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.

• Ashiq Ali Shujra vs Muhammad Ali And Another1997 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-07
  leave to appealoffence of qazfimputation of zinarevision petitioncriminal complaintremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had allowed a revision petition and remanded a criminal complaint to the Additional Sessions Judge for proceeding in accordance with law. The underlying complaint was filed under sections 6, 10, and 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and had been summarily dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether the statements made by the petitioner constituted an imputation of Zina amounting to Qazf under the Ordinance, or whether they merely referred to other offences under the law without alleging Zina. The Supreme Court held that there was substance in the petitioner's contention that the complaint did not disclose an allegation of Zina and that subsequent improvements made by witnesses could not advance the complainant's case. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, and further proceedings before the trial court were stayed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allegation that does not specifically impute Zina constitutes the offence of Qazf under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can improvements made by witnesses in their preliminary statements advance a criminal complaint when the original complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence?
  • When is leave to appeal appropriately granted against an order of the Federal Shariat Court remanding a criminal complaint for further proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Riaz vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 4 Other1997 SCMR 1611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-23
  land consolidationconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionrevenue authoritiesleave to appealconsolidation of holdingsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a Constitutional Petition against a decision by the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding land consolidation. The petitioner argued that the Board of Revenue's modification of the consolidation scheme was inequitable, lacked proper notice to affected landowners, and misidentified the land in dispute. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed the principle that revenue authorities possess exclusive jurisdiction to determine factual matters concerning land consolidation, such as the allocation of specific Khasra or Killa numbers. Consequently, the High Court cannot sit in judgment over these decisions unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the modification caused any reduction in his entitlement or ownership rights. As no question of public importance arose, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining that the revenue authorities' findings on land distribution convenience are final and not subject to judicial review under Article 199.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with the factual findings of Revenue Authorities regarding land consolidation in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure of a Revenue Authority to hear all affected landowners in a consolidation scheme modification violate the proviso to subsection (4) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960?
  • Is a decision by a Revenue Authority regarding the allocation of specific land parcels subject to judicial review if it is not shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Aryan Petro Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ministry of Finance And 4 Other1997 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  leave to appealcustoms dutysales tax refundwithdrawal of concessiondiscriminationpromissory estoppelconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 14-6-1995, which dismissed writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of customs duty repayments and sales tax refunds. The Central Board of Revenue had initially authorised repayment and refund concessions for the import of plastic moulding compound and plastic goods via a 1991 notification, but subsequently withdrew the concession in respect of plastic shopping bags exported to Afghanistan through a 1994 notification. The core legal questions involve whether the withdrawal of the tax concession was discriminatory under constitutional safeguards and whether the principle of promissory estoppel applied. The High Court had held that exemptions could be withdrawn and that the notification applied generally to all exporters of plastic shopping bags to Afghanistan without discrimination. Upon consideration of the contentions regarding the rationale of the withdrawal and alleged discriminatory treatment, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, ordering that interim stay orders continue pending final disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the withdrawal of a tax exemption or concession by the Government violates the constitutional safeguard against discrimination?
  • Does the principle of promissory estoppel apply to prevent the Government from withdrawing a customs duty and sales tax concession once granted?
  • Whether the withdrawal of a concession in respect of one particular item or industry provides valid grounds for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Aryan Petro Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Ministry of Finance and 4 others1997 PTD 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  customs dutysales tax refunddiscriminatory notificationpromissory estoppelconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appealtax concession withdrawal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment regarding the withdrawal of a tax concession. The petitioners, exporters of plastic shopping bags to Afghanistan, challenged a government notification that withdrew a previously granted repayment of customs duties and refund of sales tax specifically for their product. The petitioners argued that the withdrawal was discriminatory and lacked a valid basis, contending that the government's justification—alleged misuse and smuggling—was contradicted by official correspondence from the Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise. The High Court had previously dismissed the petitions, ruling that the government possessed the authority to withdraw exemptions and that the principle of promissory estoppel did not apply, finding no discrimination as the notification applied to all exporters of the specific item. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the contentions regarding the factual basis for the withdrawal and the potential for discriminatory treatment, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the arguments raised by the petitioners regarding the validity of the withdrawal and constitutional safeguards against discrimination required further judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government withdraw a tax concession or exemption previously granted through a notification?
  • Does the withdrawal of a tax concession for a specific item violate constitutional safeguards against discrimination if it applies to all exporters of that item?
  • Is the principle of promissory estoppel applicable to the withdrawal of tax concessions by the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain, Sub-Engineer, Power Station Mangla, WAPDA, District1997 PLC (C.S.) 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-01
  seniority disputeWAPDAsurplus employeesservice lawabsorption in serviceFederal Service Tribunaladministrative policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding a seniority dispute between two WAPDA employees. The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, sought seniority from his initial date of appointment, despite having been declared surplus in a previous cadre and subsequently absorbed into a new one. The core legal question concerned whether such surplus staff are entitled to seniority from their original appointment date or from the date of absorption into the new cadre, and whether the department could unilaterally revise a finalized seniority list. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that WAPDA’s standing policy mandates that surplus employees absorbed into a new cadre must be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, with seniority reckoned from the date of absorption. The Court affirmed that once a representation regarding seniority is rejected and the position attains finality, the department cannot arbitrarily review and alter that position to the detriment of others. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, confirming the restoration of the seniority list issued on 23-10-1994.

  Questions settled

  • Does the seniority of a surplus employee absorbed into a new cadre date from the initial appointment or the date of absorption?
  • Can a department unilaterally revise a seniority list after a previous representation regarding that position has been rejected?
  • Is an employee declared surplus in one cadre entitled to carry over seniority to a different cadre within the same organization?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain, Sub Engineer, Power Station Mangla, WAPDA, District1997 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-01
  seniority disputeWAPDAsurplus employeeservice lawabsorption in servicecadre seniorityFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute between two WAPDA employees. The core legal question was whether a surplus employee, upon absorption into a new cadre, is entitled to seniority from their original date of appointment or from the date of absorption into the new cadre, and whether the department could unilaterally revise a settled seniority position. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the petitioner, having been declared surplus and absorbed into a new cadre, must be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the new cadre, with seniority reckoned from the date of absorption. The court affirmed that administrative policy regarding surplus staff is binding; once an employee is absorbed into a new cadre, they cannot claim seniority from their previous service, and a department cannot unilaterally review and alter a seniority position that has attained finality through previous unchallenged rejections of the employee's representations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surplus employee absorbed into a new cadre retain seniority from their original date of appointment?
  • Can a department unilaterally review and revise a seniority position that has previously attained finality?
  • Is a surplus employee entitled to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the new cadre upon absorption?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Bibi And Others vs Raja1997 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Anwar Beg, S.E.T. and 2 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Education, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27
  service tribunalregularization of servicegraded payexercise of jurisdictionleave to appealcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal. The petitioners, appointed as S.E.T. (Science) in BPS-15 on fixed pay, sought regularization of their services and the grant of graded pay from their initial dates of appointment. While the Service Tribunal partially allowed the appeals by directing the department to award graded pay from the date the petitioners acquired the requisite B.Ed. qualification, it failed to address or adjudicate the prayer regarding the regularization of their appointments. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that this omission constituted a failure to exercise vested jurisdiction, particularly in light of Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1988. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal's failure to decide the regularization prayer required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal erred in failing to exercise its jurisdiction regarding the regularization claim, thereby establishing that a judicial or quasi-judicial body must adjudicate all prayers raised in an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Service Tribunal to decide a specific prayer in an appeal amount to a failure to exercise vested jurisdiction?
  • Are employees appointed on fixed pay entitled to regularization under the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1988?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Beg, S.E.T. And 2 Other vs Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Education, N.-W.F.P.U And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27
  service tribunalregularization of servicesgraded payjurisdictionleave to appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions filed by S.E.T. (Science) teachers appointed on fixed pay in 1987 who subsequently improved their qualifications and sought regularization and graded pay. The petitioners appealed to the Service Tribunal, which partially allowed their appeals by directing the department to award graded pay from the date they acquired the requisite B.Ed. qualification. However, the Tribunal failed to adjudicate upon the petitioners' prayer for the regularization of their appointments. Upon seeking leave to appeal, the petitioners contended that the Tribunal's failure to address the regularization issue constituted a refusal to exercise vested jurisdiction, particularly in light of Section 3 of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1988. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the Tribunal's omission to decide the prayer for regularization required judicial examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal erred in failing to exercise its jurisdiction regarding the regularization claim, thereby ensuring that all prayers in the original appeal are properly addressed and adjudicated upon according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Service Tribunal's failure to decide a specific prayer in an appeal constitute a refusal to exercise vested jurisdiction?
  • Are civil servants appointed on fixed pay entitled to regularization under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1988?
  Read full judgment →
• Aneel Kumar and 2 others vs University of Karachi and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-13
  migration of medical studentsright to equalityequal protection of lawuniversity migration rulesmedical college transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of Constitution Petitions by the High Court of Sindh, concerning the refusal of the University of Karachi to accept the migration of medical students from colleges in the interior of Sindh to Sindh Medical College, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the University of Karachi was justified in refusing migration and whether such refusal violated the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, given that migrations had been granted to similarly placed students. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and held that although students have no vested right to migration and that indiscriminate migration without justifiable cause is deprecated, the refusal to treat the petitioners alike with other similarly placed students constituted a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court directed the University of Karachi to allow the petitioners' migration to prevent ruining their academic careers, while laying down principles that future migration requests must be strictly scrutinized and supported by compelling reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether students have a vested right to claim migration from one medical college to another?
  • Does the refusal to allow migration to certain students while granting it to others similarly placed violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can migration requests be entertained after the expiry of the time limit prescribed by university regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Jan and 3 others vs Haji Ghulam Muhammad1997 PLD Supreme Court 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-02
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalbsOrder VI Rule 2 CPCpleadingsmaterial factsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a pre-emption suit filed by respondent Haji Ghulam Muhammad regarding the sale of land under Mutation No. 201. The respondent alleged in his plaint that upon gaining knowledge of the sale, he immediately declared his intention to pre-empt the land, thereby making Talb-i-Muwathibat, followed by the requisite notice. The petitioners contested the suit, claiming that the requirements of Talbs under Section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (Act X of 1987) were not met and that specific details regarding time, place, and witnesses were omitted from the plaint. The trial court decreed the suit, and both the District Judge and High Court affirmed the judgment. On a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether the omission of specific details (time, place, and witnesses) of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint vitiated the proceedings under Order VI, Rule 2 C.P.C. The Supreme Court held that Order VI, Rule 2 C.P.C. requires pleading material facts, not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Stating the material fact of making Talb-i-Muwathibat upon gaining knowledge of the sale is sufficient to allow the party to lead evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order VI, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure require a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit to specify the exact time, place, and witnesses of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint?
  • Is a statement in the plaint that the pre-emptor declared his intention to pre-empt immediately upon learning of the sale sufficient pleading to admit evidence of Talb-i-Muwathibat?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding compliance with Section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 be interfered with in the absence of material irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanul Mulk vs Mian Ghafoor Ur Rehman And Other1997 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-27
  constructive res judicataSection 11 CPCExplanation IV Section 11 CPCredemption of mortgagecivil revisionleave to appealgift deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and affirmed the concurrent dismissal of a suit for possession by redemption of mortgaged property. The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in light of earlier litigation concerning the validity of a registered gift deed over the same property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court laid down that constructive res judicata compels parties to bring their entire case before the court by raising all available grounds of attack and defence. If a party fails to assert an available ground in a former suit, it is deemed by legal fiction to have been raised, heard, and decided, precluding its assertion in a subsequent suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of constructive res judicata bar a party from raising in a subsequent suit a ground that was available but omitted in a former suit?
