal under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the deposit of the decretal amount under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 is a mandatory precondition for the entertainment of an appeal?
  • Can a mortgage of property serve as sufficient security to bypass the requirement of depositing the decretal amount under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 allow courts the discretion to accept alternative security instead of the decretal amount for entertaining an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jame's Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd, through Executive2002 PLD Supreme Court 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-29
  arbitration awardstamp dutycourt interventionimpounding documentsadmissibility of evidencearbitration in suitscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that had partly accepted a civil revision. The dispute originated from a contract for building an overhead bridge, where differences led the appellant company to file a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking court intervention for arbitration. An award was subsequently submitted, but the respondents objected, applying to de-exhibit and impound the award for being unstamped. The trial court and High Court held the award was deficiently stamped under Article 12 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, 1899. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the lower courts' findings, holding that an award arising through the intervention of a court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is materially different from a private award. The Court ruled that such an award is made by an order of the court in the course of a suit and is not subject to stamp duty under Article 12.

  Questions settled

  • Is an arbitration award made through the intervention of a court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, liable to stamp duty under Article 12 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, 1899?
  • Does the phrase 'otherwise than by an order of the Court' in Article 12 of the Stamp Act, 1899, exclude court-intervened arbitration awards from stamp duty requirements?
  • Can an instrument that has already been admitted in evidence be subsequently challenged or impounded on the ground of being deficiently stamped under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Huffaz Seamlen Pipe Industries Ltd. and 2 others vs Messrs2002 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-06
  banking suitsale and lease back agreementcontract of guaranteeliability of guarantorleave to defendconcurrent findingsrecovery of finance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh affirming a Banking Court's decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,03,39,110 against the petitioners (a principal debtor company and its guarantors) in a suit filed by a banking corporation under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The petitioners challenged the validity of the sale and lease-back agreement, arguing improper calculation of mark-up, premature deduction of rentals before asset delivery, and charging mark-up on mark-up. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the principal debtor had voluntarily entered into the conscious buyback agreement, defaulted on payments after utilizing the finance and assets, and that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had failed to properly contest the suit before the trial court. The Court further held that a guarantor's liability is distinct from that of the principal debtor and a guarantor cannot rely on technicalities or plead the case of the principal debtor to evade liability. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a guarantor challenge the validity and propriety of terms and conditions agreed upon between the principal debtor and a creditor?
  • Whether the liabilities of a principal debtor and a guarantor arising from the same transaction are distinct?
  • Is a guarantor entitled to take advantage of conditions incorporated in the principal agreement that are not reflected in the contract of guarantee?
  • Can an appeal be maintained under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against concurrent findings of lower courts where the petitioner raises misconceived pleas and technicalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Kashmir Palace (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs First Elite Capital2002 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-26
  stay of executionbank guaranteedecretal amountMusharaka investmentrendition of accountsinterim orderexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court, which granted a stay of execution of a decree conditional upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the full decretal amount. The petitioner challenged this condition, arguing that they had already repaid an amount exceeding the principal loan and that the respondent-Bank was improperly charging a fixed profit rate of 20%, which the petitioner contended was interest disguised as Musharaka investment. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the High Court failed to account for existing security, specifically the mortgage of the building, and that requiring a bank guarantee effectively amounted to the recovery of the entire decretal amount before the final adjudication of the rendition of accounts. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the respondent for a future date and ordered that the execution proceedings remain stayed in the interim. The judgment highlights the court's discretionary power to grant stay orders and the necessity of balancing the interests of the decree-holder with the financial burden imposed on the judgment-debtor during pending appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire decretal amount when granting a stay of execution?
  • Does the charging of a fixed profit rate in a Musharaka investment agreement constitute interest?
  • Should a court consider existing security, such as a mortgage, before ordering a bank guarantee as a condition for staying execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd. and 6 others vs National2002 PLD Supreme Court 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-02
  consent decreeSection 12(2) C.P.C.fraud and misrepresentationcompromise decreeloan restructuringexecution of decreebanking finance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The petitioners sought to challenge a consent decree, alleging that the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was obtained through fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could invoke Section 12(2) C.P.C. to set aside a consent decree after having partially acted upon it and without providing specific particulars of the alleged fraud. The Supreme Court held that the consent decree was valid, as the parties had entered into the compromise voluntarily with legal assistance, and the petitioners had already performed part of their obligations under the decree. The Court affirmed that mere allegations of fraud without specific details or material evidence do not warrant an inquiry under Section 12(2) C.P.C. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot challenge a consent decree under Section 12(2) C.P.C. based on vague allegations of fraud when the decree has attained finality and the challenging party has previously accepted and acted upon its terms.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a court to frame issues and record evidence in every application filed under Section 12(2) C.P.C.?
  • Can a party challenge a consent decree under Section 12(2) C.P.C. after having partially acted upon it?
  • Does a mere allegation of fraud without specific particulars or supporting material warrant an inquiry under Section 12(2) C.P.C.?
  • Can a statute enacted after the passing of a consent decree be applied retrospectively to challenge the validity of that decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chapal Builders vs Government of Sindh and others2002 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-02
  octroilocal governmentconstitutional petitionleave to appealurban areatown committeeunion council
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the High Court which dismissed constitutional petitions questioning the imposition and realization of octroi by the Union Council Gujro and its successor, Town Committee Gujro. The core legal question concerns the legality of levying octroi and the validity of upgrading a Union Council to a Town Committee over areas deemed to be urban areas under the Karachi Development Authority schemes, particularly regarding statutory requirements of compactness, territorial unity, and population limits under the relevant local government legislation. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the contravention of statutory provisions concerning the declaration and characteristics of a town require detailed examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the petition, laying down the principle that the statutory characteristics of local areas such as towns and their population limits must be strictly adhered to unless properly waived with recorded reasons by the Government.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Union Council can legally levy octroi in respect of lands comprised in housing societies and schemes of the Karachi Development Authority deemed to be urban areas?
  • Does the upgradation of a Union Council to a Town Committee circumvent the legal effects of prior judicial precedents regarding urban and rural delimitations?
  • Whether the Government is required to record reasons for waiving the statutory characteristics of compactness and population limits when delimiting a local area under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bilz (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Multan2002 PTD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-25
  withholding taxassessee in defaultincome taxfiscal statutestatutory obligationtax deduction at source
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the withholding tax obligations of an assessee. The core legal question was whether an assessee could be declared an "assessee in default" for failing to deduct tax under Section 50(4)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, if the Assessing Officer had not specifically identified the recipients from whom the tax should have been deducted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the assessee was correctly declared in default. The Court established that the statutory obligation to deduct tax lies with the payer, who must maintain records of payments. Consequently, it is not the duty of the Assessing Officer to identify individual recipients when the assessee has failed to perform its withholding duties. The Court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be construed strictly, and an assessee cannot evade tax liability by shifting the burden of identifying recipients to the tax department when the assessee itself possesses the requisite knowledge and records of the transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an assessee be declared an "assessee in default" for failing to deduct tax if the Assessing Officer did not identify the specific recipients of the payments?
  • Does the burden of identifying recipients for withholding tax purposes lie with the Assessing Officer or the assessee?
  • Is an assessee required to maintain records of payments to justify the non-deduction of withholding tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Batala Fruit Company, Sargodha vs The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and others2002 C.L.R. 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  allotment of plotscommission agentconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionagricultural produce marketquestions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the allotment of plots to commission agents in a newly established fruits and vegetables market in Sargodha. The core legal question involved the determination of the status of 'already working commission agents' entitled to reserved plots under the relevant rules and whether factual disputes regarding such status could be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that determining whether a person qualifies as a working commission agent requires a detailed enquiry through the production of evidence, which is beyond the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision dismissing the appeals and directing the parties to approach the civil court to establish their rights. The key principle laid down is that disputed questions of fact requiring evidentiary inquiry, such as the operational status and licensing of commission agents, cannot be resolved in writ proceedings and must be adjudicated by a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the status of a working commission agent entitled to plot allotment can be determined in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a detailed inquiry through evidence required to establish the pre-requisites of a working commission agent under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets rules?
  • Can disputes regarding the entitlement of market plots be appropriately resolved by a civil court when factual controversy exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Mercantile Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs State Bank of Pakistan2002 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-03-08
  banking businessstatutory interpretationejusdem generisunauthorized bankingState Bank of PakistanBanking Companies Ordinancepublic deposits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment dismissing petitions challenging declarations issued by the State Bank of Pakistan. The appellants, private companies, were accused of conducting unauthorized banking business in violation of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, as amended in 1979. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of 'banking' under the Ordinance, specifically whether the definition required transactions with the general public, whether the principle of ejusdem generis applied to the definition of 'banking' regarding withdrawal methods, and whether the State Bank was required to provide reasons in its declarations under Section 43-B. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' activities constituted banking, noting that the definition of 'banking' is comprehensive and not restricted by the ejusdem generis rule, as the term 'otherwise' in the statute indicates a broad scope intended to prevent public fraud. The Court affirmed that the State Bank acted within its authority after providing show-cause notices and personal hearings. It established that the definition of 'banking' encompasses deposits from indefinite groups, and statutory interpretation must align with the legislative intent to curb illegal financial practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'banking' under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 require that deposits be accepted from the general public?
  • Is the principle of ejusdem generis applicable to the interpretation of the word 'otherwise' in the definition of 'banking' under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962?
  • Does a declaration issued by the State Bank of Pakistan under Section 43-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 require the inclusion of specific reasons for the decision?
  • Can a company be deemed to be conducting 'banking' business if it only accepts deposits from a limited group of family members?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din and another vs Additional Commissioner (R)/Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-21
  evacuee landfraudulent allotmentcivil court decreebona fide purchasersettlement authoritiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning evacuee land. The land was originally allotted to Mallay Khan, but the allotment was cancelled in 1968 due to fraud. Meanwhile, the heirs of Mallay Khan sold the land, and the purchasers obtained an ex parte civil court decree declaring them bona fide purchasers. The petitioners, claiming to be in cultivating possession, sought transfer of the land under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, after failing to set aside the civil court decree under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The settlement authorities and the High Court held that as long as the civil court decree remained in the field, no action could be taken on the petitioners' application. The core legal questions involve the effect of a civil court decree in light of the bar under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the validity of the decree, and the rights of persons in possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these dimensions, continuing the interim stay order.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect of a civil court decree obtained in view of the bar contained under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Whether respondents obtained an ex parte decree from the civil court by concealing material facts regarding the cancellation of evacuee land allotment?
  • What would be the effect of non-implementation of an allotment cancellation order?
  • Are the rights of respondents protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Are petitioners found in possession of evacuee land entitled to its transfer under section 3(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehrban vs Muhammad Ramzan and another2002 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-11-07