  • Can a party reserve available grounds of attack or defence for the purpose of initiating a second suit?
  • Whether a suit for redemption of property is hit by res judicata where the underlying title to the property was already adjudicated in a prior suit between substantially the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Nawaz Sheikh vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore And Another1997 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-13
  lachesconstitutional petitionpremature retirementlabour lawgrievance petitionmisreading of evidencemala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a Constitutional petition due to laches, as the petition was filed thirteen months after the impugned order without explanation. The appellant, a former Pakistan Railways employee, sought to contest his premature retirement date, claiming he had requested an extension which was ignored, alleging mala fide intent by his employer. The Labour Court initially ruled in his favor, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this, finding no evidence that the appellant's extension requests were received or that relevant court cases were pending. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, noting that the appellant failed to provide a valid explanation for the delay in the lower court. Furthermore, upon reviewing the merits, the Supreme Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal's findings were justified, as the documents relied upon by the appellant lacked evidentiary value or failed to support his claims. Consequently, the Court upheld the retirement date and dismissed the appeal, establishing that constitutional relief is unavailable where laches are unexplained and the underlying grievance lacks substantive merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of laches if the delay in filing is not explained before the High Court?
  • Does the misreading of evidence by a tribunal justify interference in constitutional jurisdiction if the underlying claim lacks merit?
  • Is a document lacking the signature of the issuing authority admissible as evidence of a request for retirement extension?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State1997 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-09
  death sentencecommutation of sentencegrave and sudden provocationfamily honorcriminal appealmitigating circumstancesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the propriety of the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Allah Yar, for the murder of Riaz Ahmed. The appellant was originally convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, which sentenced him to death, while his co-accused Akbar Shah received life imprisonment. The High Court maintained the appellant's conviction and sentence but acquitted the co-accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to review the sentencing. The evidence established that the motive for the murder was the abduction of the appellant's sister by the deceased's brother. Considering the appellant's young age (approximately 20 years) and the strong possibility that the crime was committed under the impulse of rehabilitating family honor, the Court held that the death penalty was not warranted. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, maintained the fine, and imposed additional compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the murder is committed under the impulse of rehabilitating family honor?
  • Does the young age of an offender constitute a mitigating factor for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Bashir Ahmad1997 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-03
  specific performanceconsent ordertemporary injunctioncompromiseratificationleave to appealsuit dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, wherein a conditional temporary injunction was granted requiring the deposit of a balance sale price. The core legal question was whether a consent order passed by the High Court in an appeal against an interim injunction could lawfully dispose of the main suit upon failure to meet the deposit condition, and whether such a consent order is binding. The Supreme Court held that parties can enter into a lawful compromise or consent order regarding matters arising directly out of judicial proceedings, and a party who accepts the benefits of such an order and ratifies it through subsequent conduct cannot later challenge its validity or jurisdiction. The ratio laid down is that a consent order agreed to by counsel and ratified by a litigant's subsequent conduct is fully binding, and failure to comply with its penal conditions results in the lawful dismissal of the underlying suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court hearing an appeal against an interim injunction order can record a consent agreement disposing of the main suit?
  • Is a consent order entered into by a party's counsel binding on the client?
  • Does the subsequent conduct of a party amounting to ratification cure any potential excess of authority by counsel in a consent order?
  • Can a suit be deemed dismissed upon failure to comply with a conditional deposit requirement incorporated in a valid consent order?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And 2 Others vs The State1997 SCMR 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-05
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealinordinate delaysuppression of terrorist activitiescriminal appealtriple murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' application for the suspension of execution of their sentences. The petitioners, convicted of triple murder and other offenses by a Special Court, argued for bail pending appeal based on an inordinate delay of over four and a half years in the disposal of their appeal by the High Court. They contended that under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, the High Court was statutorily required to decide the appeal within three months. The Supreme Court considered whether bail could be granted solely on the ground of delay in the appellate process. The Court held that while the delay was unfortunate, suspension of sentence on the ground of delay alone is not permissible under the Act, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like triple murder. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that delay alone does not warrant bail in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can the execution of a sentence be suspended solely on the ground of delay in the disposal of an appeal?
  • Is the High Court statutorily required to decide appeals under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 within three months?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And Others vs The State And Other1997 SCMR 1395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-30
  murderocular evidencedeath sentencesentencing parityleave to appealcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions of the petitioners for murder. The petitioners were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the killing of the deceased, Mahar Bakhsh. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the presence of the witnesses at the scene, the consistency between medical and ocular evidence, and the proportionality of the death sentence awarded to one petitioner compared to the life imprisonment awarded to co-accused for similar roles. The Supreme Court found the ocular evidence of the complainant and the witness credible, noting the prompt registration of the F.I.R. and the corroborative medical evidence. The Court rejected arguments regarding the place of incident and the alleged manipulation of investigation records. However, finding substance in the argument regarding sentencing parity, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner sentenced to death to scrutinize whether the sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment, while dismissing the petitions of the other co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prompt registration of an F.I.R. negate the possibility of police manipulation in the investigation?
  • Can a court grant leave to appeal solely to scrutinize the proportionality of a death sentence when co-accused received life imprisonment for similar roles?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who is a tenant on neighboring land sufficient to establish presence at the scene of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• ALl Khan Subanpoto vs Federation of Pakistan and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-02
  Service Tribunalreview petitionadverse remarksdelay in judgmentCivil Procedure Codepetition for leave to appealjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's review petition against the dismissal of his service appeal concerning adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report. The core legal questions addressed by the Supreme Court include whether the Service Tribunal has the power to review its own judgments in the absence of enabling provisions in the governing statute, and whether a delay in pronouncing a judgment or the failure to give notice of its pronouncement under the Code of Civil Procedure vitiates the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 contains no provision empowering the Tribunal to review its judgments, rendering the review petition incompetent ab initio. Furthermore, the Court held that while the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply in its entirety to proceedings before the Tribunal, judicial and quasi-judicial forums must pronounce judgments promptly and fairly, and a delay of one month and twenty days does not vitiate the judgment where no prejudice is shown. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal possess the inherent or statutory jurisdiction to review its own judgments under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 strictly applicable to proceedings and appeals before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does a delay of one month and twenty days in pronouncing a judgment by the Service Tribunal vitiate its decision?
  • Does the failure to issue prior notice of the pronouncement of a judgment under Order XLI Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 render the order illegal when no prejudice is caused to the party?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs Ayub Khan And Another1997 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-30
  criminal appealmurderappeal against acquittaldying declarationocular evidencemedical evidenceforensic science laboratorybenefit of doubtre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent-accused for murder and theft, acquitting him by giving him the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question concerns the proper appreciation of ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, particularly regarding dying declarations, identification in torchlight, and weapon recoveries in criminal trials. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court misread the evidence, relied on conjectural assumptions, and wrongly discarded natural ocular witnesses and corroborative forensic reports. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's well-reasoned judgment of conviction based on speculative inferences, and that minor clerical discrepancies or hypothetical medical possibilities cannot outweigh reliable, direct, and corroborated eyewitness testimony. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the acquittal was set aside, the trial court's conviction was restored, and the death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside a conviction based on hypothetical medical opinions regarding the unconsciousness of an injured person who made a dying declaration?
  • What are the principles for interfering with an order of acquittal passed by a High Court?
  • Can the testimony of related eyewitnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship when they are natural witnesses and corroborated by circumstances?
  • Does a clerical error in the date of preparing an injury sheet and inquest report vitiate the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan Subanpoto vs Federation of Pakistan And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-02
  Service TribunalReview jurisdictionAnnual Confidential ReportJudgment pronouncementCode of Civil ProcedureAdverse remarksProcedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Federal Service Tribunal order dismissing a review petition concerning adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report. The core legal questions addressed were whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to review its own judgments and whether the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding judgment pronouncement apply to the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal lacks the power to review its own judgments under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while the Tribunal must act justly, the strict procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not fully applicable to its appellate proceedings. The Court established the principle that the Tribunal’s status as a Civil Court is a limited deeming provision for specific powers. Consequently, while judgments should be rendered promptly, a delay of one month and 20 days is not unreasonable, and the absence of notice for judgment pronouncement does not vitiate an order unless prejudice is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal possess the inherent jurisdiction to review its own judgments under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Are the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the pronouncement of judgments strictly applicable to appeals before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the failure to provide notice of the date of judgment pronouncement automatically vitiate a judicial order?
  • What constitutes an unreasonable delay in the pronouncement of a judgment by a quasi-judicial forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan Subanpoto vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 SCMR 1590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-02
  Service TribunalReview petitionCode of Civil ProcedureJudgment pronouncementAdverse remarksService lawAppellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal order that dismissed a review petition filed by the petitioner against an earlier judgment concerning adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal possesses the inherent power to review its own judgments, whether the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) strictly applies to Tribunal proceedings, and whether a delay in pronouncing a judgment or failure to provide notice of such pronouncement vitiates the order. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was incompetent as the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, does not grant review powers. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while the Tribunal is deemed a civil court for specific purposes, the CPC does not apply strictly to its appellate proceedings. The Court established that while judicial forums must pronounce judgments promptly, a delay of one month and twenty days is not inherently unreasonable, and the absence of notice for judgment pronouncement does not vitiate an order absent proof of prejudice to the aggrieved party.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal possess the jurisdiction to review its own earlier judgment under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, strictly applicable to proceedings before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does a delay in the pronouncement of a judgment by the Service Tribunal automatically vitiate the order?
  • Does the failure to provide notice of the pronouncement of a judgment to the parties invalidate the order if no prejudice is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shah vs Mehboob Safi Mayshery1997 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-12
  ejectmentarrears of renttentative rent orderstriking off defenceextension of timerent appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's first rent appeal in limine, which upheld the striking off of the petitioner's defence for failure to deposit arrears of rent under an ejectment order. The respondent filed an ejectment application wherein the Rent Controller ordered the tenant-petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent pursuant to the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. The petitioner failed to deposit certain arrears within the stipulated time and filed an application for extension of time, which was initially interim-extended by the Controller but ultimately dismissed along with the subsequent striking off of the petitioner's defence under section 16(2) of the Ordinance. The core legal question concerned the Rent Controller's power and discretion to extend the time for depositing rent and the propriety of striking off defence upon default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to show any authority under which the Controller could have extended the time without valid reasons and noted that the petitioner defaulted in depositing rent even by the extended date. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that failure to comply with a tentative rent order without lawful justification warrants striking off the tenant's defence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller has the power to extend the time for depositing rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • Does failure to deposit arrears of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller justify striking off the tenant's defence?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against an order dismissing a rent appeal where the tenant defaulted in complying with rent deposit orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Mian, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui And Taj Din And Another vs Mst. Mehr1997 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan vs Ishtiaq Ahmed And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12
  service appealtime-barredcondonation of delayFederal Service TribunalWafaqi Mohtasibpetitions for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner was selected for appointment as Senior Auditor but failed to report for duty by the stipulated deadline. Months later, he sought an extension of time, which was declined by the departmental authority. Rather than approaching the Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of thirty days, the petitioner pursued remedies before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was later withdrawn. The core legal question concerned whether the time spent pursuing remedies before wrong forums, coupled with unexplained delays, constituted sufficient ground for condonation of delay under service law. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly concluded the appeal was time-barred as the petitioner's recourse to alternate forums was not bona fide and long unexplained delays barred relief. The key principle laid down is that time spent prosecuting remedies before incorrect forums at one's own risk, absent bona fides or sufficient explanation for prolonged delay, does not warrant condonation of delay before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time spent prosecuting a remedy before the Wafaqi Mohtasib constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a candidate who fails to report for duty within the stipulated deadline claim an extension of joining time as a matter of right?