  acquittalextra-judicial confessionleave to appealmurdersufficiency of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The respondent had been tried by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for the murder of Sultan Ali and was subsequently acquitted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to uphold the acquittal was legally sound, specifically regarding the sufficiency of evidence. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's case relied solely on an alleged extra-judicial confession made before two prosecution witnesses, which the respondent denied. The Court found no other material evidence linking the respondent to the commission of the offence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the reasons provided for the acquittal were valid and cogent, and there was no justification for judicial interference. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, thereby affirming the acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that an extra-judicial confession, standing alone without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehrban alias Munna vs The State2002 PLD Supreme Court 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-11
  criminal liabilitylegal insanityunsoundness of mindburden of proofmurder convictionQanun-e-Shahadatplea of insanity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, affirmed by the Lahore High Court, regarding the murder of a minor and injuries caused to others. The petitioner, having previously admitted guilt, raised the plea of insanity for the first time before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner met the criteria for exemption from criminal liability under the doctrine of legal insanity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plea of insanity was an afterthought unsupported by evidence. The Court affirmed that there is a critical distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity; the latter requires proof that the accused, due to unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of their act or that it was contrary to law. The burden of proving such insanity rests on the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate impaired cognitive faculties at the time of the offense, the conviction was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity in criminal law?
  • Does the burden of proving insanity as a defense rest on the accused?
  • Is a plea of insanity maintainable if raised for the first time at the Supreme Court level without supporting evidence?
  • What criteria must be satisfied to establish the defense of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ghulam Dastgir Lak vs Mureed Sultan and another2002 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-30
  murderous assaultbenefit of doubtacquittal set asideappraisal of evidenceinjuries to complainantcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 324 and Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The prosecution case was that the respondent, employed as a servant by the appellant, shot and injured the appellant with a licensed Kalashnikov following a dispute over accounts. The trial court had convicted the respondent, but the High Court acquitted him on surmises and conjectures. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on conjectures without supporting evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, and that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt F.I.R., natural eyewitnesses, and medical evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the conviction with modified sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can base an acquittal on surmises and conjectures without relying on specific evidence on record?
  • Does the testimony of an injured complainant, corroborated by medical evidence and natural eyewitnesses, carry sufficient weight to sustain a conviction?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in disbelieving unimpeached eyewitness testimony regarding a murderous assault?
  Read full judgment →
• Mauj Din through Legal Heirs and others vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division and others2002 SCMR 2001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-04
  review petitionP.I. Unitsclerical errorland settlementSupreme Court jurisdictionfactual findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the calculation of Produce Index (P.I.) Units in a land settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the previous judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the calculation of P.I. Units in relation to the land area, thereby justifying a rehearing of the matter. Upon reviewing the record with the assistance of counsel, the Court determined that the calculation of P.I. Units was accurate and consistent with the evidentiary record. The Court held that the petitioner was essentially seeking a rehearing to reopen settled factual determinations, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no error on the face of the record. However, the Court exercised its power to correct a clerical error in the original judgment, directing that the Khata number mentioned as 17 be rectified to 19. The principle established is that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-litigate settled factual findings or re-calculate evidence absent a patent error.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be utilized to reopen settled factual determinations regarding the calculation of Produce Index Units?
  • Is a rehearing permissible when a petitioner alleges an error in calculation that is not apparent on the face of the record?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to correct clerical errors in a judgment during the hearing of a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs Khalid Hussain Khan and others2002 SCMR 1112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-05
  rented premisesbona fide personal needejectmentlandlord and tenantleave to appealvacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had modified a Rent Controller's decision regarding the eviction of a tenant. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in determining that the respondent-landlord had established a bona fide personal need for the rented premises, specifically a shop, despite the tenant's arguments regarding the landlord's financial constraints and the inequity of the eviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the findings of the High Court, which had concluded that the respondent had sufficiently proven his requirement in good faith as a co-sharer of the property. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had properly assessed the evidence on record and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading, non-reading, or misapplication of the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. The Court granted the petitioner a three-month period to vacate the premises, stipulating that failure to comply would entitle the landlord to obtain possession through a writ of possession with police assistance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer landlord seek eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide personal need?
  • Does the failure to demonstrate misreading or non-reading of evidence by the High Court preclude interference by the Supreme Court in a rent matter?
  • Is a tenant entitled to a grace period for vacating premises after an eviction order is upheld by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad and others vs A.D.C. (C) A.S.C. (L), Gujranwala and others2002 SCMR 1997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-20
  writ petitiondismissal for non-prosecutionconditional restorationnon-payment of costsnon-joinder of partiesland allotmentsale of landlegal effect of transactions
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns a writ petition that was initially dismissed for non-prosecution and subsequently restored subject to the payment of costs. The petitioners failed to pay the stipulated costs, leading the court to deem the writ petition as having remained dismissed. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the writ petition was not prosecuted in a fair and bona fide manner due to the non-impleadment of necessary parties, specifically the original allottees (Noor Muhammad and Mst. Amir Begum) and the intermediate seller (Mst. Musharaf Sultana). The Court held that the restoration of the private respondents' original land allotment rendered any subsequent allotments and sales, including those to the petitioners, of no legal effect. The petition was dismissed, and leave was refused, with the petitioners advised to pursue remedies against their seller for recovery of consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition restored conditionally be deemed dismissed if the conditions are not fulfilled?
  • Does the non-impleadment of necessary parties affect the bona fides and maintainability of a writ petition?
  • What is the legal effect of subsequent land allotments and sales when an original allotment is restored?
  • Can a party seek recovery of consideration from a seller if the underlying land transaction is deemed of no legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Rehman vs The State and others2002 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-27
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionabuse of processfalse complaintmedical negligencecriminal procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Sindh High Court's judgment quashing proceedings in a private criminal complaint under sections 364-A, 365, 368, 34, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner had accused hospital staff of kidnapping and murdering a newborn child after an initial erroneous ultrasound report suggested a twin pregnancy, whereas a single child was delivered via Caesarean section. The core legal questions involved the scope of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings after the framing of a charge, and whether the continuation of trial proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court was fully justified in quashing the groundless proceedings to prevent the abuse of process. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses extraordinary inherent powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings at any stage, including after the framing of charges, if the case is mala fide, groundless, or amounts to an abuse of the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code confer inherent jurisdiction or merely preserve it?
  • Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings under section 561-A Cr.P.C. after a charge has been framed by the trial Court?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial Court to record evidence in all cases where accused persons have been summoned?
  • Whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited vs Government of the Punjab2002 PLC 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-15
  social securitystatutory notificationaudi alteram partemdiscretionary powerlabor lawmedical facilities
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a Single Bench decision dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The petitioner, an establishment providing medical facilities to its employees, challenged a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab under Section 1(3) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, which applied the Ordinance to the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner argued that the government's discretion was exercised arbitrarily and without considering existing medical facilities or hearing the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that Section 1(3) of the Ordinance empowers the government to apply the law to any establishment without imposing any conditions, embargoes, or statutory requirements for a prior hearing. The Court ruled that the principle of audi alteram partem does not apply in the absence of such statutory provisions, and existing employer-provided medical facilities do not bar the application of the statutory social security scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of private medical facilities provided by an employer bar the government from applying the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 to that establishment?
  • Is the Government of the Punjab required to afford an opportunity of hearing to an employer before issuing a notification under Section 1(3) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Are there any statutory conditions or embargoes imposed on the government's power to apply the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 to specific establishments under Section 1(3)?
  Read full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited vs Government of the Punjab2002 PLD Supreme Court 726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-15
  social securitynotificationdiscretionmedical facilitiesintra-court appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition, which challenged a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab extending the provisions of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to the petitioner's establishment. The core legal question was whether the Government's discretion under Section 1(3) of the said Ordinance to apply its provisions to an establishment is unfettered and whether the existence of independent medical facilities provided by the employer constitutes a legal bar or requires a prior hearing. The Supreme Court held that the Government is fully empowered under Section 1(3) to issue such a notification without any statutory embargo, and the availability of private medical facilities does not bar the application of the scheme or necessitate an opportunity of hearing. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming that statutory discretion conferred in wide terms without explicit conditions does not attract the principle of audi alteram partem unless mandated by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Government has unfettered discretion under Section 1(3) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to apply the Ordinance to any establishment?
  • Does the existence of independent medical facilities provided by an employer operate as a legal bar against the issuance of a notification extending the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Is an employer entitled to a prior opportunity of hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem before the issuance of a notification under Section 1(3) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed Butt vs Addl. District Judge, Lahore and others2002 C.L.R. 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-29
  maintenancefamily courtquantum of maintenancedivorceIddat periodconcurrent findings of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded to a divorced wife. The core legal question was whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000 per month, awarded by the Family Court and upheld by the appellate and constitutional forums, was excessive given the petitioner's financial circumstances and family obligations. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the petitioner's income—which exceeded Rs. 20,000 per month—and his prior admissions regarding payments, justified the maintenance award. The Court affirmed the decision, finding no merit in the contention that the amount was excessive. The key principle laid down is that where lower courts have concurrently determined the financial capacity of a husband based on evidence and testimony, and such findings are supported by the record, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the quantum of maintenance in its appellate jurisdiction, as such findings of fact are not open to re-evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the quantum of maintenance determined by lower courts?
  • Is a husband's claim of financial hardship a sufficient ground to reduce a maintenance award when evidence shows his income is significantly higher?
  • Does a husband's admission of prior payments to a wife during marriage support a court's determination of maintenance liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and 4 others vs Mehrban and 5 others2002 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-04
  registered sale-deedinheritance disputedelay and lachesburden of proofattesting witnessesadmission of witnessescivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute concerning landed property sold via a registered sale-deed in 1963. The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the original owner, instituted a suit in 1984 seeking a declaration that the sale-deed was forged and ineffective against their rights. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court and the High Court dismissed it. The core legal question involves the validity and proof of the registered sale-deed, the effect of long inaction, and the evidentiary value of expert reports versus admissions and possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the twenty-year delay in challenging the registered document, continuous possession of the respondents, admissions by the petitioners' witnesses regarding possession and thumb impressions, and the registered nature of the deed—which obviates the necessity of examining attesting witnesses—sufficiently establish its authenticity. The principle laid down is that a registered sale-deed coupled with long-standing possession and admissions of opposing witnesses carries strong sanctity, and non-examination of attesting witnesses is not fatal when the document is registered and ancient.