  • Whether the pursuit of a writ petition in the High Court after an inordinate delay can be treated as bona fide for the purpose of condoning delay before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Defence1997 PLC (C. S.) 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26
  leave to appealservice appealpromotionpay fixationFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that the Tribunal erroneously assumed his appointment as DCAO in Grade-18 was not a promotion, thereby denying him consequential financial benefits. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner produced an office order dated 2-7-1991 explicitly stating he was promoted as Dy. C.A.O. in BPS-18 vice a retiring officer. He argued that based on this promotion, he was entitled to pay fixation in accordance with official instructions dated 17-11-1991. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the nature of the appointment and entitlement to pay fixation required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the petitioner's claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment as DCAO in Grade-18 constitutes a promotion for the purpose of service benefits?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to pay fixation in accordance with instructions dated 17-11-1991 upon promotion?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in dismissing a service appeal based on the assumption that an appointment was not a promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Aien Khan Afridi vs The Deputy Commissioner_Political Agent,F.R., Peshawar And 3 Other1997 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-22
  leave to appealdomicile certificatecancellation of domicilefraudulent domicilemedical college admissionfrontier regions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Aien Khan Afridi, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed his writ petition challenging the cancellation of his domicile certificate. The petitioner had been admitted to Khyber Medical College against a seat reserved for Frontier Regions, Peshawar. Following a challenge by a caveator regarding the genuineness of the petitioner's domicile, inquiries were conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and an Extra Assistant Commissioner, both of which concluded that the petitioner's father was not a permanent resident of F.R. Peshawar and that the domicile certificate had been wrongly issued and was bogus. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the certificate. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that under Rule 26 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, a domicile certificate cannot be cancelled for fraud or misrepresentation unless the person is convicted of such a charge, and contended that he was condemned unheard. The Supreme Court held that the points raised regarding the interpretation of Rule 26 and the right of hearing required consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a domicile certificate once issued can be cancelled on the ground of fraud or false representation without a prior criminal conviction under Rule 26 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952?
  • Is it mandatory to provide an opportunity of hearing to a person before the cancellation of their domicile certificate?
  • Can a domicile certificate be taken away arbitrarily after being accepted and acted upon?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain And 9 Other vs Director of Schools, Federal1997 PLC (C.S.) 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10
  upgradation of postsservice tribunal jurisdictiondiscriminationphysical training instructorsservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed by Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) seeking upgradation from BPS-15 to BPS-16, claiming parity with Trained Graduate Teachers and Village Workshop Instructors who were granted such upgradation pursuant to notifications issued by the Finance Division. The petitioners' departmental representations and subsequent appeals before the Service Tribunal were dismissed, with the Tribunal holding that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Government to upgrade posts. The core legal question is whether the petitioners, serving as PTIs, could be unjustifiably discriminated against and excluded from the upgradation granted to other teachers and instructors in BPS-15. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that no apparent justification or reason was advanced by the respondents to exclude the petitioners from the upgradation benefits extended to other similarly placed teachers and instructors. The key principle laid down is that the Government cannot arbitrarily discriminate between categories of teachers performing duties in educational institutions when granting administrative upgradation of pay scales without valid and rational grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue a direction to the Government to upgrade posts?
  • Can Physical Training Instructors be discriminated against in the matter of upgradation of pay scales when other teachers and instructors in the same grade are granted such benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain And 8 Others vs Director of Schools, Federal1997 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10
  upgradation of postscivil servicediscriminationservice tribunalleave to appealphysical training instructors
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals. The petitioners, employed as Physical Training Instructors (P.T.I.) in B.P.S. 15, sought upgradation to B.P.S. 16, arguing that other categories of teachers, including untrained graduate teachers and village workshop instructors, had been upgraded to B.P.S. 16 while they were excluded. The Service Tribunal dismissed their appeals on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Government to upgrade posts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the petitioners were subjected to unlawful discrimination by being excluded from the upgradation benefits granted to other similarly situated or lower categories of teachers. The Court held that no justifiable reason was advanced by the respondents to deny the upgradation benefits to the petitioners while granting them to other teachers and instructors. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the question of discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to address claims of discrimination regarding the upgradation of civil service posts?
  • Can the Government exclude Physical Training Instructors from upgradation benefits while granting the same to other untrained graduate teachers and workshop instructors without a rational basis?
  • Does the exclusion of a specific category of graduate teachers from a general upgradation policy constitute unlawful discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed 'Hussain and 9 others vs Director of Schools, Federal1997 PLC (C.S.) 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10
  upgradation of postsBPS-15 to BPS-16discriminationPhysical Training Instructorsservice tribunal jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by Physical Training Instructors (PTI) against the dismissal of their appeals by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioners, who were graduates holding posts in BPS-15, challenged their exclusion from a government upgradation scheme that placed Trained Graduate Teachers and untrained graduate teachers (including Technical/Village Workshop Instructors) into BPS-16 with effect from 01-06-1991. The Service Tribunal had dismissed their appeals on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Government to upgrade posts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were arbitrarily discriminated against by being excluded from the upgradation benefits granted to other comparable or lower categories of graduate teachers. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents offered no justification for excluding the petitioners while upgrading other teachers and workshop instructors. Finding a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment requiring detailed examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the exclusion of Physical Training Instructors from a post upgradation scheme granted to other graduate teachers amounts to unjustified discrimination?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the Service Tribunal refuses to grant relief against discriminatory non-upgradation of posts without valid justification by the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar And Others vs The State1997 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  juvenile bailprohibitory clausebail discretioncriminal appealbail bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by lower courts in a criminal case involving multiple petitioners. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner, Ahmad Yar, was entitled to the grant of bail, particularly considering his age and the nature of the offences charged. The Court observed that petitioner Ahmad Yar was reported to be under sixteen years of age and that his case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provision. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to Ahmad Yar subject to the execution of bail bonds with sureties. Regarding the other petitioners, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed their petitions. The key principle laid down reinforces that where an accused is a juvenile and the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail, distinguishing the case of the juvenile from co-accused who do not meet such criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Is a juvenile accused entitled to bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh And 3 Others vs Muhammad Nasir Khan And 12 Other1997 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-09
  civil court jurisdictionoccupancy tenantabandonment of rightsPunjab Tenancy Actleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit concerning ownership and occupancy rights of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The respondents filed a declaratory suit alleging they were owners and the petitioners had abandoned their occupancy rights, while the petitioners contended they became owners under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and ordered the plaint to be returned to the Revenue Court. The High Court reversed this, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction because the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist at the institution of the suit. The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly determined the issue of civil court jurisdiction, but granted leave to examine whether the High Court should have remanded the case to the lower appellate court to decide the remaining question of abandonment instead of directly restoring the trial court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to try a suit where the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist at the time of the institution of the suit?
  • Can the bar of section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act be invoked when the relationship of landlord and tenant is not admitted in the plaint?
  • Whether the High Court, upon upholding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, should remand the case for deciding remaining factual issues or directly restore the trial court's decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Agriculture Workers' Union, Balochistan vs The Registrar of Trade1997 PLC 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  trade union registrationindustrial relationsdefinition of industryworkmansovereign functionsmunicipal corporationbeneficial legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals regarding the registration of trade unions for employees of the Agriculture Department and the Quetta Municipal Corporation. The core legal question was whether these employees, who perform manual or civic duties, fall within the definition of 'workman' or 'worker' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether their respective employers constitute an 'industry' under the same Ordinance, thereby entitling them to form a trade union. The Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is a beneficial statute requiring liberal construction. It determined that the definition of 'industry' includes 'service' and that municipal functions, excluding strictly sovereign/regal functions, qualify as an industry. The Court further held that the question of whether specific employees perform duties connected with the administration of the State or qualify as workmen is a question of fact that should be determined by the Registrar or relevant labour forums, not through constitutional petitions. The Court set aside the High Court's orders that had cancelled the registrations, remanding the cases for proper determination in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include the civic services provided by a Municipal Corporation?
  • Can the registration of a trade union be cancelled in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides a specific procedure for cancellation?
  • Are employees performing manual duties in government departments automatically excluded from forming trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is the determination of whether specific employees qualify as 'workmen' a question of fact to be decided by labour forums rather than in constitutional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Agriculture Workers' Union, Balochistan vs The Registrar of Trade1997 SCMR 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10
  trade union registrationindustrial relations ordinanceindustry definitionworkman definitionmunicipal corporationconstitutional petitionarticle 199beneficial legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from judgments of the High Court of Balochistan concerning the registration of trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether employees of government departments and municipal corporations—specifically agricultural workers and municipal employees performing manual or civic duties—qualify as 'workers' or 'workmen' entitled to form trade unions, and whether a municipal corporation constitutes an 'industry' under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance is a beneficial piece of legislation and must be construed liberally. Except for strictly regal functions of the State, activities such as rendering civic services by a municipal corporation fall within the definition of 'service' under 'industry'. Furthermore, questions regarding the precise nature of duties performed by employees are questions of fact requiring evidence, which cannot be satisfactorily determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution when alternative statutory procedures exist. The Court laid down that civic and welfare services rendered by local bodies are covered under 'industry' and that unions cannot be summarily deregistered without proper inquiry and recourse to prescribed statutory procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of a municipal corporation performing civic services fall within the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a municipal corporation constitute an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the registration of a trade union be cancelled through constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution without resorting to the procedure provided under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the determination of the nature of duties performed by employees for the purpose of trade union registration is a question of fact requiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Agriculture Workers Union, Balochistan vs The Registrar of Trade1997 PLC 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  trade union registrationindustrial relationsdefinition of industryworker or workmanconstitutional jurisdictionmunicipal corporationregal functions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals challenging High Court judgments that denied trade union registration to employees of the Agricultural/Livestock Department and the Quetta Municipal Corporation. The core legal question was whether these employees qualified as 'workers' or 'workmen' and whether their employers constituted an 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly exercised constitutional jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of the employees' duties. The Court clarified that the definition of 'industry' under the Ordinance is broad and includes services; thus, municipal corporations performing civic functions are not excluded unless they are engaged in strictly 'regal' functions of the State. Emphasizing that the Industrial Relations Ordinance is beneficial legislation requiring liberal construction, the Court ruled that the nature of duties must be determined through factual inquiry rather than constitutional petition. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders and remanded the cases to the Registrar of Trade Unions to determine, based on evidence, whether the employees qualify as workers under the relevant labor statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979 include municipal corporations performing civic services?
  • Is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 appropriate for determining disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of an employee's duties?
  • Are employees of government departments performing non-regal functions entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan And Others vs Mst. Hamida1997 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-23
  constitutional jurisdictioncontractual matterleave to appealmortgage redemptionrecovery of interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent against the recovery of interest on a loan by the petitioner bank was allowed, and the bank was directed to execute a redemption deed and return the title documents. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a contractual matter and whether the relief granted was warranted by law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the impugned judgment is in consonance with law. The key principle noted is that constitutional jurisdiction is generally not to be invoked in purely contractual matters without sufficient legal justification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in exercising constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a purely contractual matter?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained to challenge the recovery of interest on a bank loan?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Ghazanfar Ali vs Shaukat Ali And Other1997 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-01
  specific performanceimmovable propertytime is of the essencesale agreementleave to appealbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's regular first appeal and upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The core legal question was whether time was of the essence in the agreement for the sale of immovable property where the purchaser had paid a major portion of the consideration but defaulted on the final balance by the stipulated date. The Supreme Court held that time is not ordinarily of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property, and given that the purchaser had paid five-sixths of the purchase price, it would be inequitable and immoral to deprive him of the property. The Court laid down the principle that under section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, a breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by monetary compensation, and courts will generally enforce specific performance in the absence of undue benefit or intentional delay by the purchaser.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time is ordinarily of the essence in a contract for the sale of immovable property?