  Questions settled

  • Does inaction and delay for about twenty years in challenging a registered sale-deed attach sanctity to the transaction?
  • Is the non-examination of attesting witnesses fatal to the validity of a registered sale-deed where the beneficiaries are in possession of the suit land?
  • Can admissions made by witnesses produced by the plaintiffs in cross-examination be used to support the authenticity of a sale transaction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a finger expert report when the comparison of thumb impressions is based on a disputed document rather than a standard specimen?
  Read full judgment →
• Mandoos Khan vs The State2002 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-17
  leave to appealcriminal appealcommon intentionconnected casesdeath sentencetrial in absentia
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the petitioner, Mandoos Khan, for his alleged involvement in a multiple homicide incident occurring on 23rd July 1988. The petitioner was tried in absentia after initially absconding, while his co-accused, Amrood Khan, was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, a conviction upheld by the Peshawar High Court. Following his subsequent arrest, the petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to death on five counts under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with convictions under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court dismissed his appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerns the consistency of the conviction in light of the pending appeal of the co-accused arising from the same transaction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that because the connected case involving the co-accused is currently pending adjudication, it is necessary to hear both matters together to ensure consistent application of law and justice regarding the same criminal transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Should connected criminal cases arising from the same transaction be heard together by the Supreme Court?
  • Is leave to appeal appropriate when a co-accused's appeal regarding the same incident is already pending before the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zafar Abbas vs Agha Raza Abbas Qazilbash and another2002 PLD Supreme Court 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-05
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal breach of trustcheatingmala fidesearnest money
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the Lahore High Court's order rejecting an application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1. The respondent was accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, having allegedly misappropriated Rs. 37.8 million advanced by the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation for land purchase. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether pre-arrest bail could be maintained in the absence of proof of mala fides, false implication, or ulterior motive. The Court held that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be extended unless all mandatory prerequisites, particularly the existence of mala fides or unjustified harassment, are satisfied. Finding a prima facie case of misappropriation and no evidence of bad faith by the prosecution, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and cancelled the respondent's pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted or maintained in the absence of proof of mala fides, false implication, or ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution?
  • Whether the mere existence of pending civil litigation between parties bars the registration of a criminal case or the cancellation of pre-arrest bail for criminal breach of trust?
  • What are the mandatory prerequisites that must be satisfied before a court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Shama-Ud-Din vs Muhammad Fayyaz and 2 others2002 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-12
  criminal petitionwithdrawal of petitionabsconding convictsupreme court practicecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Malik Shama-ud-din against Muhammad Fayyaz and others. The core legal question concerns the permissibility of withdrawing a petition for leave to appeal where a co-convict has absconded following the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court. The Court held that the petitioner may withdraw the petition under the circumstances. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner may be granted permission to withdraw a petition with the liberty to file a fresh one upon the surrender of an absconding co-convict or when the convict challenges his conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner withdraw a criminal petition for leave to appeal with permission to file a fresh one when a co-convict has absconded?
  • What is the procedural effect when an appellant absconds after the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Mashood Ahmed vs Jafar and 2 others2002 SCMR 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-08
  acquittal appealleave to appealappreciation of evidencemurder trialeyewitness testimonydelay in FIRcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, Jaffar and Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, in a murder case. The respondents were originally tried for the murder of Wajid Ali, the husband of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, based on allegations of an illicit liaison. The trial court acquitted the respondents, citing the failure of the main eyewitness to support the prosecution's version, an unexplained 12-hour delay in lodging the First Information Report, the lack of independent corroboration for the complainant's testimony, and the complainant's established enmity toward the respondent. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of both the trial court and the High Court. The Court held that the acquittal was based on correct premises and that the reasoning provided by the lower courts was neither fanciful nor capricious. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference, dismissed the petition, and declined to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is neither fanciful nor capricious?
  • Is the solitary statement of an inimical complainant sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a valid ground for acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Allah Yar Khan vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum2002 SCMR 1835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-08
  specific performanceagreement to sellterritorial jurisdictionreturn of plaintimmovable propertycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising out of a suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell. The petitioner instituted the suit in the Civil Court at Sargodha, claiming the agreement covered properties situated in both Sargodha and Chakwal. The respondent contested the suit on the merits and challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Sargodha court. Following trial, the trial court held that the petitioner failed to prove any agreement concerning property in Sargodha, established that the agreement pertained solely to land in Chakwal, and ordered the return of the plaint for presentation before the competent court in Chakwal. The First Appellate Court reversed this finding based on prolonged litigation, but the High Court allowed the respondent's civil revision, restoring the trial court's order. The Supreme Court affirmed that because the agreement only concerned property located in Chakwal and no agreement regarding Sargodha property was proven, the Sargodha Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The order returning the plaint was upheld, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Civil Court possesses territorial jurisdiction over a suit for specific performance when the plaintiff fails to prove that any part of the suit property under the agreement to sell is located within its territorial limits?
  • Can prolonged pendency of litigation vest territorial jurisdiction in a court that otherwise lacks jurisdiction over the subject-matter property?
  • Whether the return of a plaint for presentation before the proper forum is lawful upon finding that the subject property of the agreement to sell lies exclusively within another district?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmud-Ul-Hassan and others vs Mst. Jamila Firdous and others2002 SCMR 1100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-23
  civil revisionremandproperty disputesettlement commissionerlocal commission reportleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment dismissing a civil revision petition concerning a property dispute over a passage and latrine following the vertical division of a house by the Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question is whether the High Court fully considered the directions and evidence, including a local commission report, as mandated by the Supreme Court in an earlier remand order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court complied with these prior directions upon reconsideration, noting that the matter had previously been remanded for a proper re-evaluation of the evidence in light of the Settlement Commissioner's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court fully took into consideration the directions made by the Supreme Court in the earlier remand order?
  • Did the High Court properly discuss the report of the Commission in the context of the Settlement Commissioner's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Akhtar vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division and 2 others2002 PLC (C.S.) 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-12-20
  service tribunalmisconductdismissal from servicedisciplinary proceedingsconfession of guiltleave to appeal refused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal against his conviction, reduction in rank, and dismissal from service. The core legal question concerns the validity of disciplinary proceedings and the denial of a fair trial where the petitioner was convicted of misconduct and involvement in a robbery while serving as a Lance Naik in the Bhitai Rangers. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the departmental authorities and the Tribunal were in consonance with the record, noting that the petitioner was caught red-handed with the robbed motorcycle and had confessed his guilt. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where guilt is established through reliable evidence and confession in disciplinary proceedings, interference by the apex court with the Service Tribunal's findings is unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the factual findings of the Federal Service Tribunal in service matters when guilt is established on record?
  • Does a confession of guilt during disciplinary proceedings negate claims of being denied a fair trial?
  • Whether involvement in a criminal act while serving as a member of a disciplined force justifies dismissal from service and reduction in rank?
  Read full judgment →
• M.D. CH Audhary, Advocate Supreme Court vs Superintendent of Range Crime, Lahore and others2002 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-18
  advocateprofessional conductdisqualification of counselwitnessproduction of recordlegal representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order debarring the petitioner, a practicing Advocate, from representing an accused person. The petitioner had applied for bail on behalf of a convict, and upon the police's failure to produce the record, he personally visited the office of the Superintendent of Police (Crimes) to convey the court's direction for record production. The trial judge ruled that by visiting the police station, the advocate had become a witness in the case and was thus incompetent to represent the accused, a view upheld by the High Court in a writ petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether an advocate merely conveying a court's order to the police for the production of records becomes a witness, thereby disqualifying him from representing his client. The Supreme Court held that such an act, by no stretch of imagination, makes the advocate a witness. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order as being contrary to both facts and law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an advocate become a witness in a case merely by conveying a court's direction to the police for the production of records?
  • Can an advocate be debarred from representing an accused person on the sole ground that he visited a police station to communicate a judicial order?
  Read full judgment →
• M.A. Ghafoor, Senior Mechanical Officer, Headquarters Office, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 24 others2002 PLC (C.S.) 1641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-29
  Service appealLimitation periodDepartmental promotionCondonation of delayService TribunalsSeniorityPakistan Railways
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service dispute involving a Pakistan Railways employee seeking regularization in BS-17 from an earlier date and subsequent promotion benefits. The appellant challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal, which had been rejected on grounds of limitation. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s failure to timely challenge his promotion notification and the alleged usurpation of his promotion quota by others rendered his appeal before the Tribunal incompetent. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the appellant had failed to pursue departmental remedies within the prescribed statutory period. The Court held that a departmental appeal filed beyond the limitation period renders any subsequent appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's plea for condonation of delay, noting that claiming ignorance of one's own promotion notification—while employed in the relevant headquarters—was fallacious and lacked a plausible explanation. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the appellant was responsible for his own predicament due to a lack of vigilance in asserting his rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal competent if the underlying departmental appeal was filed beyond the limitation period?
  • Can a government servant claim ignorance of a promotion notification to seek condonation of delay for a time-barred appeal?
  • Does the failure to challenge the filling of vacancies by other candidates within the limitation period bar a subsequent service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Hanna N and 2:others vs Dr. Anwarul Hassan and another2002 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-02-22
  specific performancerejection of plaintlimitationagreement to sellleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the Sindh High Court rejecting the petitioners' plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for specific performance of contract. The core legal question was whether the suit for specific performance was barred by time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action accrued when the respondents forcibly entered the property and the suit filed in 1997—long after the expiration of the three-year period prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908—was rightly rejected as time-barred. The court laid down that a suit for specific performance must be instituted within the strict limitation period of three years from the date when the cause of action accrues, and concurrent findings on limitation by the lower courts warrant no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance of contract is barred by time if filed beyond three years from the accrual of the cause of action under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col.(Retd.) Ghulam Rasool Virk vs Province of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and 4 others2002 PLD Supreme Court 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-07
  lease renewalanimal breeding leasearbitration awardland resumptioncontractual discretionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Lieutenant-Colonel, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an arbitration award and restored the trial court's decision regarding the resumption of leased land. The land had been allotted for animal breeding, but the lease was not renewed due to the petitioner's poor performance and violation of lease conditions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a vested right to lease renewal and whether the government’s resumption of the land was procedurally invalid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no inherent right to renewal, as the lease agreement explicitly reserved the government's absolute right to refuse renewal without assigning reasons. The Court found that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to be heard during the arbitration process and that his failure to maintain the required animal stock justified the resumption. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, establishing that lease renewal is not a matter of right when the contract grants the lessor absolute discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Is the renewal of a government land lease a vested right of the lessee?
  • Can the government refuse to renew a lease without assigning reasons when the lease agreement reserves such absolute right?
  • Does the failure to maintain animal breeding conditions constitute a valid ground for the resumption of leased land?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Bibi vs Muhammad Fazil2002 C.L.R. 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-06-20
  giftmutationconcurrent findingsdelivery of possessionoffer and acceptanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge to concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core legal question concerns the validity of an oral gift mutation and whether the essential ingredients of a valid gift under Islamic law—specifically the offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—were duly proved. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of essential ingredients of a gift, including lack of proof of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession before the revenue official, were properly evaluated and could not be interfered with. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the non-fulfillment of the essential ingredients of a gift warrant no interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan when supported by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to prove a valid gift under the law?
  • Does a mutation entry lacking proof of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession constitute a valid gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Hussain vs Mst. Sadiq And OtherK.L.R. 2002 S.C. 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-03-09
  inheritancepresumption of deathburden of proofQanun-e-Shahadat Ordermissing personmutation of inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's suit for possession of his deceased brother's estate. The core legal question concerned the determination of the date of death of a person who had not been heard of for many years, specifically for the purpose of inheritance. The petitioner claimed sole inheritance rights, arguing his brother Roshan Din died after their other brother, Hassan Din (the respondents' predecessor-in-interest). The Supreme Court held that while Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order creates a presumption of death after seven years of disappearance, it does not establish the specific date of death. The Court affirmed that the burden of proving the date of death lies on the party asserting it. Since the petitioner failed to provide positive evidence that Roshan Din died after Hassan Din, the Court upheld the presumption that death occurred upon the expiration of the seven-year period from the date of disappearance. Consequently, the estate was correctly divided between the heirs of both brothers. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption of death under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 establish the specific date of death?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the date of death of a person missing for more than seven years?
  • Is the presumption of death under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 sufficient to determine inheritance rights when the date of death is contested?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Din, Constable vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others2002 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-01
  service matterList B1departmental authorityfitness for promotionservice recordjudicial interferencecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter concerning the refusal of the departmental authority to place the petitioner, a police constable, on List B1. The petitioner challenged the departmental order before the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds that the decision regarding his fitness for promotion was based on his service record, which included eighteen recorded punishments. The petitioner subsequently sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding the departmental authority's decision to exclude the petitioner from the promotion list based on his service record. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authority acted within its jurisdiction by evaluating the petitioner's service record to determine his fitness for promotion. Finding no misreading of the record or legal infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle established is that the assessment of a civil servant's fitness for promotion, when based on a review of their service record, is a matter of departmental discretion that does not warrant judicial interference absent a substantial question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a departmental decision regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion when based on their service record?
  • Does the evaluation of a civil servant's fitness for promotion based on their service record constitute a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Cantt Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Messrs Builders2002 PLD Supreme Court 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-15