  • Can the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property be adequately relieved by compensation in money?
  • Is the grant of specific performance of a sale agreement a discretionary and equitable relief?
  • Whether a purchaser who has paid a major portion of the sale consideration should be deprived of specific performance due to a minor delay in paying the balance?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ali vs The State1997 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-02
  criminal appealpolice witness testimonystolen propertybail pending appealsurrender of convictburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently modified by the Lahore High Court to a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the courts below improperly relied on the testimony of two police officials as the sole witnesses to the recovery of a stolen gun at a bus stop, and contended that the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner's knowledge that the item was stolen. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether implicit reliance should be placed on police witnesses when independent witnesses were readily available, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the requisite knowledge of the stolen nature of the property. Additionally, the Court addressed the procedural issue of the petitioner's failure to surrender after conviction, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial court to be taken into custody before being released on bail pending the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for possession of stolen property be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when independent witnesses were available?
  • Is it a procedural requirement for a petitioner to surrender to custody before a petition for leave to appeal is entertained?
  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused had knowledge that the property in their possession was stolen?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Mahmood vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 241 Other1997 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-18
  service tribunal jurisdictioneligibility versus fitnesspromotion of civil servantsconstitutional jurisdictionbar of Article 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment dismissing his Constitution petition under Article 212 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the appointment and promotion of diploma-holders to professional engineering posts, arguing they lacked qualifications under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether a challenge to the eligibility of civil servants for promotion falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal or can be entertained by the High Court under Article 199. The Supreme Court held that while fitness or suitability for promotion is barred from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, the question of eligibility relates to the terms and conditions of service and is squarely within its competence. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters of civil servants' eligibility for promotion?
  • Is the question of eligibility for promotion distinguishable from fitness and suitability under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the promotion of unqualified persons to professional posts through a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zubair vs The State1997 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-28
  post-arrest bailpreparation to commit dacoityassembly for dacoityfurther inquirycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the bail application of the petitioner in a case registered under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and two co-accused were apprehended in a taxi while possessing firearms and allegedly planning a dacoity. The core legal question was whether the assembly of fewer than five persons satisfies the ingredients of sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for making preparations or assembling for dacoity. The Supreme Court held that since sections 399 and 402 require an assembly of not less than five persons and only three accused were found in the vehicle, the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle that an assembly of fewer than five persons fails to satisfy the essential numerical threshold required under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Does the assembly of fewer than five persons satisfy the requirements of sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the recovery of unlicensed firearms and arrest in a vehicle containing only three persons warrants further inquiry for offences under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waris vs Muhammad Yousaf1997 PLD Supreme Court 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-18
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintcivil procedurelegislative vacuumpending suitsstatutory interpretationright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the rejection of pre-emption plaints. The core legal question was whether pre-emption suits instituted between August 1, 1986, and March 28, 1990, which remained pending and undecided, were maintainable or liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given the legislative vacuum and subsequent enactment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to remand the suits for trial on merits. The Court held that pending pre-emption suits instituted during the interregnum period cannot be left in an inchoate state; the law must be interpreted to provide a remedy where a right exists. The Court affirmed that the mere pendency of a suit does not warrant the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the legislative intent behind the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, was to ensure the final determination of controversies rather than depriving litigants of their rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint in a pre-emption suit be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, merely because it was pending during the legislative vacuum between 1986 and 1990?
  • Does the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, apply to pre-emption suits that were pending and undecided during the interregnum period?
  • Is it legally permissible to leave pre-emption proceedings pending during the interregnum period in an inchoate state?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Syed Haji Abdul Wadood1997 SCMR 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-13
  adjournmentnon-prosecutiondismissal of petitionabsence of counselSupreme Court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, titled Abdul Wahid v. Syed Haji Abdul Wadood. An application for adjournment was submitted via telegram on behalf of the petitioner's counsel, citing serious family problems, while both the counsel and the Advocate-on-Record failed to appear at the hearing. The core legal question addressed is whether an adjournment sought through a telegram, in violation of notified practice requiring the presence of the Advocate-on-Record, warrants acceptance and whether a petition should proceed in the absence of representation. The court held that the adjournment request sent via telegram must be rejected in accordance with the cause list notification prohibiting such applications and requiring the Advocate-on-Record to be present. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and vacated the prior stay order, establishing the principle that non-compliance with court notification regarding counsel appearance and unauthorized adjournment requests results in dismissal for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for adjournment sent through telegram can be entertained when the counsel and Advocate-on-Record are absent?
  • What is the consequence of the non-appearance of both the counsel and the Advocate-on-Record at the hearing of a petition?
  • Can a stay order be vacated upon the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Lehri vs Arbab Mir Nawaz And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-01
  rent evictionbona fide personal requirementlandlord-tenant disputeconcurrent findingsleave to appealreconstruction of premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding an eviction order against the petitioner-tenant. The core legal questions concerned whether the absence of a specific family member (for whom premises were required) from the witness box was fatal to an eviction claim, and whether the lack of an approved reconstruction plan at the time of filing the eviction application invalidated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the landlord's sworn testimony regarding personal requirement, if consistent and not shaken in cross-examination, is sufficient to establish bona fide need. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that technical objections regarding the absence of a specific family member or the timing of reconstruction plan approval do not override the established bona fide personal requirement. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's assertion of personal requirement on oath is to be accepted as bona fide if it remains consistent with the eviction application and is not disproved by rebuttal evidence or shaken during cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Is the non-appearance of a family member in the witness box fatal to a landlord's claim for eviction based on personal requirement?
  • Can a landlord's assertion of personal requirement on oath be accepted as bona fide if it is consistent with the eviction application and not shaken in cross-examination?
  • Does the approval of a reconstruction plan during the pendency of ejectment proceedings cure the defect of filing the application before such approval?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs Aurangzeb And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-23
  gift revocationdelivery of possessionincomplete giftIslamic law of giftconcurrent findingsregistered gift deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed a suit for the revocation of a gift. The core legal question was whether a gift of landed property, evidenced by a registered deed, was legally complete and irrevocable despite the donor's claim that possession was never delivered to the donees. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that the gift was incomplete and thus revocable. The Court reasoned that the mere recital of delivery of possession in a gift deed is not conclusive proof of such delivery when challenged. Based on evidence, including the testimony of the cultivator and a written admission by the donees, the Court determined that the donor had retained control and received the produce from the land throughout his lifetime. The key principle laid down is that a gift under Islamic law is not complete without the delivery of possession, and a declaration of gift unaccompanied by such delivery remains revocable by the donor.

  Questions settled

  • Is a recital of delivery of possession in a registered gift deed conclusive proof that possession was transferred?
  • Can a donor revoke a gift if possession of the property was never delivered to the donees?
  • Does the retention of produce from land by the donor after executing a gift deed indicate that the gift was not completed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State1997 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-23
  death sentencemitigating circumstancesmurderconjugal rightscriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and a murderous assault on his father-in-law. The core legal question was whether the appellant's strained marital relations and the deceased's refusal to return to the matrimonial home constituted mitigating circumstances sufficient to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any earnest, reconciliatory efforts to resolve the marital dispute through legal or social channels, such as filing for restitution of conjugal rights or seeking mediation. Furthermore, the court noted the appellant's cold-blooded conduct, the severity of the injuries inflicted, and his attempt to malign the deceased's character with a false plea. Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence, establishing the principle that mere marital discord, absent genuine, documented efforts at reconciliation, does not mitigate the extreme penalty of death for murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of a wife to return to the matrimonial home constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the death penalty the normal penalty for the offence of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused who fails to seek legal or social remedies for marital discord claim leniency in sentencing for the murder of his spouse?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14
  disciplinary proceedingsWAPDA employeescompetent authorityfactual enquirynatural justiceservice appealmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a WAPDA employee, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld a penalty imposed upon him for alleged misconduct involving the creation of bogus electricity connections and fraudulent billing. The petitioner challenged the penalty on two primary grounds: first, that the Superintending Engineer lacked the authority to impose the penalty, arguing that the Chief Engineer was the competent authority; and second, that the departmental authorities acted illegally by dispensing with a formal factual enquiry, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to defend against the serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's contentions regarding the competency of the authority and the necessity of a formal enquiry in cases involving disputed factual allegations raised substantial legal questions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Superintending Engineer was indeed the competent authority under the relevant delegation of powers and whether the failure to conduct a formal enquiry violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the context of the disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal factual enquiry mandatory in disciplinary proceedings when the allegations involve disputed facts?
  • Does the Superintending Engineer possess the legal authority to impose penalties on WAPDA employees under the WAPDA Employees (Power Wing) Delegation of Powers Rules?
  • Can a disciplinary authority dispense with a formal enquiry when an employee denies the charges of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman, WAPDA AndAnother1997 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14
  disciplinary proceedingsWAPDA employeescompetent authorityfactual enquiryservice appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld a disciplinary penalty imposed on a WAPDA employee. The petitioner, accused of facilitating illegal electricity connections and fraudulent billing, challenged the penalty on two primary grounds: first, that the Superintending Engineer lacked the authority to impose the penalty, contending that the Chief Engineer was the competent authority; and second, that the departmental authorities acted illegally by dispensing with a formal factual enquiry, thereby denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend against serious allegations of misconduct. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's contentions regarding the competency of the authority and the necessity of a formal enquiry in light of the specific allegations raised significant legal questions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Superintending Engineer was indeed the competent authority under the relevant delegation of powers and whether the failure to conduct a factual enquiry rendered the disciplinary proceedings legally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal factual enquiry mandatory when a WAPDA employee is charged with serious allegations of misconduct and fraudulent billing?
  • Does the Superintending Engineer have the authority to impose disciplinary penalties on WAPDA employees under the WAPDA Employees (Power Wing) Delegation of Powers Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Shamim Akhtar And Other1997 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-14
  partition suitnecessary partyspecial oathsale-deedcivil revisionsuppression of factsSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the trial court's order allowing the petitioner, Abdul Sattar, to be joined as a party under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for partition and possession filed by respondent Mst. Shamim Akhtar. The core legal question was whether a person whose previously asserted ownership title via a sale-deed was extinguished by a final, unchallenged judgment and decree passed on the basis of a special oath can still claim to be a necessary party in a partition suit concerning the same property. The Supreme Court held that since the sale-deed forming the basis of the petitioner's claim was declared illegal and void by a final judgment to which the petitioner consented via special oath, and because the petitioner suppressed these material facts in his joinder application, he has no subsisting interest or ownership in the property. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person whose claim of ownership based on a sale-deed has been rejected by a final and unchallenged decree can be considered a necessary party in a subsequent partition suit regarding the same property?