  Cooperative housing societyCantonment BoardRight of wayStatutory noticeEasement rightsLeave to appealProprietary rightsMandatory injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges concurrent findings of the Lahore High Court and the trial court concerning a dispute over access to roads. The respondent, a property developer, sued the petitioner, a Cooperative Housing Society, for constructing a boundary wall that blocked access to roads the respondent claimed vested in the Cantonment Board. The petitioner contended the roads were private property and argued the suit was not maintainable due to the absence of mandatory statutory notices under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and the Cantonments Act, 1924. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the case raises substantial questions of law. Specifically, the Court identified the need to interpret the scope of "business" under the Cooperative Societies Act, the proprietary rights over roads constructed by a society versus those vesting in a Cantonment Board under the Cantonments Act, and the procedural implications of failing to serve mandatory notices. The operation of the impugned judgment was suspended pending the final adjudication of these legal issues.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit against a cooperative society regarding the obstruction of roads touch upon the business of the society for the purposes of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Can a plaintiff abandon a prayer for declaration to bypass the mandatory notice requirement under Section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924?
  • Do roads constructed by a cooperative housing society on its own land vest in the Cantonment Board under Section 108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, thereby granting the public a right of access?
  • Is a party entitled to an injunction against the obstruction of a road without first establishing a legal right of easement or ownership under the Easements Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Lahore, Cantt through Secretary vs Dr. Nusrat Ullah Chaudhry and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-22
  writ jurisdictioncontractual liabilitydisputed questions of factcooperative societiescancellation of contractconstitutional petitiontime as essence of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute between the Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited (LCCHS) and the respondents regarding the cancellation of a land allotment contract for the construction of a hospital. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, could adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact concerning contractual liabilities and the alleged breach of contract terms. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition, as the matter involved complex factual controversies requiring the recording of evidence, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce contractual obligations or resolve disputed facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, upheld the cancellation of the contract by the Society, and emphasized that such disputes must be resolved by a civil court. The principle laid down is that writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for determining contractual breaches where the underlying facts are contested and require extensive evidentiary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding contractual liability?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of a contractual obligation?
  • Does the existence of a mutual agreement to extend a contract's deadline establish that time was of the essence of the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Kulsoom and another vs Trustees of Port of Karachi through Chairman K.P.T., Karachi and 2 others2002 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-13
  leave to appealwithdrawal of suitpermission to file fresh suitindivisible applicationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed their constitutional petition in limine against the orders of lower courts refusing to grant permission to file a fresh suit upon the withdrawal of their earlier suit for declaration and injunction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an application for the withdrawal of a suit coupled with a prayer for permission to institute a fresh suit is one and indivisible, requiring the court to either accept or reject both prayers together. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this contention in light of the dictum laid down in a prior precedent. The holding of the Court was to grant leave to appeal to examine the indivisibility of the withdrawal and permission application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for withdrawal of a suit and permission to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action is one and indivisible?
  • Must a court either accept or reject both prayers for withdrawal and permission to file a fresh suit together?
  Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Industries Limited vs Government of Pakistan And Others2002 P.C.T.L.R. 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-03
  excise dutycotton yarn ruleslicensed warehouseconstitutional jurisdictiondisputed questions of factleave to appealrebate and penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had declined to interfere with tax authorities' orders on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved. The petitioner company faced proceedings for allegedly violating Rule 8(2) of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1975, after a consignment of hard waste intended for a Karachi warehouse was allegedly unloaded elsewhere in Faisalabad. The Collector imposed a penalty under Section 35-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which was upheld in appeal by the Central Board of Revenue and in revision by the Government of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns whether a manufacturer can be held legally and penally responsible for the failure of a licensed warehouse owner to transport cleared goods to the designated licensed warehouse after delivery has been duly completed under Form AR-3. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case raises a question of public importance regarding the extent of a manufacturer's liability under Rule 8(2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether a manufacturer can be held responsible under Rule 8(2) of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1975 for the unauthorized diversion of goods by a licensed warehouse owner after proper delivery?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What is the extent of a manufacturer's liability for ensuring goods reach a licensed warehouse safely after completion of the AR-3 procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Noor Din and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-16
  unregistered sale deedpossessionpart performancecivil revisionleave to appealtransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his civil revision and upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees passed in favor of respondent No.1 regarding a suit for possession, mesne profits, and household articles based on a purchase made through an unregistered document. The core legal question revolved around whether an unregistered sale deed could create rights in immovable property, particularly in light of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an unregistered document can protect a person in possession if the requirements of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are satisfied, as contemplated under the provisos to section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908. The key principle laid down is that protection is afforded to a transferee in possession under an unregistered instrument of transfer provided the conditions of part-performance under section 53-A are met, distinguishing prior case-law that failed to consider statutory amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered sale-deed can create or protect rights in immovable property under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
  • Do the provisos to section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 give protection to a person in possession under an unregistered document?
  • Can a new question regarding the effect of non-registration of a sale-deed be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Liaquat Ali represented by Muhammad Irshad and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-27
  gift deedPardanashin ladyadverse possessionconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidencedelivery of possessionfraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the validity of a gift deed executed by Mst. Resham Bibi in favor of her nephew, Khushi Muhammad, which the respondent, Liaquat Ali, challenged as fraudulent. The trial court and District Judge initially dismissed the respondent's suit, but the Lahore High Court reversed these findings, leading to the present appeal. The core legal question was whether the gift deed was validly executed and whether the appellant could simultaneously claim title through gift and adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove the execution of the gift deed, noting that the donor, a 'Pardanashin' lady, was unaware of the document's contents, and that the appellant's concurrent plea of adverse possession was legally irreconcilable with a claim of ownership by gift. The Court affirmed that delivery of possession is essential for a valid gift under Islamic law. It further held that appellate courts are empowered to reverse concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when there is significant misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party simultaneously claim title to property through a gift deed and through adverse possession?
  • Is the delivery of possession a necessary requirement for the validity of a gift?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a claim of adverse possession negate a claim of ownership based on a valid gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others2002 PLC (C.S.) 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-09
  grievance noticeIndustrial Relations Ordinancedepartmental proceedingsmisappropriationmaster and servantcivil petition for leave to appealservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which declined to issue a writ in his favour. The petitioner, a former Cashier of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, was terminated from service following departmental proceedings for misappropriating public money. He challenged his dismissal through a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether a departmental appeal addressed to a higher authority (the President of the Bank) could fulfill the statutory requirement of serving a grievance notice upon the employer under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that a departmental appeal cannot be equated with a statutory grievance notice, noting that notice must be served upon the competent appointing authority rather than a higher appellate authority. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums, dismissed the petition, and declined leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a departmental appeal or mercy petition submitted to an appellate authority distinct from the appointing authority cannot substitute for the mandatory grievance notice required under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental appeal addressed to the President of a bank be treated as a valid statutory grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is a grievance notice required to be served upon the appointing authority rather than an appellate authority under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Whether an employee can maintain a grievance petition before the Labour Court without first serving a statutory grievance notice on the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd and others2002 C.L.R. 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-09
  grievance noticeindustrial disputemaster and servantwrongful terminationappointing authoritydepartmantal appealprivatized bank
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which declined to issue a writ in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, a former cashier of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, was terminated from service following departmental proceedings for misappropriating public money. After exhausting various forums, including the Labour Court, Labour Appellate Tribunal, and Federal Service Tribunal due to jurisdictional changes regarding the privatization of the bank, his case was ultimately remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on the ground that he failed to serve a mandatory pre-litigation grievance notice on his employer as required under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether a departmental appeal addressed to a higher authority (the President of the Bank) could substitute for the statutory grievance notice required to be served on the appointing authority/employer. The Supreme Court held that a departmental appeal cannot be equated with a statutory grievance notice, and that notice must be served on the competent appointing authority rather than a higher appellate authority. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental appeal filed before a higher authority be treated as a statutory grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is a grievance notice required to be served upon the appointing authority rather than an appellate authority?
  • Whether failure to serve a statutory grievance notice renders a labour petition incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad and others vs The Administrator (Residual Properties)2002 C.L.R. 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-10
  residual evacuee propertyjurisdiction of administratorevacuee propertyremand orderconstitutional petitionadministrative authoritytitle dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of 48 shops, initially treated as residual evacuee property, to the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the Municipal Committee, claiming ownership of the land underneath the shops, was required to file a civil suit to establish title, or if the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) possessed the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the property. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Administrator has the inherent jurisdiction to determine whether property is indeed 'residual evacuee property' before transferring it, and thus, the Municipal Committee was not obligated to file a civil suit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Board of Revenue holds supervisory authority over residual evacuee property officers and may direct the reconsideration of such matters. The principle laid down is that an authority empowered to transfer residual evacuee property must first satisfy itself regarding the evacuee status of the property, and this administrative determination does not necessitate a prior civil court adjudication of title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) have the jurisdiction to determine the nature of property as evacuee property, or must such disputes be referred to a civil court?
  • Can the Board of Revenue exercise supervisory control over the proceedings of the Administrator (Residual Properties)?
  • Is a party claiming ownership of land allegedly transferred as evacuee property required to file a civil suit to establish title before the administrative authorities can proceed?
  Read full judgment →
• Khamisa vs Mst. Zaib Elahi and others2002 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-24
  pre-emptiondoctrine of sinkerdivisibility of salevendeeright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the applicability of the doctrine of sinker in pre-emption suits where a vendee joins a stranger in a property purchase. The core legal question was whether a sale transaction involving multiple vendees is divisible, thereby preventing the application of the doctrine of sinker, when the shares of each vendee are specified and the sale price is contributed individually. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, relying on established precedents including Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan (PLD 1981 SC 153) and Ghulam Muhammad v. Bakhsh (PLD 1991 SC 563), held that a sale is divisible if the share of each vendee is specified and the proportion of the price paid by each is indicated separately. In the present case, because the sale deed clearly delineated the shares and individual contributions of the vendees, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the sale was divisible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the principle that where these two ingredients are present, the sale remains divisible, and the doctrine of sinker does not apply to the entire transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sale transaction divisible for the purposes of pre-emption if the shares of each vendee are specified and the price contribution is indicated separately?
  • Does the doctrine of sinker apply to a sale transaction where the vendees have distinct, identifiable shares and have paid separate consideration?
  • What are the two essential ingredients required to determine if a sale is divisible in a pre-emption context?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others2002 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-17
  service appeallimitation perioddepartmental appealFederal Service Tribunalpolice disciplinecondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. The appellant, an ex-Constable/Driver, was dismissed from service in November 1989 after being found guilty of misconduct under the Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. His departmental appeal was rejected in April 1990. After an inordinate delay of several years, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which he subsequently withdrew with permission to approach again upon the receipt of a final reply regarding a representation made to the Minister for Interior. Upon the rejection of that representation, he filed a second appeal, which the Tribunal dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question was whether a subsequent representation or extra-departmental review could extend the period of limitation that had already expired following the final departmental order. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeal, as subsequent incompetent representations to authorities other than the proper appellate authority cannot create a fresh cause of action or extend the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-departmental representation or review can extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal once the final departmental order has already been passed?
  • Does the withdrawal of a time-barred service appeal with permission to file afresh upon the receipt of a final reply on a representation create a fresh cause of action?
  • Whether subsequent applications to authorities other than the competent appellate authority can condone the delay in approaching the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique vs Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab2002 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-14Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and others vs Commissioner, Sargodha and others2002 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-23
  Service Tribunal jurisdictionfunctus officioNaib Tehsildar appointmentquota for stenographersPunjab Revenue Department Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves consolidated civil appeals arising from appointments to the posts of Naib Tehsildars under the Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 1990. Applications were invited to fill four posts, and a Selection Committee selected candidates on merit. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals on limitation and merits, but nevertheless proceeded to set aside the selection of one of the appellants on the ground that he exceeded the quota for stenographers. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction once appeals of unsuccessful candidates were dismissed, and whether the selection process suffered from arbitrariness. The Supreme Court held that once the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the aggrieved candidates for lacking merit and being time-barred, it became functus officio and had no lawful authority to interfere with the appointment of the selected candidate, especially when subsequent vacancies rendered the appointment compliant with the quota. The Court laid down the principle that a Service Tribunal cannot travel beyond dismissing unmeritorious appeals to interfere with valid appointments, and that courts cannot amend service rules to fix separate quotas for specific offices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Service Tribunal retains the power to interfere with an appointment after dismissing the appeals of the aggrieved candidates on merits and limitation?
  • Can a court amend service rules to fix separate quotas for the staff of each office?
  • Whether the selection of candidates based on ACRs, written test, and interview can be set aside merely because candidates from a particular office secured higher marks?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood CR. And Another vs Government of the PunjabK.L.R. 2002 S.C. 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-05
  ad hoc appointmentshow-cause noticeremoval from servicepremature petitionservice tribunalconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed on an ad hoc basis in the Civil Service of the Government of Punjab, challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their constitutional petitions. Following the promulgation of the Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, show-cause notices were issued alleging their appointments were made on extraneous considerations under Section 3(e) of the Ordinance. The petitioners argued their appointments were validly made by the Chief Minister under the Punjab Public Service Commission (Function) Rules, 1978, and contended that an enquiry officer or committee must be appointed before taking action. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the show-cause notices were at a preliminary stage and the competent authority had not yet taken a final decision. The Court established that the appointment of an enquiry officer or committee is necessary before passing a final order of removal, but since no final order had been passed, the constitutional petitions were rightly dismissed as premature. The petitions were dismissed, with the observation that the petitioners may approach the Punjab Service Tribunal if an adverse order is passed.