  • Can a party who suppressed material facts regarding previous litigation and a binding decree against him be permitted to join proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the legal effect of a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a special oath when it is not challenged in appeal or revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State1997 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  leave to appealQatl-i-Amddeath sentenceQisasTazirstandard of prooflarger bench
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming the death sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court for the murder of his mother. The petitioner had admitted the killing during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., and close relatives deposed against him. The Sessions Judge convicted him of Qatl-i-Amd under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code and awarded the death penalty as Qisas, which was upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the proof required for Qisas under section 304 was lacking and raised questions concerning the applicability of death as Qisas versus Tazir under section 302. The Supreme Court observed that the case involved important questions regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning Qatl-i-Amd, the standard of proof required under section 304, and the distinction between punishments of death as Qisas and Tazir. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to be considered by a larger Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Where Qatl-i-Amd cannot be punished with death as Qisas under section 302(a), is there any bar in awarding punishment with death as provided by section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the standard of proof required by section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for proving Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas?
  • What distinctive standard of proof would be required and guiding principles followed while awarding punishment of death as Tazir, in another case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khakwani And Another vs Abdul Majid Khakwani And 21997 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-05
  habeas corpusminor custodyguardianshipillegal detentionfoster parentsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Lahore High Court order passed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which had directed the custody of a minor girl to be restored to her natural parents (the respondents). The minor had been willingly handed over in infancy to her uncle and aunt (the appellants), and the aunt was subsequently appointed as the legal guardian of the minor's person by a Guardian Judge with the consent of the natural father. The natural parents later sought custody via a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 Cr.P.C., alleging neglect and an unsuitable proposed marriage. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants' custody was backed by a valid, subsisting guardianship order from a competent court, such custody could not be deemed illegal or improper. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 491 Cr.P.C. to alter custody. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored custody to the legally appointed guardians, reiterating that final custody disputes must be resolved under the Guardians and Wards Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. to transfer custody of a minor when the current custody is held under a valid and subsisting order of a Guardian Judge?
  • Whether custody of a minor with a legally appointed guardian can be deemed illegal or improper so as to attract the provisions of Section 491 of the Cr.P.C.?
  • Is a High Court competent to determine the final question of custody of a minor under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. when the Guardian Court is the final arbitrator under the Guardians and Wards Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos And 19 Others vs Abdul Aziz Khan And 6 Other1997 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-10
  ex parte decreeremand of casenotice of hearingleave to appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which allowed a revision application filed by the respondents against the appellate order setting aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question concerns whether defendants, who had previously been declared ex parte before a remand of the case, were entitled to a fresh notice of hearing following the remand, and whether the application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred. The Supreme Court considered the contentions regarding the absence of notice after remand and the right of parties to participate in proceedings, ultimately granting leave to appeal to examine the legality of the High Court's findings. The key principle laid down is that parties retain certain rights regarding notice and participation in judicial proceedings following a remand order, necessitating careful scrutiny of procedural compliance in ex parte matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether defendants declared ex parte before a remand are entitled to a fresh notice of hearing after the case is remanded?
  • Does the failure to issue notice after remand vitiate subsequent ex parte proceedings?
  • Whether an application for setting aside an ex parte decree was barred by limitation under the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada And Others vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 SCMR 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-12
  Eighth AmendmentBasic Structure DoctrineObjectives ResolutionConstitutional AmendmentParliamentary Form of GovernmentChecks and Balances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved several civil appeals and constitutional petitions challenging the validity of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question addressed was whether the Eighth Amendment, specifically Article 58(2)(b), could be challenged or struck down based on the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the question of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution is largely academic and lacks a definitive, final answer. The Court observed that the prominent characteristics of the Constitution are reflected in the Objectives Resolution, which became a substantive part of the Constitution via Article 2A. The Court further reasoned that the Eighth Amendment, having been in place since 1985 and having survived multiple party-based elections without legislative repeal, was ratified by implication. It held that Article 58(2)(b) serves to maintain the parliamentary form of government by providing necessary checks and balances between the President and the Prime Minister to prevent constitutional breakdown. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions and appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 'basic structure' of the Constitution a justiciable concept that can be used to strike down constitutional amendments?
  • Does the Objectives Resolution constitute a substantive part of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a constitutional amendment be considered ratified by implication if it remains untouched by successive parliaments?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Secretary, Senate Secretariat, Islamabad1997 PLC (C. S.) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-29
  leave to appealrepatriationlienfundamental rulescivil serviceparent department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Khaliq against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine his writ petition challenging his non-repatriation and reversion. The petitioner, working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Law and Justice Division and previously serving in the Senate Secretariat and Ministry of Interior, sought repatriation to his parent department, claiming a confirmed status and a subsisting lien. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of fundamental rules regarding the retention and termination of a government servant's lien in their parent department and the legality of refusing repatriation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised regarding the interpretation of fundamental rules on the point of lien require further consideration. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning a government employee's lien and entitlement to repatriation under the fundamental rules necessitate a detailed examination on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has an enforceable right to be repatriated to their parent department?
  • How is a government servant's lien determined under the fundamental rules?
  • Does the refusal to repatriate an employee holding a permanent post amount to discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem Chaudhry vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Development, Lahore And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-03
  date of birthcorrection of date of birthservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appealdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal and a constitutional petition concerning the correction of the petitioner's date of birth. The petitioner joined service in 1955 with his date of birth recorded as 10-7-1936, but later sought correction to 3-8-1937, which the department rejected before notifying his retirement. The High Court dismissed his writ petition in limine holding it incompetent and observing the claim was an afterthought, while the Service Tribunal subsequently dismissed his appeal in limine due to the High Court's observations on merits. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction on merits based on the High Court's observations after holding the writ petition incompetent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised need consideration and that the Tribunal ought to have examined the matter on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can refuse to exercise jurisdiction on merits merely because the High Court made observations on merits while dismissing a writ petition as incompetent?
  • Does a civil servant have the right to seek correction of their date of birth in service records near the time of retirement?
  • Is a constitutional petition competent for the correction of a date of birth affecting the date of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1997 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-12
  criminal appealreappraisal of evidenceacquittal reversalocular evidencemisreading of evidencemurder convictionwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed the appellant's acquittal by the Trial Court and convicted him for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court erred in discarding prosecution evidence—specifically ocular testimony and recovery—based on conjecture and misappreciation of facts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly reappraised the evidence, finding that the Trial Court had unjustifiably discarded the testimony of disinterested witnesses and misread the medical and ocular evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the Trial Court’s acquittal was based on extraneous grounds and surmises rather than a sound assessment of the record. The judgment reinforces the principle that an appellate court is justified in setting aside an acquittal when the trial court has misread evidence or relied on conjectures to discard credible testimony, and that minor discrepancies in terminology regarding weapons do not necessarily invalidate ocular evidence when corroborated by medical findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal if the trial court has misread or misappreciated the evidence?
  • Does a delay in recording a witness's statement automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can ocular evidence be discarded based on minor terminological discrepancies regarding the weapon used?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who was present at the scene for a routine activity considered credible?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mst. Malika And Another1997 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-23
  dissolution of marriagefamily court jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionquality of evidencematrimonial disputediscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to interfere with a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage. The core legal question was whether the Family Court was justified in decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage based on the respondent's solitary statement despite the petitioner's arguments regarding the lack of corroborative evidence and the failure to specifically plead Khula. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction and that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere. The Court affirmed that the proof of allegations in a matrimonial dispute depends on the quality, rather than the quantity, of evidence. It further established that where a wife expresses an inability to live within the parameters ordained by God, and the husband's attitude is inimical, the court is not obligated to force the continuation of the marital relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a single party sufficient to prove grounds for the dissolution of marriage in a Family Court?
  • Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse interference in a Family Court decree under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a court force a wife to continue a marital relationship when she expresses an inability to live within the parameters ordained by God?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbasia Cooperative Bank (Now Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank1997 PLD Supreme Court 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-10
  ouster of jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionrecovery of arrears of land revenuecooperative societiesauction salebenami loanSection 9 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a civil revision that restored the trial court's decree in favour of a borrower. The core legal questions pertained to whether statutory and executive ouster clauses—specifically Section 13 of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance (XIV of 1966) and Paragraph 7 of Martial Law Order No. 241—completely bar civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when executive authorities act in violation of statutory procedures governing recovery of arrears of land revenue. The Supreme Court held that statutory provisions ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts must be strictly construed. Ouster clauses do not bar civil court jurisdiction where an authority acts without jurisdiction, in violation of statutory procedure, mala fide, or in breach of natural justice principles. Because the recovery sale violated the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act requirements and M.L.O. 241 was inapplicable, the civil suit was maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • When does a statutory bar of jurisdiction not exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Can a person be held liable for a loan obtained by another person without an express finding by a competent forum that the loan was a benami transaction?
  • Does a borrower have a statutory right under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act to stay an auction sale or have it set aside by paying the outstanding dues within the prescribed period?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Bibi vs Amanat Ali and another1996 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-11
  bailgrave and sudden provocationhonour killingQatl-e-AmdQisasleave to appealcriminal justice administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a Judge in Chamber granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of a double murder. The complainant alleged that the respondent, motivated by the abduction of his sister, killed the deceased, Pervez Aslam, and subsequently killed his own sister, Nusrat Bibi. The respondent raised a defence of grave and sudden provocation, claiming the acts were committed in the name of family honour. The High Court, relying on precedents regarding 'Ghairat' (honour), granted bail, reasoning that the case was open to further inquiry and that the offence might not be punishable with Qisas. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that bail was granted on illegal grounds in a double murder case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the observations in the cited precedents regarding the interpretation of sections 300 and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 significantly impact the administration of criminal justice and require authoritative interpretation by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plea of grave and sudden provocation based on 'Ghairat' (honour) justify the grant of bail in a double murder case?
  • Is a murder committed on account of 'Ghairat' punishable with Qisas under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court grant bail on the premise that an offence is not punishable with Qisas based on the defence of grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zonal Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and anothers vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1996 PLD Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-04
  Wage Commission Awarddepartmental enquiryshow-cause noticeenquiry reportreinstatementmisappropriationbank employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the appellants' writ petition against the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision upholding the reinstatement of respondent No. 3. The respondent, a bank employee, was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry for alleged misappropriation of pension funds. The core legal question centered on the interpretation of paragraph 258(4) and (5) of the Wage Commission Award, specifically whether an 'employee's statement' under sub-paragraph (5) entitles the employee to a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to submit a reply thereto before a penalty is imposed. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'written explanation' in sub-paragraph (4) pertains to the initial charge-sheet stage, whereas the 'employee's statement' in sub-paragraph (5) refers to a separate, subsequent stage requiring the supply of the enquiry report for a reply to adverse findings, failing which the dismissal is illegal. However, considering the respondent's prior acquittal in parallel criminal proceedings and the protracted lapse of time, the Court declined to grant a remand for fresh proceedings and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to submit a statement in response under paragraph 258(5) of the Wage Commission Award?
  • Does the 'employee's statement' referred to in paragraph 258(5) of the Wage Commission Award mean the initial written explanation submitted in reply to the charge-sheet?
  • Can a departmental dismissal order passed in violation of mandatory enquiry procedures under the Wage Commission Award be sustained?
  • Whether the Supreme Court should remand a matter for fresh departmental proceedings after setting aside an illegal dismissal when the employee has already been acquitted in criminal proceedings and subjected to prolonged litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zonal Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and another vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1996 PLC 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-04
  disciplinary proceedingsWage Commission Awardbank employeeenquiry reportright to be hearddismissal from servicenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a bank employee for alleged misappropriation, which was challenged under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the disciplinary procedure prescribed in the Wage Commission Award, specifically whether the 'employee's statement' required under paragraph 258(5) constitutes the initial explanation to a charge-sheet or a subsequent response to an enquiry report. The Supreme Court held that the 'written explanation' under paragraph 258(4) and the 'employee's statement' under paragraph 258(5) are distinct procedural requirements at different stages of disciplinary proceedings. The Court affirmed that an employee must be provided with a copy of the enquiry report to enable them to submit a statement in reply, ensuring the right to be heard against adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity renders a dismissal order illegal. While the Court acknowledged that the employer could typically restart proceedings, it declined to do so here, noting the employee's prior acquittal in related criminal proceedings and the significant passage of time, rendering further litigation futile.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'employee's statement' required under paragraph 258(5) of the Wage Commission Award refer to the initial explanation to a charge-sheet or a response to the enquiry report?