  Questions settled

  • Are constitutional petitions against a preliminary show-cause notice premature?
  • Does the Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 require the appointment of an enquiry officer or committee before passing a final order of removal?
  • Can a civil servant approach the Punjab Service Tribunal against an adverse removal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood CH. and others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development2002 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-05
  Civil ServiceAd hoc appointmentShow-cause noticePremature Constitutional PetitionEnquiry OfficerPunjab Service TribunalRemoval from Service
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan were directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' Constitutional petitions as premature. The petitioners, initially appointed to the Civil Service of the Government of Punjab on an ad hoc basis under rule 5 of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, were served with show-cause notices under section 3(e) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, alleging that their appointments were made on extraneous considerations. The petitioners responded, challenging the applicability of the Ordinance and arguing that removal required an elaborate inquiry by an appointed Enquiry Officer or Committee. The Supreme Court held that the show-cause notice was merely at a preliminary stage, as the competent authority had not yet rendered a final decision on the petitioners' replies. The Court noted that the appointment of an Enquiry Officer or Committee is mandatory before passing a final order of removal if further proceedings are warranted. Consequently, the High Court rightly dismissed the constitutional petitions as premature, leaving the petitioners the remedy to appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal if an adverse final order is passed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Constitutional petition challenging a preliminary show-cause notice issued under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is maintainable before a final order is passed by the competent authority?
  • Is the competent authority required to appoint an Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee prior to issuing an initial show-cause notice under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  • At what stage of proceedings under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is the appointment of an Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee mandatory?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a civil servant if an adverse final order of removal is passed under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and others vs Ahmad Nawaz and others2002 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-10-23
  pre-emptiontenancyKhasra Girdawarirebuttable presumptionwritten statementpleadingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding 304 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land. The trial court decreed the respondents' suit, but the appellate court partly set aside the decree regarding 102 Kanals and 15 Marlas, finding the petitioners to be tenants. On second appeal, the High Court accepted the respondents' revision, decreeing the suit in full. The core legal questions pertained to whether entries in Khasra Girdawari claiming tenancy rights can override admission of possession as owners made in pleadings and oral evidence, and whether an unpleaded defense of tenancy can be sustained. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that while revenue entries in Khasra Girdawari carry weight, they are rebuttable, and admissions by vendees in their written statement and testimony that possession was taken as owners rebutted any claim of prior tenancy. A party cannot set up a case not pleaded in its written statement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party rely on revenue entries of tenancy when no such plea was raised in its written statement or oral evidence?
  • Are entries in a Khasra Girdawari conclusive proof or are they rebuttable by admissions made by the party?
  • Whether admission of receiving possession of land as owners under a sale rebuts a claim of prior tenancy over the land?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Aziz vs The State2002 PLD Supreme Court 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-12
  accountabilitydisproportionate assetscorruptionNAB Ordinanceleave to appealsentencingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which partially accepted an appeal by a former Chief Secretary convicted of corruption under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The Accountability Court had originally convicted the petitioner for accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and confiscating the assets. The High Court subsequently reduced the sentence and the amount of unexplained wealth, citing section 14(c) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court’s reduction of the sentence and the calculation of disproportionate assets adhered to the statutory provisions of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. Specifically, the Court seeks to resolve whether the High Court correctly applied the presumption of guilt under section 14(c), whether the sentence reduction violated section 10(a), and whether the fine imposed complied with the mandatory requirements of section 11 regarding the gain derived by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court maintained a conviction and sentence without adhering to the presumption of guilt provisions under Section 14(c) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999?
  • Did the High Court err in reducing the sentence awarded by the Accountability Court contrary to the provisions of Section 10(a) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether the fine imposed by the High Court failed to comply with Section 11 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, which requires the fine to be no less than the gain derived by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Din vs Mst. Salaman and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-20
  inheritanceco-sharerfraudulent mutationlimitationconstructive possessioncivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents against their brother (petitioner) challenging a 1957 sale mutation as fraudulent, void, and ineffective regarding their inherited half-share in their father's land. The trial court and appellate court found that the mutation was fraudulent but held the suit barred by limitation. On civil revision, the High Court set aside these decisions, holding that as co-sharers by inheritance, limitation did not run against the respondents. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether limitation bars a claim by co-sharers who were fraudulently deprived of their inherited share, and whether property rights obtained through a fraudulent transaction can be protected by limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. It held that an heir in possession holds constructive possession on behalf of all co-heirs, so limitation under Articles 142 or 144 of the Limitation Act does not extinguish an inherited share absent express repudiation, and that established fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does limitation under Articles 142 or 144 of the Limitation Act run against a co-heir who was fraudulently deprived of inherited property by a co-sharer in possession?
  • Is a brother in possession of inherited land deemed to hold constructive possession on behalf of his sisters as co-heirs?
  • Can proprietary rights or protection under limitation laws be claimed on the basis of a transaction established to be fraudulent?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Din and others vs Muhammad Niaz and others2002 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-15
  criminal petitionleave to appealreduction of sentencedeath sentencelife imprisonmentreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a common judgment of the High Court, which reduced the sentence of a respondent from death to life imprisonment on the ground of lack of preplanning or premeditation. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence under the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the prosecution evidence and consider the validity of the sentence reduction. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may grant leave to appeal to reappraise evidence and examine the exercise of discretion by the High Court in reducing a criminal sentence from death to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment on the ground of lack of premeditation?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to reappraise prosecution evidence regarding the reduction of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Manzoor Hussain Shah and 3 others2002 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-05
  appeal against acquittalmurderappraisement of evidencemotiveocular accountbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of a judgment by the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of murder charges and dismissed the State appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question involved the propriety of reversing an acquittal judgment based on minor contradictions, and whether the ocular account was supported by reliable motive and evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment of acquittal did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction, noting that the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent, the motive was abandoned, and the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Reaffirming the well-established principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal merely because a different conclusion is possible on reappraisal, unless the findings of the acquitting court are perverse, artificial, or shocking. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  • Does the abandonment or omission of the motive set up in the F.I.R. create a serious dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether minor and immaterial contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to justify an acquittal on a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• KH Ush Al Khan vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others2002 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-09
  grievance noticeSection 25-A IROIndustrial Relations Ordinance 1969departmental appealappointing authorityemployerleave to appealtermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by a former bank cashier whose services were terminated for misappropriation. The core legal question was whether a departmental appeal addressed to a higher appellate authority can fulfill the statutory requirement of a grievance notice to the employer under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.). The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the High Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, holding that the departmental appeal submitted to the President of the bank did not constitute a valid grievance notice to the employer. The Court reasoned that an appellate authority is distinct from the appointing authority who serves as the employer for the purpose of Section 25-A, I.R.O. Consequently, because no mandatory statutory grievance notice was served upon the regional manager as the appointing authority, the proceedings initiated under Section 25-A were incompetent. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental appeal addressed to a higher appellate authority be treated as a valid grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Who constitutes the employer for the purpose of serving a statutory grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is the service of a proper statutory grievance notice on the appointing authority a mandatory prerequisite before filing a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Kay Bee International (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad through Managing Director2002 PLD Supreme Court 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-04
  mining leasesealed tendersearnest moneytender conditionsPunjab Mineral Concession Rulesarbitrary actioncontract award
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellant's writ petitions challenging the award of a mining lease. The Licensing Authority invited sealed tenders for a coal mining lease under rule 101 of the Punjab Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, requiring each tender to be accompanied by a call deposit of one-fourth of the offered bid. The appellant submitted a compliant bid, whereas the private respondent submitted a higher bid accompanied by a deficient call deposit, and subsequently withdrew his earnest money after his bid was rejected. The Licensing Authority ordered fresh tenders, but the Appellate Authority accepted the private respondent's appeal and directed him to deposit the full bid amount, an order upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the terms of the tender notice, requiring a one-fourth deposit, must be strictly followed to ensure transparency and fair competition. The Court ruled that the lower authorities incorrectly construed rule 101 and erred in showing special favor to a bidder who had failed to comply with mandatory tender conditions and withdrawn his earnest money. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment and the private respondent's contract were set aside, and the Licensing Authority was directed to invite fresh sealed tenders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bidder who fails to deposit the mandatory one-fourth earnest money with a sealed tender can be granted a mining lease?
  • Can terms and conditions prescribed in a tender notice under rule 101 of the Punjab Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 be ignored or treated as non-mandatory departmental instructions?
  • What is the effect of the withdrawal of earnest money by a bidder after the rejection of his tender?
  • Whether the government's approach in awarding contracts and licences through tenders must be rational, reasonable, and transparent?
  Read full judgment →
• Kay Bee International (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Managing Director vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Lahore and others2002 C.L.R. 1769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  public procurementsealed tendersmining leasetender conditionsearnest moneyadministrative discretiontransparency in contracts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the award of a mining lease despite the successful bidder's failure to comply with mandatory tender conditions. The core legal question was whether the Licensing Authority and Appellate Authority could validly award a contract to a bidder who failed to deposit the requisite earnest money, specifically one-fourth of the bid amount, and subsequently withdrew the deficient deposit. The Supreme Court held that the authorities acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, cancelled the contract awarded to the private respondent, and directed the Licensing Authority to invite fresh tenders. The Court established that in public procurement through sealed tenders, the prescribed terms and conditions must be strictly adhered to. Transparency and equal opportunity are paramount; authorities cannot relax mandatory conditions to accommodate specific bidders, as such actions frustrate the purpose of competitive bidding and undermine public confidence in the fairness of the contractual process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a licensing authority can award a mining lease to a bidder who failed to deposit the mandatory earnest money required by the tender notice?
  • Can a bidder who has withdrawn their earnest money after the rejection of their bid still be considered for the award of a contract?
  • Does the failure to strictly adhere to tender conditions in public procurement violate the principles of transparency and equal opportunity?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Din and others vs Member Board of Revenue and others2002 C.L.R. 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-10
  limitation periodcertified copypending proceedingsallotment cancellationsettlement lawspresumption of correctnessSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the retention of Swanadari land. The core legal questions involve the computation of the period of limitation for filing a petition when an issue arises over the date of announcement of the judgment, and whether administrative miscellaneous applications regarding excess land allotments cancelled long before 1974 can be treated as pending proceedings for the reopening of the matter. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by 175 days as the presumption of correctness attached to the High Court's judicial record regarding the date of announcement could not be rebutted, and that the matter could not be treated as pending proceedings since no regular appeal or revision had been filed under the settlement laws before their repeal. The key principle laid down is that judicial records concerning the announcement of judgments carry a presumption of correctness, and pending proceedings status requires active statutory remedies like appeals or revisions rather than mere miscellaneous applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of limitation for filing a petition commences from the date of the announcement of the judgment as recorded by the court?
  • Can a presumption of correctness attached to a judicial record regarding the date of judgment announcement be interfered with without cogent evidence?
  • Whether the submission of miscellaneous applications for land allotment without pursuing regular appeals or revisions can qualify a matter as pending proceedings under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs2002 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-07
  evictionpersonal requirementgood faithconcurrent findingsleave to appealrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioner's first rent appeal and maintaining the eviction order passed against the petitioner in respect of commercial premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions pertained to whether the landlord's requirement for his son was in good faith, whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence, and whether the tenant could raise new pleas not taken in the written statement. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding personal bona fide requirement were well-founded on evidence, that minor discrepancies in testimony did not negate good faith, and that a plea regarding the sufficiency of only one shop could not be raised for the first time before the apex court. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement will not be interfered with absent material misreading of evidence, and that new factual pleas not pleaded in the written statement or evidence cannot be permitted at the leave to appeal stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High regarding personal bona fide requirement are open to interference by the Supreme Court without proof of material misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Can a tenant raise a plea regarding the sufficiency of only one shop for the landlord's need for the first time before the Supreme Court when no such plea was taken in the written statement or evidence?
  • Does a minor discrepancy between the landlord's and his son's statements regarding the nature of the intended business adversely affect the proof of personal requirement in good faith?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, Karachi and another vs Raheel2002 PLD Supreme Court 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-24
  Katchi Abadiadverse possessionregularizationadmitted factsplanned areaencroachmentmaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondent seeking a declaration of adverse possession or, alternatively, regularization of a plot under Martial Law Orders Nos. 110 and 183, alongside a permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court and the High Court of Sindh ruled in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan analyzed whether a planned area could be regularized as a Katchi Abadi and evaluated the impact of the respondent's admissions. The Court observed that the respondent admitted the suit plot was located in a planned area and that his unauthorized boundary wall had been demolished under Martial Law Order No. 202 prior to the suit's filing. The Court held that a planned area cannot be declared a Katchi Abadi under Martial Law Order No. 183. Furthermore, since admitted facts require no proof, the respondent's clear admissions demolished his case. As the respondent was not in possession at the time of filing, the suit was held unmaintainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an area reserved for a planned scheme can legally be declared or regularized as a Katchi Abadi under Martial Law Order No. 110 or 183?
  • Whether facts categorically admitted by a plaintiff in cross-examination require further proof by the opposing party?
  • Can a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of possession be maintained if the plaintiff's unauthorized structure was demolished and they were not in possession at the time of filing?
  • Whether a public document, such as a layout plan, can be completely discarded merely because it was not produced within the timeline set during the settlement of issues or confronted to the witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and others vs Messrs Qarshi2002 PLD Supreme Court 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pure foodflavouring compoundslabel requirementsadulterationconstitutional petitionpublic analyst report
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which accepted a constitutional petition filed by the respondents, quashing proceedings initiated against them. Food Inspectors of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation had seized bottles of the syrup Jam-e-Shireen, alleging violations because the labels lacked the legend 'natural flavour' or 'contains natural flavouring' pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Rules, 1965, and alleging the presence of suspended particles. The core legal question was whether the mere absence of the legend 'natural flavour' on a product manufactured from pure natural distilled ingredients constitutes a violation of Rule 7(b) read with Section 4 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, in the absence of an analysis showing the addition of a separate flavouring compound or harmful matter. The Supreme Court held that to attract Section 4 of the Ordinance and Rule 7, it must be established that an additional flavouring compound or prohibited matter has been mixed, and in the absence of a proper analysis report proving otherwise, the mere omission of the label legend does not warrant prosecution. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-mention of the legend 'natural flavour' on a food product's label constitutes a violation of Rule 7(b) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Rules, 1965, when the product is made solely from pure natural distilled ingredients?
  • Is it necessary for a Public Analyst to examine the contents of a food sample and report the addition of a distinct flavouring compound or harmful matter before launching prosecution under Section 4 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960?
  • Can adverse inferences be drawn against a manufacturer regarding the presence of suspended particles in a food item solely on the basis of presumptions without an expert analysis report?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan and others vs Mst. Bibi Zenaba and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-20
  civil revisionconcurrent findings of factinheritancelimitationdelayed judgmentdirectory provisionsale-deedsmortgagees
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision against concurrent findings of fact in a declaratory suit concerning ancestral land. The core legal questions involved whether the lower courts erred in discarding fabricated sale-deeds and whether the delay in pronouncing judgment by the High Court rendered it void. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact regarding forged and unproven sale-deeds cannot be interfered with, that a suit regarding inheritance to ancestral property is not barred by limitation, and that the provision requiring judgments to be pronounced within a specific timeframe is directory rather than mandatory, meaning a delay in pronouncement does not invalidate the judgment unless prejudice is shown. The key principle laid down is that procedural timelines for announcing judgments are directory in nature, and mere delay, absent demonstrable prejudice, does not vitiate a judicial decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provision requiring a court to pronounce its judgment within a specified period after hearing arguments is mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does a delay in the pronouncement of a judgment by itself render the decision invalid or without lawful authority?
  • Can a question of fact not raised before the lower appellate forums and the High Court be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the question of limitation apply to a suit relating to the right of inheritance to ancestral property?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan And Other vs Mst. Bibi Zenaba And OtherK.L.R. 2002 S.C. 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-20
  land ownership disputeconcurrent findings of factpronouncement of judgmentdirectory vs mandatory provisionsinheritance rightscivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition concerning land ownership disputes. The petitioners claimed ownership through alleged sale deeds, while the respondent asserted inheritance rights. The lower courts concurrently found the petitioners' sale deeds fabricated and rejected their claims, while upholding the respondent's inheritance claim. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court's delay in pronouncing judgment, exceeding the timeframe in Order XX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, vitiated the decision. The Court held that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, and absent proof of prejudice, such delay does not invalidate a judgment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that factual findings regarding the validity of documents are not subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings. Finally, the Court refused to entertain a new procedural objection regarding the failure to frame additional issues, as it was not raised before the lower forums. The petition was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the pronouncement of a judgment beyond the period prescribed in Order XX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 invalidate the decision?
  • Is the provision in Order XX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the time limit for pronouncing judgments directory or mandatory?
  • Can a party raise a question of fact for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not agitated in the lower forums?
  • Does the delay in pronouncing a judgment constitute a ground for setting aside a decree if no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs Nazar Farid and another2002 SCMR 1986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-22
  appeal against acquittalleave to appealsection 302 PPCunexplained delayinterested witnessocular testimonyforensic science laboratorylimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted two respondents previously convicted under section 302(b) PPC for murder. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the High Court erred in overturning the convictions. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court observed unexplained delays in lodging the initial report and transporting the deceased's body to the hospital, supporting the inference that the incident occurred in the dark and went unwitnessed. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses, who were close relatives of the deceased and involved in criminal litigation with the accused, made material improvements to their testimony regarding witnessing the shooting. The court also held the Forensic Science Laboratory report unreliable due to delayed transmission of crime empties after recovery. Concluding that the High Court properly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents, and noting that the petition was barred by limitation by one day, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in filing an FIR and sending a body for post-mortem examination justify extending the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon when prosecution witnesses make material improvements from their initial FIR statements?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a Forensic Science Laboratory report when crime empties are sent to the laboratory after an unexplained delay post-recovery?
  • Can an acquittal judgment be sustained where the ocular evidence stems from interested, inimical witnesses lacking independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Rustam Kakalia through Legal Heirs vs Messrs Hashwani Sales2002 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-25
  evictionbona fide requirementreconstructionlandlord-tenant disputerent controlre-inductionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment affirming eviction orders issued by a Rent Controller. The respondents (landlords) sought the eviction of tenants to demolish existing structures and reconstruct a modern building, having obtained approval for the building plan from the competent authority. The core legal question was whether the landlords' requirement for the premises for reconstruction was bona fide and whether the eviction orders were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the bona fide nature of the requirement were supported by evidence. The Court affirmed that landlords possess a fundamental right to utilize their property for reconstruction, provided such actions are not unreasonable and comply with statutory requirements. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while eviction for reconstruction is permissible, tenants retain the right to apply for re-induction into the premises following reconstruction, as mandated by the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord have a legal right to evict tenants for the purpose of reconstructing a building?
  • Is a landlord's requirement for reconstruction considered bona fide when a building plan has been approved by the competent authority?
  • Are tenants entitled to re-induction into the premises after the reconstruction of the building under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• JDW Sugar Mills And Another vs Appellate Tribunal And Others2002 P.C.T.L.R. 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-02
  sales taxinput tax adjustmentstock-in-tradeelectric generatorsleave to appealsugar mills
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' sales tax appeals regarding the adjustment of input sales tax on electric generators against output sales tax. The core legal question is whether electric generators and generating sets purchased by sugar mills to generate energy during the crushing season fall within the definition of the term "stock-in-trade" under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, thereby permitting the adjustment of input tax and exempting them from conflicting SRO notifications. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that an arguable case was made out regarding the interpretation of "stock-in-trade" in light of prior jurisprudence and the necessity of generators for the manufacturing process during power outages. The key principle laid down is that the interpretation of commercial terms such as "stock-in-trade" must take into account the specific nature of the business and the operational necessity of the items used therein.