  • Is an employer required to provide an employee with a copy of the enquiry report before imposing a penalty under the Wage Commission Award?
  • Can a dismissal order be declared illegal solely due to the failure to follow the procedural requirements of the Wage Commission Award?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafrullah Khan vs Muhammad Asar Hussain and another1996 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-14
  plot allotmentcancellation of allotmentdiscretionary reliefstatutory bodymala fideKarachi Development Authorityspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the cancellation of a plot allotment by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The plaintiff was allotted a plot but failed to pay the occupancy value within the stipulated time, claiming the demand notice was received late. KDA subsequently cancelled the allotment and re-allotted the plot to the appellant, Zafrullah Khan. The High Court, in revision, declared the cancellation illegal, finding KDA had acted unfairly and misrepresented facts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to grant the discretionary relief of a declaration. The Court held that while the High Court’s reliance on specific precedents regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice was misplaced due to factual differences, the cancellation was nonetheless invalid. The Court emphasized that a statutory body must act fairly and cannot use its powers to facilitate the transfer of property to its own employees through the suppression of facts and illegal cancellation of existing allotments. The matter was left open for KDA to determine any breach of contract after proper procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a discretionary declaration under the Specific Relief Act when a statutory body has acted unfairly to cancel a property allotment?
  • Is a cancellation of a plot allotment valid if the statutory body misrepresents facts to the court regarding the status of the plot?
  • Does the failure to pay occupancy value within a stipulated time, caused by the late receipt of a demand notice, justify the immediate cancellation of a plot allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Alvi and 4 others vs Bashir Ahmad1996 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-25
  settlement of displaced personsallotment cancellationwrit jurisdictioninheritance mutationinformer's claimequitable relieffraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the cancellation of land allotments originally granted to a displaced person, Niaz Din, and subsequently inherited by his heirs. The core legal question was whether the allotments, challenged by informers on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the inheritance mutation and claim transfer, were liable to be cancelled after several decades. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the respondents were not guilty of fraud, as there was no evidence they knew their predecessor was alive when the mutation was sanctioned. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in matters of settlement of displaced persons, technicalities should not override substantial justice. The Court affirmed that the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, correctly exercised its discretion to protect long-standing allotments rather than uprooting the respondents after thirty years. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise equitable discretion in settlement cases to prevent injustice, particularly where the challenging parties are merely informers lacking superior entitlement, and where the settlement has persisted for a significant duration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction decline to cancel an allotment of land settled for decades even if there were procedural irregularities?
  • Does an informer have the locus standi to challenge an allotment of land granted to a displaced person?
  • Can an allotment be cancelled on the ground of fraud if the allottee was not aware of the facts alleged to be fraudulent at the time of the transaction?
  • Should courts prioritize substantial justice over technicalities in the settlement of displaced persons cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12
  surety bondforfeiture of suretyabsconding accusedleave to appealmitigation of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 6-4-1993 upholding the forfeiture of surety bonds. The petitioners had stood sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each for an accused facing trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who absconded after being convicted and sentenced to death. The core legal question concerned whether further reduction of the forfeited surety amount was warranted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that proper discretion had been exercised by both the trial court and the High Court in reducing the penalty from the original amount, and that no error of law called for interference. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion regarding the mitigation of surety bond penalties unless an error of law is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent reduction of a forfeited surety amount by lower courts?
  • Can a surety seek further reduction of a forfeited bond amount after the trial court and High Court have already exercised discretion to remit a portion of it?
  Read full judgment →
• Za. Javed Raja, Administrative Officer, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1996 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-22
  service lawpromotion eligibilityfitness for promotionstatutory rulesadministrative appointmentservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's grievance regarding the appointment of a respondent to the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) in the Federal Directorate of Education. The core legal question was whether the newly created post was governed by the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, and whether the appellant, an Administrative Officer (BPS-16), was eligible for the promotion, or if the appeal was barred under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the rules governing the appointment of Assistant Directors applied to the newly created post. The Court determined that the appellant possessed the requisite experience and qualifications, whereas the respondent did not. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a dispute regarding eligibility for promotion is distinct from a dispute regarding fitness for promotion, and therefore, the appeal was not barred by the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court directed the authorities to consider the appellant for promotion while declaring the respondent ineligible for the post.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, bar an appeal regarding eligibility for promotion?
  • Are newly created government posts governed by existing appointment and promotion rules?
  • Is a dispute regarding eligibility for promotion legally distinct from a dispute regarding fitness for promotion?
  • Can a candidate be appointed to a post if they do not meet the specific qualifications prescribed by the relevant service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Z.A. Javed Raja vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 31996 PLC (C.S.) 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-22
  service lawpromotion eligibilityfitness for promotionService Tribunals Actnewly created poststatutory rulesadministrative appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service matter regarding the appointment to the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) in the Federal Directorate of Education. The core legal questions were whether the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, applied to a newly created post, and whether a challenge regarding eligibility for promotion falls under the bar of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the rules applied to the newly created post, and the petitioner, as an Administrative Officer with the requisite service, was eligible for consideration. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as incompetent, distinguishing between eligibility (a legal qualification) and fitness (a merit-based assessment). The Court established that the bar under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, regarding fitness for promotion does not extend to questions of eligibility or legal qualification for a post, which remain justiciable before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, bar an appeal regarding the eligibility of a candidate for promotion?
  • Are newly created government posts subject to the existing Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
  • What is the legal distinction between eligibility for promotion and fitness for promotion in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan and another vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-17
  criminal reviewerror apparent on the face of the recordidentification paradeextra-judicial confessionballistic expertdeath sentencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal review petition arose from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a criminal petition for leave to appeal, which had challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment confirming the death sentence of petitioner Yaqoob Khan and the life imprisonment of petitioner Zahid Munir under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the scope of review in criminal proceedings under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, what constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record', and whether the petitioners' contentions regarding identification parades, delayed recovery of firearm empties, and extra-judicial confessions warranted a re-appraisal of evidence or a review of the dismissal order. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that review in criminal matters is restricted to errors apparent on the face of the record (such as an error of fact or law that is self-evident and does not require elaborate ratiocination) and cannot be used as a rehearing or an appeal to re-appraise evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record in criminal proceedings under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • Can a review petition in a criminal case be used as a rehearing or an appeal to re-appraise evidence?
  • Does the failure of a witness to specify the role of an accused at an identification parade render their subsequent testimony in court regarding that role inadmissible?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere in review with the quantum of a legal sentence imposed or upheld after due consideration of relevant circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and 2 others vs Muhammad Yousaf, Test Inspector1996 PLD Supreme Court 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-12
  WAPDAdisciplinary proceedingsreduction in penaltyService Tribunal jurisdictionquantum of sentencesuspension periodtampering metermodification of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, assailing a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, a WAPDA Test Inspector, regarding allegations of electricity theft connivance and tampering with an electric meter. The competent authority initially imposed a major penalty of reduction in rank, which the departmental appellate authority modified to stoppage of five annual increments. Before the Service Tribunal, the respondent did not contest the merits but sought leniency. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and directed the suspension period to be treated as spent on duty with consequential emoluments. The Supreme Court dismissed WAPDA's appeal, holding that the quantum of penalty is to be determined according to the circumstances of each case to meet the ends of justice. Under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Service Tribunal possessed wide jurisdiction to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify any departmental order appealed against, including modifying penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have statutory jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 to vary or reduce a penalty even when the delinquent employee does not dispute the merits of the allegations?
  • Can a departmental authority treat a period of suspension exceeding six months as extraordinary leave without pay in the absence of an enabling provision under the applicable Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to record reasons when modifying or reducing a disciplinary penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman/Chief1996 PLC (C.S.) 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26
  WAPDA employeecivil servant statusjurisdiction of Labour CourtFederal Service Tribunalspecial leave to appealreinstatementback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the reinstatement and back benefits of an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The employee, previously dismissed following a criminal conviction, sought redress through the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, eventually securing reinstatement. The core legal question is whether an employee of WAPDA, deemed a civil servant under Section 17(1-B) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, is barred from seeking relief before a Labour Court and must instead approach the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the status of the employee as a civil servant under the WAPDA Act constitutes a significant question of law rather than a mere factual dispute. The Court determined that the jurisdictional challenge regarding the appropriate forum for redress required further judicial consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued an interim order regarding the employee's reinstatement status pending the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority considered a civil servant under Section 17(1-B) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958?
  • Does the status of a WAPDA employee as a civil servant preclude them from seeking redress through a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Is the question of whether an employee falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal a question of law or a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another vs Fida Muhammad Khan1996 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29
  WAPDA Act 1958compulsory retirementremoval from serviceService Tribunal jurisdictionalteration of penaltyillegal gratificationdepartmental inquiryterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal converting the removal from service of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 into compulsory retirement. The respondent employee was removed from service on allegations of receiving illegal gratification without a regular departmental inquiry. The Service Tribunal partially allowed the employee's appeal, substituting the penalty of removal with compulsory retirement based on the return of the alleged bribe amount to the complainant and the employee's length of service. The Supreme Court considered whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction and valid grounds to alter the departmental penalty. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction over terms and conditions of service, has the power to modify, vary, or substitute penalties imposed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 based on valid reasons. The Court noted that resorting to summary removal without a regular inquiry deprived the employee of a proper defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to modify or substitute a penalty imposed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
  • Can the Service Tribunal convert an order of removal from service to compulsory retirement where an employee is removed under summary procedures without a regular inquiry?
  • Is length of service a relevant factor for the Service Tribunal to consider when determining whether to alter a disciplinary penalty under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Lahore and anothers vs Javaid Ahmed1996 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  service tribunaltermination of serviceretrenchmentlimitationmala fidejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent employee's appeal, declared his termination unlawful and mala fide, and ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits. The respondent's initial service termination during probation on grounds of retrenchment had led to prolonged litigation across labor courts, the High Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which previously held that labor forums lacked jurisdiction over WAPDA service matters. The core legal question concerned whether the Federal Service Tribunal properly addressed the issue of limitation and whether the termination of the respondent while retaining junior employees was justified. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had implicitly considered and dealt with the limitation issue and that the termination was indeed mala fide, as the previous Supreme Court judgment holding labor forums to be without jurisdiction could not be used as a smokescreen to terminate the respondent while retaining his juniors. The petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to explicitly record a finding on limitation when the objection is raised before it?
  • Can an employer use a previous judicial pronouncement regarding lack of forum jurisdiction as a smokescreen to terminate an employee while retaining junior staff?
  • Whether the termination of a probationer employee on grounds of retrenchment while retaining juniors in the same category is lawful and free of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority and 2 others vs Abdul Khaliq1996 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  service appeallimitation periodremandex parte proceedingsWAPDA employeesefficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the dismissal of the respondent—a Water and Power Development Authority employee—to a penalty of stoppage of two increments and ordered his reinstatement. The petitioner raised two primary grievances: first, that the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal in the absence of the petitioner's counsel, despite a timely application for adjournment due to professional commitments in another city; and second, that the Tribunal failed to address the critical objection regarding the limitation period, which had been raised in the written statement. The Supreme Court observed that the question of limitation was not addressed by the Tribunal, noting that courts are under a mandatory duty to determine limitation issues before proceeding to the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Federal Service Tribunal with directions to decide the question of limitation and dispose of the appeal afresh after hearing both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court or tribunal legally obligated to determine the question of limitation before deciding a case on its merits?