  Questions settled

  • Whether generators and generating sets purchased for generating energy to run sugar mills during the crushing season fall within the definition of "stock-in-trade" under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can input sales tax paid on electric generators be adjusted against output sales tax under the relevant statutory provisions and notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Khan vs Federal Employees Benevolent and Group2002 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-08
  civil servicesenioritypromotionvoluntary forfeituredefermentservice tribunaltechnical cadre
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal regarding seniority and promotion. The petitioner had requested promotion to a specific technical post, voluntarily foregoing promotion to a general cadre post. Subsequently, a respondent was promoted to a general cadre post earlier than the petitioner's promotion to the technical post. The petitioner sought to ante-date his promotion and claim seniority over the respondent, arguing against the validity of departmental letters that classified his voluntary forfeiture of promotion rights as distinct from 'deferment.' The core legal question was whether a civil servant who voluntarily opts for a specific promotion path can claim seniority over a colleague promoted earlier to a different post. The Supreme Court held that seniority in a post takes effect from the date of regular promotion. Since the petitioner was promoted later than the respondent and did not fall under the exceptions for deferment or circumstances beyond control, he could not claim seniority. The Court affirmed that voluntary forfeiture of promotion rights does not constitute deferment, and thus, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant who voluntarily forfeits a right to promotion qualify for the benefit of 'deferment' under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993?
  • Does seniority in a post, service, or cadre take effect from the date of regular appointment to that post?
  • Can a civil servant claim seniority over a colleague who was promoted to a higher post on an earlier date if the delay was not due to circumstances beyond the civil servant's control?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Khan Director Planning, Federal Employees BenevolentK.L.R. 2002 S.C: 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil service seniorityantedating promotionvoluntary forfeiture of promotiondeferment of promotionseniority rulesservice tribunal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal regarding seniority and promotion. The petitioner had previously requested to forgo promotion to a general cadre post to wait for a specific technical post. Subsequently, a colleague (respondent No. 3) was promoted to a director-level post earlier than the petitioner. The petitioner sought to antedate his promotion and seniority, arguing that his voluntary forfeiture of promotion should not be treated as a deferment. The Supreme Court examined the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993. The Court held that seniority in a post takes effect from the date of regular promotion. It determined that the petitioner's voluntary choice to forgo promotion did not constitute a 'deferment' or circumstances 'beyond control' under the rules. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the petitioner, having been promoted later than the respondent, could not claim seniority over him. The principle established is that a civil servant who voluntarily opts to forgo promotion cannot later claim seniority benefits as if their case had been deferred by the department.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant's voluntary forfeiture of a right to promotion constitute a 'deferment' for the purpose of seniority calculations?
  • Under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993, does a civil servant promoted later than a colleague retain seniority over that colleague?
  • Can a civil servant claim seniority from an earlier date when their promotion was delayed due to their own voluntary choice to forgo an earlier promotion opportunity?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Khan Director Planning, Federal Employees BenevolentK.L.R. 2002 S.C; 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servantseniority on promotionservice tribunalvoluntary forfeituredefermentantedating promotionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning seniority and antedating of promotion. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who voluntarily opted to forgo promotion in one cadre to seek promotion in another technical cadre can claim seniority over a colleague promoted earlier, and whether such voluntary forfeiture constitutes deferment or a circumstance beyond control under the seniority rules. The Supreme Court held that the general rule of seniority applies whereby a civil servant promoted on an earlier date ranks senior to one promoted later, and since the petitioner's case fell under neither deferment nor circumstances beyond control due to his voluntary option, he could not claim seniority over respondent No. 3. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the tribunal's judgment was in accordance with the applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does voluntary forfeiture of a right for promotion amount to deferment under the civil servants seniority rules?
  • From what date does seniority in a post, service, or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted take effect?
  • Whether a civil servant promoted to a higher post on an earlier date ranks senior to one promoted on a later date?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahm Ad (Jawad) and 3 others vs The State2002 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-14
  murderabductionfirearm injuriesforensic corroborationrelated witnessesabscondenceplea of self-defencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under sections 302, 364, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular evidence from related and chance witnesses, the corroboration of eyewitness testimony with medical and forensic evidence, and the evaluation of a plea of self-defence and alleged delay in the post-mortem examination. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt lodging of the F.I.R., consistent medical evidence showing multiple firearm injuries, positive forensic reports matching recovered empties with the weapon of the accused, and the subsequent abscondence of the appellants. The Court laid down that related eyewitnesses whose testimony is trustworthy and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence are reliable, and that an absence of the medical officer does not constitute unexplained delay creating doubt in the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether related and chance witnesses can form the basis of a conviction in a murder trial when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does the delay in conducting a post-mortem examination due to the unavailability of a medical officer vitiate the prosecution's case or indicate consultation and deliberation in lodging the F.I.R.?
  • Whether abscondence of the accused for a prolonged period after the commission of the crime constitutes strong circumstantial evidence of guilt?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when contradicted by ocular testimony, medical evidence, and firearm recovery reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Muhammad Ali and 3 others2002 SCMR 1586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-23
  appeal against acquittalinjured eye-witnessesrelated witnessesomissions in FIRmedical evidencerecovery of weaponcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which had acquitted the respondent-accused of murder and related charges by setting aside their convictions and sentences passed by the trial court under Sections 302/34, 307/34, and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions concerned whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses could be discredited merely due to their relationship with the deceased, non-explanation of minor omissions in the FIR, or non-explanation of injuries on one accused, and whether the defence plea of private defence/outraging modesty was plausible against overwhelming ocular, medical, and recovery evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread the evidence and departed from established principles of evidence evaluation. The Supreme Court ruled that relationship alone does not render injured eye-witnesses unreliable, nor does an FIR need to be an exhaustive document. Finding the defence version fabricated and the ocular testimony fully corroborated by medical and recovery evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay in filing, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the trial court's judgment of conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be discarded solely because they are related to the deceased?
  • Does the failure to detail every sequence of events or non-fatal injuries in an FIR discredit the prosecution's ocular evidence?
  • Whether an unproven defence version can override reliable, injured ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries?
  • Under what circumstances can a delay in filing an appeal against acquittal be condoned by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Mst. Salamat Bibi and others2002 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-19
  inheritance disputelegal heirmutation of inheritancepaternityconcurrent findingsappraisal of evidencecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the concurrent findings of the lower forums dismissing the petitioner's civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner claimed to be the sole legal heir of the deceased Mehr Din, asserting that the respondents were not the daughters of the deceased and that the inheritance mutation was fraudulent. The core legal question was whether the respondents were the legitimate daughters of the deceased entitled to inherit a two-thirds share of the estate. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, including Nikahnamas, identity cards, and testimony establishing paternity. The ratio decidendi is that concurrent findings of fact regarding paternity and inheritance, based on proper appraisal of relevant evidence and corroborated by public revenue proceedings like 'Jalsa Aam', do not warrant interference in revisional or apex jurisdiction unless tainted by illegality or misreading. The court reiterated that a Nikahnama copy does not strictly require formal production of attesting witnesses to prove it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding paternity and inheritance can be interfered with by the Supreme Court without proof of material illegality or misreading?
  • Does a copy of a Nikahnama require the production of attesting witnesses to prove it?
  • Can a civil suit challenging a revenue mutation succeed where the oral and documentary evidence establishes the legitimacy of the heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Akhtar vs Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services2002 PLD Supreme Court 1063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-29
  civil servantworkmanservice appealremoval from servicestatutory corporationjurisdictiondisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant, a Purchase Inspector at the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation (PASSCO), following an inquiry into allegations of wheat and bardana shortages. The appellant contended that as a declared "workman," his rights were protected under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and that the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing his appeal. The core legal question was whether the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 altered the appellant's substantive service status or merely provided a forum for appeal. The Supreme Court held that PASSCO, being administratively controlled by the Federal Government, falls within the ambit of Section 2-A, making the appellant a "civil servant" for the limited purpose of invoking the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, his substantive terms and conditions of service remain governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Finding no procedural illegality in the inquiry or the dismissal, the Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 alter the substantive terms and conditions of service of an employee who is otherwise governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Is an employee of a government-controlled corporation registered under the Companies Act 1913 deemed a civil servant for the sole purpose of filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can an employee challenge a dismissal order before the Service Tribunal if they are deemed a civil servant under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Akhtar vs Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services2002 PLC (C.S.) 1650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-29
  civil servantservice tribunalmisconductdismissal from servicePASSCOworkmanjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an appeal filed by Jamshed Akhtar against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant was protected under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing his appeal summarily after he was proceeded against for misconduct by PASSCO. The Supreme Court held that while the appellant attained the status of a civil servant for the limited purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, his terms and conditions of service continued to be governed by the applicable departmental regulations, and the respondent corporation followed a proper procedure in finding him guilty of misconduct. The key principle laid down is that the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 brings employees of specified corporations within the purview of the Service Tribunal for grievance redressal, but does not alter the underlying rules governing their terms and conditions of service where proper disciplinary inquiry has been conducted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 alter the fundamental terms and conditions of service of a corporate employee?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters of employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government?
  • Does a show-cause notice for misconduct issued after thirty days of the alleged act vitiate disciplinary proceedings under the applicable rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail and others vs Muhammad Khan and others2002 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-30
  civil court jurisdictionland reforms regulationmartial law regulationsale of landmutationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their regular second appeal relating to a disputed land transaction. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of civil courts was ousted in determining matters involving the violation of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959). The Supreme Court held that the power to decide whether a transaction offends the provisions of M.L.R. 64 vests exclusively in the Land Commission or authorized revenue authorities, and the jurisdiction of civil courts is expressly barred in such matters. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts and upholding the principle that land reform disputes fall outside the purview of civil court jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine whether a land transaction violates the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
  • Are disputes arising from the implementation of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 exclusively triable by the Land Reforms Commission and revenue authorities?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in respect of matters which the Land Commission is empowered to determine under Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamia University, Bahawalpur vs Muhammad Hameed Bhatti and another2002 PLD Supreme Court 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-29
  leave to appealpension benefitsservice lawre-employmentstatutory interpretationmove-over
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal filed by Islamia University, Bahawalpur, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had affirmed trial court decrees in favor of the respondents, who were permanent employees seeking declarations of their entitlement to move-over, pension, and other ancillary benefits. The petitioner university contested these claims, arguing against the respondents' entitlement to such benefits. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel for both parties and reviewing the record, granted leave to appeal. The core legal questions identified for determination concern whether re-employment acts as a bar to receiving pension and move-over benefits under the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and the Islamia University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979. Furthermore, the Court seeks to resolve whether administrative instructions in the ESTACODE can supersede specific statutory provisions and whether the High Court failed to properly apply the Islamia University Bahawalpur Officers (Appointment) Statutes, 1977 in determining the nature of the respondents' service.

  Questions settled

  • Does re-employment constitute a bar for the grant of pension, move-over, and ancillary benefits under the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and the Islamia University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979?
  • Can Instruction No. 36 published in the ESTACODE supersede the provisions of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and the Islamia University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979 regarding re-employment benefits?
  • Did the High Court fail to consider the Islamia University Bahawalpur Officers (Appointment) Statutes, 1977 when determining the nature of the respondents' service?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-20
  annual incrementsFundamental RulesRevised Leave Rulesmedical leavecivil servantpension revisionService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether a civil servant who remained on medical leave is entitled to annual increments under F.R. 26(a) of the Fundamental Rules for the period of such leave. The appellant, a National Savings Officer, was granted leave on medical grounds and subsequently declared permanently incapacitated, leading to his retirement. His request for pension recalculation inclusive of annual increments for 1990 and 1991 was rejected by the department and the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground that he was not on active duty. The Supreme Court held that under F.R. 26(a), periods of leave other than extraordinary leave count towards increments in a time-scale. The Court ruled that since the appellant's leave was on medical grounds and not extraordinary leave without pay, he was legally entitled to earn annual increments during his leave period. The judgment sets the principle that a civil servant on ordinary leave (such as medical leave with pay) does not forfeit their right to annual increments under F.R. 26(a).

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant on medical leave is entitled to annual increments under F.R. 26(a) of the Fundamental Rules?
  • Does the denial of annual increments during periods of ordinary leave violate F.R. 26(a)?
  • Are periods of leave other than extraordinary leave excluded from counting towards increments in a time-scale under the Fundamental Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Book Depot And Other vs Khatib Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. 2002 S.C. 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-02-21
  personal and bona fide requirementeviction of tenantreconstruction of premiseslandlord and tenantburden of proofrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which accepted the landlord's eviction application and directed the tenants to hand over vacant possession of the subject shops. The core legal question concerned whether an application for eviction on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement is maintainable or rendered mala fide where previous agreements existed between the parties for the reconstruction of the premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that the failure to complete reconstruction due to lack of municipal sanction does not bar a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The Court laid down the principle that the selection of an area and the nature of business is the exclusive choice of the landlord, and the sole testimony of a landlord on oath, if consistent and unshaken in cross-examination, is sufficient to establish personal bona fide need under rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to execute a prior agreement for the reconstruction of rented premises bar a landlord from subsequently seeking eviction on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement?
  • Is the sole testimony of a landlord sufficient to establish personal and bona fide need of the demised premises under rent laws?
  • Can a tenant dictate the suitability of a particular area or the nature of business proposed to be run by the landlord in the evicted premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax and others vs Messrs Micro Pak (Pvt.). Limited and others2002 PTD 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-24
  share deposit moneyincome tax assessmentrevisional jurisdictiontaxing statute interpretationloans as incomeauthorized capitalretrospective amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from petitions filed by the Revenue against the Lahore High Court's decision allowing assessees' appeals regarding the tax treatment of 'share deposit money' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether 'share deposit money' received over and above the authorized capital could be treated as 'loans' or 'income' under section 12(18) of the Ordinance prior to the 1998 amendment, thereby justifying the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 66-A. The Supreme Court held that the amounts in question genuinely represented share deposit money and not loans, as shares were subsequently issued and capital increased. Furthermore, the inclusion of 'advance' in section 12(18) by the Finance Act, 1998 was not retrospective. The Court affirmed that the Lahore High Court correctly interpreted the law, emphasizing that where a statute specifies a particular form or term, equivalents are excluded, and that in taxing statutes, interpretations favourable to the subject must prevail. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether share deposit money received over and above the authorized capital can be treated as a loan under section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the inclusion of the term 'advance' in section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by the Finance Act, 1998 have retrospective effect?
  • Can the Inspecting Additional Commissioner validly invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on share deposit money treated as proper share capital?
  • Which interpretation must be adopted when a provision in a taxing statute is susceptible to two equally possible interpretations?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Valibhai2002 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-02-24
  leave to appealcompany lawintra-court appealappellate jurisdictioncompetency of appealCompany Judge
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal under Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, on the grounds of incompetency. The core legal question concerns the proper forum for an appeal against an order passed by a Company Judge: specifically, whether such an appeal lies before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or as an Intra-Court Appeal before the High Court itself. The petitioner relied on a previous Supreme Court order granting leave to appeal in a similar matter to examine the interpretation of Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Given the consent of the caveator and the existence of an identical pending matter, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the competency of the appellate remedy. The Court further directed that the instant case be listed before the same bench hearing the related matter to ensure consistency in judicial interpretation and stayed the operation of the impugned High Court order pending the final decision of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against an order passed by a Company Judge competent before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or as an Intra-Court Appeal before the High Court?
  • Does Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 provide for an Intra-Court Appeal against an order of a Company Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat vs The State2002 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-06
  cancellation of bailrule of consistencymurdermurderous assaultfirearm injuriesmedical evidenceparity of co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the cancellation of the petitioner's bail by the High Court in a murder and murderous assault case involving the death of one person and injuries to eye-witnesses. The petitioner was alleged to have been armed with a .12 bore gun and to have fired at two prosecution witnesses, causing them injuries. The petitioner sought leave to appeal primarily on the ground of the rule of consistency, arguing that his case was at par with a co-accused who had been granted bail, especially since the allegation against that co-accused regarding firearm use was found to be false due to sharp-edged weapon injuries on the deceased. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's stance by establishing firearm injuries on the eye-witnesses attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim parity with the co-accused, and the High Court's order cancelling bail was upheld as being based on cogent and sound legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person specifically attributed with causing firearm injuries to eye-witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, can claim bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused?
  • Whether the cancellation of bail by the High Court is justified where the accused's role is distinguishable from a co-accused who was granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali vs The State2002 PLD Supreme Court 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-11
  plea of alibiabscondenceburden of proofocular evidencecriminal appealcorroborationcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed the petitioner's conviction and death sentences for multiple murders under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the petitioner's plea of alibi and the evidentiary weight of the petitioner's abscondence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that while the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution, an accused raising an alibi must provide sufficient evidence to create a reasonable possibility of their absence from the crime scene. The Court found the petitioner's alibi evidence fabricated and inconsistent. Furthermore, it held that while abscondence does not automatically prove guilt, it may serve as a corroboratory factor when considered alongside other reliable evidence. The Court concluded that the ocular testimony was consistent and confidence-inspiring, and the minor contradictions cited by the defense did not undermine the prosecution's case. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were maintained as the findings of the lower courts were deemed unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving an alibi shift the overall burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused?
  • Can the fact of an accused's abscondence be used as a corroboratory factor in a criminal trial?
  • What is the standard of evidence required for an accused to successfully raise a plea of alibi?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• In re_ To Revisit _the State V. Zubair_ [PLD 1986 SC 173] vs Not2002 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-26
  bail applicationsubsequent bailjudicial disciplineforum non-convenienssuo motu reviewConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a suo motu criminal review initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to re-examine the strict application of the rule laid down in The State v. Zubair (PLD 1986 SC 173), which mandated that all subsequent bail applications by the same accused or in the same case must be referred to the same Judge who heard the earlier application. The core legal question concerned how to balance judicial discipline, consistency, and the prevention of forum shopping with the constitutional imperatives of expeditious justice, access to justice, and the prevention of unnecessary hardship or delay when the original Judge or Division Bench is unavailable due to rotation, leave, or administrative exigencies. The Supreme Court confirmed its interim order with modifications, holding that while subsequent bail applications must ordinarily be placed before the same Judge or Division Bench, the Chief Justice of the High Court may authorize a departure and refer the matter to another Bench or Judge in the event of non-availability, ensuring that technicalities do not obstruct the fundamental right to expeditious and inexpensive justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subsequent bail applications must always be placed before the same Judge who heard the first bail application?
  • Can the Chief Justice of a High Court refer a subsequent bail application to another Judge when the original Judge is unavailable?
  • How should a subsequent bail application be handled if the original Division Bench is no longer available at the same seat?
  • Is a subsequent bail application maintainable without copies of the earlier applications and orders attached?
  Read full judgment →
• In re: Suo Motu Criminal Original No.1 of 2001 vs Kh. Zahir Ahmed, Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad2002 PLD Supreme Court 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-29
  contempt of courtquasi-judicial functionsbinding precedentunqualified apologyadministrative functionariesjudicial disciplinesuo motu jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated against a former Commissioner of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for using intemperate language while disagreeing with the legal interpretations of the Supreme Court and the High Court in a 1983 quasi-judicial order. The core legal question was whether an administrative functionary exercising quasi-judicial powers is bound by the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, and whether the respondent's conduct in criticizing superior court judgments constituted contempt. The Court held that while the respondent's actions were technically liable for contempt, the proceedings should be discharged. The Court established that all functionaries discharging quasi-judicial or administrative functions are legally bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution, as they must follow the law declared by the apex Court. However, considering the respondent's unqualified apology, his long service, and the lack of mala fide intent, the Court opted to discharge the show-cause notice with a stern warning rather than imposing punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Are administrative functionaries exercising quasi-judicial powers bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court?
  • Does the use of intemperate language against superior court judgments by a quasi-judicial officer constitute contempt of court?
  • Can a show-cause notice for contempt be discharged based on an unqualified apology and lack of mala fide intent?
  Read full judgment →
• In re_ Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, Registrar High Court of Sindh vs Not2002 PLD Supreme Court 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-08-23
  contempt of courtintra-court appealunconditional apologywilful disobediencecontumacycharge-sheetregistrar high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal was filed under Section 10(2)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 against a judgment convicting the appellant, a Registrar of the Sindh High Court, under Section 4 of the Act read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for delay in submitting a report called for by the Supreme Court. The core legal questions were whether mere non-submission or delayed submission of a court-ordered report by an officer of the court constitutes contumacious conduct amounting to contempt of court, and whether proper procedure was followed before convicting the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and discharged the show-cause notice. The Court held that a distinction must be drawn between active violation of injunctions and mere administrative delay by a court officer. In the absence of personal interest, ulterior motives, or contumacy, administrative delay does not amount to contempt. Furthermore, before punishing for contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1976, formal proceedings under Section 7 including a specific charge-sheet must be initiated.