  • Can a court or tribunal waive the requirement to decide a limitation objection raised by a party?
  • Does the failure of a tribunal to address a limitation objection warrant setting aside its judgment and remanding the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasim Ahmad Adenwalla vs Shaikh Karim Riaz1996 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantrent controlmala fidesvacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the High Court against the appellant-tenant, reversing the Rent Controller's dismissal of the respondent-landlord's application. The respondent sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement, asserting he needed the premises because his current rented accommodation lease was expiring and his son required space for marriage. The appellant challenged the bona fide nature of this requirement, arguing the respondent resided in a superior locality and had failed to occupy another portion of the same premises that became vacant, instead re-letting it. The Supreme Court held that a landlord's choice to reside in their own property, even if located in a less desirable or congested area compared to their current rented residence, does not inherently establish mala fides. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the other portion of the premises was vacant; it was occupied by a legal heir following litigation and settlement. Consequently, the Court upheld the ejectment order, affirming that a landlord's personal requirement remains valid despite the availability of superior rented accommodation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's choice to move from a rented house in a superior locality to their own house in a congested area constitute mala fides?
  • Can a landlord's personal requirement be challenged on the basis that they did not occupy a portion of the premises that was subject to ongoing litigation?
  • Is a landlord's personal requirement for premises considered bona fide if they currently reside in a rented property owned by their son?
  Read full judgment →
• Waryam vs Shaukat Ali Khan and 5 others1996 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellleave to appealattestation of documentssecondary evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner’s suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the basis that the primary sale agreement was not duly proved, as the attesting witnesses were not examined, and the subsequent documents were rejected due to discrepancies. The petitioner contended that the agreement was sufficiently proved by the scribe and that, under the law, attestation of such an agreement is not a mandatory requirement. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the subsequent documents, which acknowledged receipt of payments, independently established the transaction even if the primary agreement were excluded. Finding that the contentions regarding the necessity of attesting witnesses for a sale agreement and the evidentiary value of the subsequent documents raised substantial legal questions requiring deeper examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these issues.

  Questions settled

  • Is the examination of attesting witnesses mandatory to prove an agreement to sell?
  • Can an agreement to sell be proved by the testimony of the scribe alone?
  • Does the failure to object to the admissibility of a document at the trial stage preclude a party from challenging it later?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when substantial legal questions regarding the proof of documents are raised?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Muhammad Farid Khan1996 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12
  service tribunaldepartmental examinationpromotionseniority-cum-fitnessfinality of orderWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges the order of the Federal Service Tribunal directing WAPDA to consider the respondent employee for promotion. The core legal question was whether the passing of a departmental examination was a condition precedent for promotion to a BPS-17 post under the relevant service rules, and whether an unchalleged previous interlocutory order of the Tribunal had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that since the promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and the Tribunal's earlier finding—that passing the examination was unnecessary—had not been assailed and thus attained finality, the appeal could not succeed. The Court laid down the principle that an unchalleged finding or order regarding service rights attains finality and cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings, and that departmental examination requirements depend strictly on the applicable promotional criteria such as seniority-cum-fitness versus selection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether passing a departmental examination is a condition precedent for promotion to a BPS-17 post when promotion is based on seniority-cum-fitness?
  • Can an unchalleged previous order of the Service Tribunal be permitted to be assailed in the garb of challenging a subsequent impugned order?
  • Does a promotional requirement of passing an examination apply when an employee was illegally removed and later reinstated with all consequential benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. vs Macdonald Layton & Co. Ltd., Karachi and another1996 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-17
  foreign arbitrationstay of suitbalance of conveniencedecree on admissionmaintainability of suitsub-contractor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two consolidated proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan: first, a petition for leave to appeal against the rejection of an application to stay a civil suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940; and second, an appeal against a High Court Division Bench judgment setting aside a summary decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions were whether a foreign arbitration clause necessitates a stay of domestic suit proceedings where the evidence and parties are located in Pakistan, and what criteria govern the grant of a decree on admissions. The Supreme Court held that the presence of a foreign arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts, and stay of proceedings may be refused if the balance of convenience, location of evidence, and potential for conflicting decisions favor a domestic trial. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 requires an unequivocal, unconditional, and clear admission of both the amount and the liability to pay, which must not be granted if there are outstanding legal objections going to the root of the suit's maintainability.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign arbitration clause in an agreement completely oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts to entertain a civil suit?
  • What factors must a court consider when exercising its discretion to stay a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 in the presence of a foreign arbitration clause?
  • Can a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be granted if the defendant raises legal objections that go to the root of the suit's maintainability?
  • What are the essential requirements for an admission to qualify as the basis for a summary decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• University of Punjab through ViceChancellor, Lahore and anothers vs Mrs. Ruhi Farzana and 3 others1996 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-24
  re-evaluation of answer scriptsmala fidesbias in administrative actionreasonable suspicionuniversity examinationjudicial reviewburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, the University of Punjab, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that declared the respondent successful in her professional medical examinations following a dispute over re-evaluation. The respondent alleged that her original examiners acted with mala fides due to personal grievances, leading to unfair marking and subsequent tampering with her answer scripts. The core legal question was whether the University's re-evaluation process, which involved sequential appointments of examiners after reviewing previous reports, was transparent and free from bias. The Supreme Court held that while the Vice-Chancellor has the authority to order re-evaluation in exceptional cases, the procedure must be transparent and bona fide. The Court found that the University's practice of appointing a second examiner only after receiving the first examiner's report created a reasonable suspicion of bias. It established the principle that administrative discretion must be exercised in a manner that avoids any appearance of malice or unfairness, and that when allegations of mala fides are made, the failure of the authority to rebut them through affidavits allows the Court to infer bias from the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an administrative authority to file a counter-affidavit in response to specific allegations of mala fides allow a court to infer bias?
  • Is the sequential appointment of examiners for re-evaluation, where the second examiner is appointed only after the first report is received, legally permissible?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the discretion exercised by a university Vice-Chancellor in academic re-evaluation matters?
  • Does the principle of 'reasonable suspicion' apply to determine the existence of bias in administrative decision-making?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Munir Ahmad Naseer and 2 others1996 PLC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26
  civil petition for special leave to appealworkmanIndustrial Relations Ordinancejurisdiction of Labour Courtback benefitsdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner bank's writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside the dismissal of respondent No. 1 and granting him 50% back benefits. The core legal question is whether a Grade-II Officer performing managerial and supervisory duties qualifies as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and is thereby entitled to invoke section 25-A of the said Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine in depth the question of the Labour Court's jurisdiction regarding officers of this category and continued the interim stay order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Grade-II Officer of a bank performing managerial and supervisory duties qualifies as a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an employee holding the post of Branch Manager with supervisory powers invoke the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Tooti Gul and 2 others vs Irfanuddin1996 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-04
  oral saleRoznamcha Waqiatimutationregistrationdeclaration of titlecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and dismissed the appellants' suit for declaration of title and injunction. The dispute arose from an alleged oral sale of a house by the respondent's deceased father to the appellants, who were tenants. The transaction was reported to the Patwari and entered into the daily diary (Roznamcha Waqiati), but the mutation could not be attested due to the vendor's death. The High Court had dismissed the suit inter alia due to lack of registration of the Roznamcha and discrepancies in the vendor's signature and thumb impression. The Supreme Court held that while an oral sale and its entry in the Roznamcha do not require registration as they are in the nature of acknowledgement, a mutation or entry by itself does not confer title, and the transaction must be established independently through convincing evidence of the sale and payment of consideration. Because the appellants failed to sufficiently corroborate the payment of consideration, the Supreme Court found no legal error in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati regarding an oral sale requires registration under the Registration Act?
  • Does a revenue mutation by itself confer title to immovable property?
  • Can an oral sale of immovable property be established without independent and convincing evidence of the payment of consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Toor Muhammad vs Haji M.Aqsood Ilahi and 2 others1996 SCMR 1603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-20
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantdefault in payment of rentdenial of titlerent deedtenant estoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner on the ground of default in rent regarding a premises known as "Saqawa" in Peshawar. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition after finding a doubt regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and title. Upon appeal, the District Judge held the relationship to be established and ordered ejectment, a decision upheld by the High Court in a writ petition. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the appealability of a finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant under the relevant rent laws and whether a tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord. The Supreme Court held that the relationship was duly established through registered sale deeds, revenue records, and the tenant's execution of a rent deed, and that the tenant was debarred from challenging the landlord's title. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the lower appellate and High Court judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decision given on the issue pertaining to the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant is appealable under the rent laws?
  • Is a tenant debarred from challenging the title of his landlord after executing a rent deed?
  • Does a mutation in a joint khata confer title over a specific superstructure and premises previously held under a tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Tilla Gul vs Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Peshawar and 2 others1996 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-20
  civil reviewSea Customs ActTribal AreasAfghan Transit Trade Agreementsmugglingconfiscation of goodsconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil review petitions sought review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing appeals arising from high court judgments that had dismissed writ petitions challenging the confiscation of goods and trucks by customs authorities. The core legal questions involved whether the repeal of the Sea Customs Act 1878 by the Customs Act 1969 extended to Tribal Areas where the 1969 Act had not been formally extended, whether goods in transit under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement fell within the regulatory purview of customs authorities, and whether the alleged substitution of transit goods constituted smuggling. By a majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that the repeal of the Sea Customs Act 1878 in settled areas did not automatically repeal it in Tribal Areas where it remained in force until the new law was extended. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a statute applicable to the Tribal Areas by virtue of special constitutional arrangements or regulations does not stand repealed merely because it is repealed in the settled areas of Pakistan, unless the repealing legislation is itself formally extended to the Tribal Areas.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Sea Customs Act 1878 in the settled areas of Pakistan automatically amount to its repeal in the Tribal Areas where the Customs Act 1969 has not been extended under Article 247(3) of the Constitution?
  • Do customs authorities have jurisdiction under the customs laws to confiscate goods that are being transported in transit to Afghanistan under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement?
  • Does the alleged substitution of goods in transit with goods of inferior quality amount to smuggling under the customs laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Theboard of Trustees of the Federal Employees Benevolent and another vs Nazir Alam Shah1996 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-19
  benevolent grantretiree benefitsconstitutional discriminationreasonable classificationpensionersstatutory amendmentpost-retirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment directing the appellants to pay a benevolent grant for life to the respondent, a retired government employee, under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 as amended by Ordinance VI of 1988. The core legal question was whether a retired employee who ceased service prior to the 1988 amendment is entitled to the enhanced life benefit of a benevolent grant introduced by the amendment, or whether denying it constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment, holding that retired employees and serving employees constitute distinct classes and that amendments enhancing benefits do not automatically apply retrospectively to those who retired prior to the amendment unless expressly provided. The Court established the principle that a classification distinguishing serving employees from retired persons is based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the statutory object, and retired persons cannot claim subsequent service or post-retirement statutory enhancements unless the law explicitly extends them.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who retired prior to the promulgation of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988 is entitled to a benevolent grant for life under the amended section 13?
  • Does the distinction between serving employees and retired employees constitute a reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can retired civil servants claim the benefit of subsequent statutory enhancements in pay or benevolent grants introduced after their retirement without express legislative provision?
  Read full judgment →
• The Vicepresident (Admn.), National Bank of Pakistan and others vs Basharat Ali and others1996 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-29
  departmental inquiryex parte inquiryinquiry reportnatural justicemaster and servantretrospective dismissalback benefitsindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the National Bank of Pakistan challenges the High Court order upholding the Labor Court and Tribunal's decisions which set aside the dismissal of respondent No. 1 from service. The respondent, an Officer Grade-III, had overstayed his ex-Pakistan leave, resulting in an ex parte departmental inquiry and subsequent dismissal from service retrospectively. The core legal question was whether an employee proceeded against ex parte in a departmental inquiry is entitled to be served a copy of the inquiry report and given an opportunity to offer an explanation before the competent authority awards punishment under Rule 39 of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 39(3), an employee is indeed entitled to receive a copy of the inquiry report to submit an explanation to the competent authority, and this right is not forfeited merely because the inquiry was conducted ex parte. The Court affirmed that failure to supply the inquiry report causes material prejudice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee proceeded against ex parte in a departmental inquiry is entitled to be served a copy of the inquiry report under Rule 39 of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980?
  • Does the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an accused employee before the imposition of a major penalty cause material prejudice vitiating the dismissal order?
  • Can an order of dismissal from service validly operate with retrospective effect?
  • Is it mandatory in every case for an employer to examine the Enquiry Officer in support of the inquiry report before a Labor Court?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Ghaffar1996 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-22
  appeal against acquittalhostile witnessevidenciary valueappreciation of evidencedouble murdercorroborationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought by the State against the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting respondent Abdul Ghaffar of a double murder, questioned the proper legal standard for evaluating the testimony of prosecution witnesses declared hostile. The High Court had set aside the trial court's death sentence primarily on the grounds that after three eye-witnesses were declared hostile, there was no legal evidence to connect the respondent to the crime. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal, holding that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be completely discarded or left out of consideration. The Court reiterated the established evidentiary principle that the testimony of a hostile witness must be evaluated like any other evidence for what it is worth, sifted to separate the grain from the chaff, and tested through independent corroboration. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for re-hearing and re-appraisal of the complete evidence, directing the respondent's arrest pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Must the evidence of a witness declared hostile be completely rejected or excluded from consideration?
  • How should a court evaluate and appreciate the testimony of a prosecution witness who has been declared hostile?
  • Can a court base a conviction on the testimony of a hostile witness if corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Under what principles may an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Deputy Attorney General vs Muhammad Siddique1996 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  smugglingnarcoticscontraband charasreduction of sentenceplea of guiltycustoms offenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the State against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the respondent's sentence for smuggling a huge quantity of contraband charas was reduced. The respondent was apprehended alongside a co-accused while transporting 8,500 kilograms of foreign origin charas by truck, and was charged, pleaded guilty, and convicted under the Customs Act 1969. The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine, relying on the grounds that the respondent was a mere carrier, had pleaded guilty, and faced another trial under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The core legal question concerns whether pleading guilty and being a mere carrier justify undue leniency in sentencing for large-scale narcotics smuggling. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the State required consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that pleading guilty to an offence involving a massive quantity of contraband does not inherently entitle an offender to uncalled-for leniency in the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does pleading guilty to a charge of smuggling a massive quantity of contraband narcotics legally entitle an accused to uncalled-for leniency in sentencing?
  • Whether the status of being merely a carrier of narcotics is a sufficient ground for substantial reduction of sentence in large-scale smuggling cases?
  • Can the pendency of a separate trial under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 justify leniency in sentencing under the Customs Act 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral, High Court of of Sindh, Karachi vs Iqbal Ahmed Khan1996 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-13
  Drugs Act 1976spurious drugscognizance of offencesDrug Inspectorprosecution authoritystatutory compliancevitiated proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside a conviction under the Drugs Act, 1976. The respondent had been convicted for selling spurious drugs, but the High Court acquitted him on the ground that the complainant, a Divisional Drug Inspector, was not a duly appointed Inspector under Section 17 of the Act, rendering the prosecution incompetent under Section 30. The core legal question was whether a prosecution instituted by an officer not appointed as an Inspector under the Act is valid. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was vitiated because the complainant failed to establish his legal authority as a designated Inspector. The Court emphasized that the Drugs Act is a self-contained statute requiring strict compliance with procedural prerequisites for instituting prosecutions. The principle laid down is that the authority to prosecute under the Drugs Act is strictly limited to designated Federal or Provincial Inspectors; failure to prove such appointment or authority renders the entire proceedings void, regardless of whether the defense raised the objection during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a prosecution under the Drugs Act 1976 be instituted by an officer who is not a duly appointed Inspector under Section 17?
  • Is it the duty of the prosecution to prove the legal authority of the complainant to institute a case under the Drugs Act 1976?
  • Does the failure of the defense to object to the complainant's lack of authority at the trial stage validate an otherwise incompetent prosecution?
  • What are the limitations on the powers of a Drug Inspector regarding the territorial and procedural scope of their authority under the Drugs Act 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral, Balochistan, Quetta vs Khuda-I-Dad1996 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14
  acquittalleave to appealmurdercriminal appealHigh Court judgmentSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent Khuda-i-Dad by the High Court of Balochistan. The respondent had been tried along with seven others for murder under Section 302/34, P.P.C., and was initially convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court, however, acquitted Khuda-i-Dad while maintaining the conviction of a co-accused, Abdul Khaliq. The Supreme Court, having already accepted the criminal appeal of Abdul Khaliq and set aside his conviction and sentence, considered the respondent's case. The Court found that Khuda-i-Dad's case stood on a better footing than that of the co-accused and that he appeared to have been rightly acquitted by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's petition for leave to appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal of Khuda-i-Dad.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal by the High Court?
  • Whether an acquittal by the High Court can be upheld by the Supreme Court if the co-accused's conviction is also set aside?
  • What is the standard for setting aside an acquittal in a murder case on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Salim Butt1996 PLC 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-21
  fresh departmental inquirydefective inquiryembezzlementreinstatementback benefitsdisciplinary proceedingsindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals arising from the dismissal of writ petitions by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision to reinstate employees while barring a fresh departmental inquiry. The core legal question was whether an employer, specifically a bank, should be permitted to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry after an initial inquiry into serious charges of embezzlement, fraud, and forgery was set aside due to procedural defects. The Supreme Court held that in cases involving allegations of embezzlement and financial misconduct, where a dismissal order is invalidated solely due to a defective inquiry, the employer must be allowed to hold a fresh inquiry to establish the charges. The Court reasoned that denying such an opportunity based on the mere possibility of proving guilt or the withholding of back benefits is legally untenable. The principle laid down is that holding a fresh inquiry serves the public interest, promotes financial integrity, and provides a fair process for both the employer and the accused employee, who may be exonerated without stigma if found innocent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer hold a fresh departmental inquiry if the initial inquiry was found to be defective?
  • Does the reinstatement of an employee due to a procedural defect in the inquiry bar the employer from initiating a new inquiry into charges of embezzlement?
  • Is the withholding of back benefits a valid legal justification for denying an employer the right to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Peshawar and others vs M_s. Rais Khan Limited through Muhammad Hashim1996 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-23
  transit traderetroactive operationcustoms detentionterritorial jurisdictionconstitutional petitionleave to appealstatutory construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which had declared a notification and public notice prohibiting the transit trade of Plastic Molding Compound to Afghanistan to be without lawful authority regarding goods imported prior to the notification. The respondent-firm had imported a consignment of Plastic Molding Compound in April 1994, which was subsequently detained at Dry Port Peshawar following a November 1994 notification prohibiting such transit trade. The core legal questions involved the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court where part of the cause of action arose and whether the prohibition notification operated retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Peshawar where the goods were detained, satisfying Section 20(c) of the C.P.C., and affirmed that the notification was prospective in operation and did not affect goods imported prior to its issuance. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down that executive notifications and statutory rules are presumed to be prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise or implied by necessary intendment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition where a part of the cause of action, such as the detention of goods, arose within its jurisdiction?
  • Whether an administrative notification prohibiting the import of goods in transit has retrospective effect unless explicitly stated or necessarily implied?
  • Does a notification prohibiting transit trade apply to goods imported prior to the issuance of such notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Thadho Mal vs Chandarban and 3 others1996 SCMR 1712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-08-08
  contempt of courtscandlizing the courtadverse commentssuspension of ordershow cause noticebail order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging an order granting bail, wherein the impugned order contained unwarranted adverse comments made in an insolent manner against the Supreme Court and its judges. The core legal question concerns whether the making of such remarks amounts to contempt of court under the Constitution and relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the offending remarks constitute contempt by ridiculing and scandalizing the court and its judges. Consequently, the court adjourned the main hearing, ordered a notice to be issued to the author of the impugned order to show cause why contempt action should not be taken, and suspended the operation and publication of the offending portions of the order. The key principle laid down is that making insolent and scandalous remarks against superior courts in judicial orders attracts contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does making unwarranted adverse comments in a bail order amounting to ridiculing the Supreme Court constitute contempt of court?
  • Can the Supreme Court suspend the operation and publication of offending portions of an impugned judicial order?
  • Whether notice can be issued to a judge of the Federal Shariat Court to show cause for contempt of court based on remarks made in an order?
  Read full judgment →
• Taqweemul Haq vs The Provincial Government through the Secretary;1996 PLC (C.S.) 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  service lawad hoc appointmentregularisation of serviceadvance incrementsleave to appealservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an S.E.T. appointed on an ad hoc basis in BPS-15, sought leave to appeal against the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal's judgment. The Tribunal had partially allowed his appeal by granting him graded pay from the date he acquired the B.Ed. qualification but declined his request for regularisation of service and the grant of advance increments. The petitioner contended that, given his academic qualifications—B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture and B.Ed.—he was entitled to regularisation of service from the date of his initial appointment and to eight advance increments, citing a specific government notification regarding pay scales and increments for higher qualifications. The Supreme Court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the denial of regularisation and advance increments required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief denied by the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an ad hoc employee entitled to regularisation of service based on subsequent acquisition of professional qualifications?
  • Does the acquisition of higher academic qualifications entitle a government servant to advance increments under the relevant notification?
  • Can a Service Tribunal restrict the grant of graded pay to the date of acquiring a requisite qualification rather than the date of appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajammal Hussain vs The State and others1996 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19
  leave to appealstatutory indemnityBanks (Nationalization) Actprivate complaintcriminal revisionimmunity from prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Tajammal Hussain, Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank of Punjab, challenging orders of the Sindh High Court which set aside the dismissal of a private complaint against him and remanded the case to the trial Court. The core legal question concerns whether a private complaint is maintainable against the petitioner on identical allegations where the Lahore High Court previously held him immune from prosecution under section 18 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, after finding he acted in good faith in the performance of his functions and after challans were withdrawn by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the maintainability of the private complaint in light of the statutory indemnity and previous high court judgment, while ordering the interim stay of proceedings before the trial Court to continue pending the disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complaint on identical allegations is maintainable against a bank official who has been granted statutory indemnity under the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974?
  • Does a judgment holding that an official acted in good faith in the performance of functions entitle them to immunity from prosecution?
  • Whether proceedings in a private complaint should remain stayed pending appeal when a high court has previously found the accused immune from prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Abbasi through Legal Heirs vs M/s. Ferozesons1996 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-19
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementsublettingres judicatadefault in prosecutioncantonments rent restrictionstructural alterationstenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