  Questions settled

  • Does administrative delay in submitting a report ordered by a court automatically constitute contempt of court in the absence of contumacy or ulterior motives?
  • What procedure must be followed under Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 prior to convicting a person for contempt of court?
  • Whether an unconditional apology tendered at the earliest opportunity by a court officer can be accepted to discharge contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Tajamal Khan vs Mumtaz Ahmed alias Kaka and others2002 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-13
  murderdeath sentenceimprisonment for lifemitigating circumstancesleave to appealsudden quarrel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23-5-2001, whereby the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Irfan Tajamal was upheld, but his sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence and altering the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the sentence of death was rightly altered because the murder was preceded by a quarrel and the firing occurred during a grappling process between the accused and the deceased. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the existence of a sudden quarrel and grappling prior to the fatal shot can constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life when the murder is preceded by a quarrel and grappling?
  • Does a sudden grappling between the accused and the deceased serve as a mitigating circumstance in murder trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Magsi and others vs Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-14
  writ of mandamusretrenchmentprobation and confirmationdepartmental appealservice tribunal jurisdictionpowers of vice-chairmanreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals by leave of the Court challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the appellants' constitutional petitions. The appellants were employed by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board in 1994 on probation, but their services were terminated in 1998 under a retrenchment policy. The Chief Minister of Sindh accepted their departmental appeals and directed their reinstatement and withdrawal of the retrenchment orders. However, the Vice-Chairman of the Board repeatedly interfered and obstructed the implementation of the Chief Minister's orders. The High Court dismissed the petitions holding that the matter fell within the domain of the Service Tribunal and that the Chief Executive should get his own orders implemented. The Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and held that the Vice-Chairman lacked legal authority to interfere with the appellate orders of the Provincial Government. The Court ruled that the appellants' probationary period had expired, deeming them confirmed, and that the writ of mandamus was maintainable at the instance of the aggrieved employees to enforce final departmental appellate orders. The appeals were consequently accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court to enforce implementation of an order passed by the Provincial Government/Chief Minister in departmental appeal?
  • Does the Vice-Chairman of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board possess the authority to interfere with or halt the execution of appellate orders passed by the Provincial Government?
  • Whether an employee whose probationary period has expired without extension or adverse remark is deemed to have been confirmed under the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Employees (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1987?
  • Whether a service dispute involving the implementation of a favorable departmental appellate order falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh vs Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh and others2002 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-07
  restoration of petitiondismissal for non-prosecutionlimitationcondonation of delaytime-barred
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Imam Bakhsh, filed two applications seeking the restoration of Civil Petitions Nos. 545-L of 1999 and 546-L of 1999, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution on November 30, 1999. The core legal question was whether the applications for restoration, which were filed on March 22, 2000, were maintainable given the significant delay in filing. The Court observed that the applications were barred by 73 days. Although the applicant claimed to have gained knowledge of the dismissal order approximately one month after it was passed, the timeline established that the applications were still filed well beyond the permissible period. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any valid grounds to justify the condonation of this delay. Consequently, the Court held that the applications were time-barred and dismissed them accordingly. The principle laid down is that applications for the restoration of petitions dismissed for non-prosecution must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, and in the absence of valid grounds for condonation, such applications are liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application for restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution be entertained if it is filed beyond the period of limitation without valid grounds for condonation?
  • Is a delay of 73 days in filing an application for restoration of dismissed petitions excusable without sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and 2 others vs Allah Wasaya and 2 others2002 SCMR 1985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-05
  review petitioncomplete justicepre-emption suitcollusive suitappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a revision petition concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court, while reviewing a judgment, could maintain the dismissal of a suit on an additional ground apparent from the record—specifically, that the suit was collusive and filed for the benefit of the vendor—even if that specific ground was not utilized by the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the judgment under review, deciding that the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to do complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution and can take note of glaring facts on the record, such as the vendor's admission of financing the litigation, to pass a proper judgment. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court possesses the inherent constitutional authority to ensure complete justice by upholding a valid legal outcome based on undeniable evidence present on the judicial record.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court maintain the dismissal of a suit on a ground not relied upon by the First Appellate Court?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to do complete justice by taking note of glaring facts on the record under Article 187 of the Constitution?
  • Is a pre-emption suit liable to be dismissed if it is found to be collusive and financed by the vendor?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs The State2002 SCMR 1455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-21
  capital punishmentquantum of sentenceminority pleasudden provocationsection 342 Cr.P.C. statementpresumption of agelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to death. The appeal before the Supreme Court focused on the quantum of sentence, specifically regarding the appellant's age at the time of the occurrence and alleged mental ailment. The appellant contended he was a minor at the time of the incident, relying on his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., and argued for leniency based on the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Court held that while the Ordinance was not applicable to the trial, the age stated in a section 342, Cr.P.C. statement carries a presumption of correctness if unrebutted. However, the Court clarified that minority alone does not entitle an accused to a lesser penalty for a capital charge. Upon reviewing the circumstances, the Court found the prosecution's motive doubtful and inferred that sudden provocation likely triggered the incident. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment, declining the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Does the age of an accused stated in a section 342, Cr.P.C. statement carry a presumption of correctness if no rebuttal evidence is provided?
  • Is an accused automatically entitled to a lesser penalty for a capital charge solely on the basis of being a minor at the time of the occurrence?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the possibility of sudden provocation despite a doubtful prosecution motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihtshamuddin vs The State and others2002 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-31
  ocular evidencemedical evidencemurderacquittalreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealeffective firing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges. The complainant alleged that the respondents, armed with firearms, attacked the deceased, Mehtabuddin, following a dispute over construction. The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court overturned this conviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence. Upon review, the Court found that the ocular evidence was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, and that the High Court had erroneously rejected the prosecution's case based on surmises and conjectures. The Court held that where ocular testimony is trustworthy and supported by medical evidence, and the FIR is lodged promptly, the acquittal of the principal accused is unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal of the respondent who fired the fatal shot, restoring his original conviction and sentence, while dismissing the appeals against the other respondents who were attributed only ineffective firing.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court overturn a conviction based on surmises and conjectures when ocular evidence is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the absence of a ballistic expert's report necessarily invalidate a conviction for murder where ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
  • Is the prompt lodging of an FIR and the immediate transportation of an injured victim to the hospital considered a natural circumstance supporting the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar through Legal Heirs and others vs Capt. Khadim Hussain through Legal Heirs and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-17
  perpetual injunctionencroachmentamended plaintpossessionLocal Commissionerconcurrent findingssecond appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for perpetual injunction, later amended to a suit for possession, filed by the respondent-plaintiff alleging that the petitioner-defendant encroached upon 5 Marlas of land in violation of a temporary injunction. The Civil Judge decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, which was subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court in a regular second appeal. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner contended that documentary evidence was misread, the evacuee nature of the property was ignored, and the Local Commissioner's report was defective. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be lightly interfered with unless there is a patent error of law, misreading or non-reading of material evidence, or a gross miscarriage of justice. Finding no such exceptional circumstances or jurisdictional flaws, the Court upheld the concurrent findings based on adequate oral and documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Under what exceptional circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts?
  • Can a Local Commissioner's report be discarded in the absence of any grave irregularity or defect pointed out by the objecting party?
  • Will the Supreme Court reappraise factual controversies and evidence when the High Court's conclusion is based on adequate oral and documentary evidence supported by cogent reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim And Other vs Rehmat Ali And OtherK.L.R. 2002 S.C. 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-07
  inheritanceMuslim Personal LawCustomary Lawlimited estatelegal heirsresiduariesexclusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the appellate decree and restored the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit regarding inheritance. The core legal question involved the determination of rightful legal heirs to the estate of the deceased under Customary Law and subsequent Muslim Personal Law upon the termination of a limited estate, specifically concerning the rule of exclusion based on proximity of degree. The Supreme Court held that upon the death of the limited owner in 1950, the property reverted to the last male owner, and under Muslim Law, the nearer in degree heirs exclude more remote collaterals. The Court found that the High Court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs stood excluded by closer heirs and that the property devolved upon the recognized legal sharers and residuaries. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the principles of Islamic law of inheritance and the proximity rule govern such successions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a limited estate under Customary Law terminates upon the death of the limited owner and causes the property to revert to the last male owner?
  • Does a nearer relation in degree exclude a more remote relation under the Muslim Law of inheritance?
  • Whether the Islamic law of inheritance makes any distinction between ancestral and self-acquired property?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Development Authority through M.D., Civic Centre, Hyderabad vs Abdul Majeed and others2002 PLD Supreme Court 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementmarket valueadmissibility of documentsburden of prooflimitation periodappeal to Supreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the Hyderabad Development Authority challenges the High Court's judgment enhancing the compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from Rs.10,000 to Rs.400,000 per acre. The core legal question concerns the proper determination of market value based on admissible evidence and transactions prior to the notification under section 4(1) of the Act, as well as the admissibility of photocopies of sale deeds without proving their contents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on inadmissible photocopies of sale deeds and post-notification transactions without discharging the burden of proof. The ratio decidendi is that oral assertions regarding market value and potential without supporting independent documentary evidence are insufficient, and documents tendered as photocopies without fulfilling primary or secondary evidence requirements possess no evidentiary value. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Additional District Judge's order dismissing the reference.

  Questions settled

  • What is the crucial date for determining the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Can a photocopy of a sale deed be taken into consideration as evidence without proving its contents in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether transactions and sale deeds taking place subsequent to the issuance of a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be considered for determining compensation?
  • Does a direct appeal lie to the Supreme Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the decree of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• HUSSAiN Ali and others vs Khan Ali and another2002 SCMR 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-08
  qisas and diyatdisfigurementarshcompromisehurtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which had modified the conviction and sentence of the respondent from section 336 to section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries to his former wife and mother-in-law. The core legal question was whether the permanent cut and injuries inflicted on the ears and nose of the victim amounted to permanent disfigurement under section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or merely Shujjah-i-Khafifah. The Supreme Court initially held that the injuries caused permanent disfigurement, thereby attracting section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, during the proceedings, the parties entered into a lawful written compromise regarding the payment of Arsh. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 1,500,000 as Arsh in installments while dismissing the appeal as to the other appellants. The key principle laid down is that physical injuries causing permanent scars and changing the external appearance of facial features like ears and nose constitute permanent disfigurement under the Islamic criminal law provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and compromises regarding Arsh in such matters can be accepted by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether injuries involving deep cuts to the ears and nose causing permanent scars amount to permanent disfigurement under section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a criminal appeal involving hurt under Qisas and Diyat be disposed of on the basis of a compromise between the parties regarding the payment of Arsh?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayun Iqbal Shami vs Prime Minister of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another2002 PLC (C.S.) 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-15
  civil servantdisciplinary proceedingspenalty of censureexoneration by implicationservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal, with leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal against the penalty of censure imposed by the competent authority. The appellant, a Deputy Director, was charge-sheeted on ten counts and found guilty of one charge relating to creating a law and order situation, indiscipline, and police involvement. The core legal questions addressed were whether exoneration from disciplinary charges could be inferred by implication from subsequent administrative acts such as nomination for foreign courses or release certificates, and whether the finding of guilt was supported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that exoneration in disciplinary proceedings against civil servants cannot be inferred by implication and requires a clear, explicit order from the competent authority, and that the testimony of the prosecution witness sufficiently supported the finding of guilt. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can exoneration from a disciplinary charge against a civil servant be inferred by implication from subsequent administrative acts?
  • Is the testimony of a prosecution witness sufficient to uphold a finding of guilt in departmental inquiries?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal's upholding of a penalty of censure warrants interference when supported by record?
  Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation Through Managing Director, HeadK.L.R. 2002 S.C. 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-11
  premature retirementwithdrawal of resignationservice appealmaster and servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the service appeal of the respondent was allowed. The respondent, an employee of the House Building Finance Corporation, applied for premature retirement, but subsequently submitted an application to withdraw his request before the department formally accepted it and made it effective. The department rejected the withdrawal based on an adopted government office memorandum prohibiting the withdrawal of premature retirement requests. The core legal question concerns the right of an employee to withdraw an application for premature retirement prior to its formal acceptance, and the applicability of the governing circular and office memoranda. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether employees are entitled to benefit from government instructions regarding the withdrawal of retirement requests, whether the withdrawal application preceded the final acceptance order, and the effect of the prohibiting office memorandum.

  Questions settled

  • Are the employees of the House Building Finance Corporation entitled to benefit from government instructions relating to the retirement from service and the withdrawal of premature retirement requests?
  • Can an employee withdraw an application for premature retirement before the passing of a final order accepting the same?
  • Whether an employee, in view of the specific office memorandum, is barred from withdrawing a request for premature once it has been submitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayjoo And Another vs Muhammad Bakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 2002 S.C. 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-24
  Federal Levies Forceservice of Pakistanlocal government electionsdisqualificationcivil servantBazgirelection eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which disqualified the petitioners from contesting local government elections. The petitioners, holding original posts in the Federal Levies Force, contended they were not in the service of Pakistan because they employed Bazgirs (substitutes) to perform their duties. The core legal question was whether such original post holders, despite the substitute arrangement, fall within the definition of being in the service of Pakistan, thereby triggering disqualification under section 14(g) of the Balochistan Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Levies Force is a regular law-enforcing agency under the Federal Levy Force Rules, 1999. The Court ruled that original post holders are considered civil servants for all practical purposes, including disciplinary actions. Consequently, the Court affirmed the disqualification, holding that the Bazgir system does not exempt original post holders from their status as members of a law-enforcing agency, thus barring them from contesting elections under the relevant Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Are original post holders of the Federal Levies Force considered to be in the service of Pakistan?
  • Does the employment of a substitute (Bazgir) exempt an original post holder of the Federal Levies Force from being classified as a civil servant?
  • Are members of the Federal Levies Force disqualified from contesting local government elections under the Balochistan Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →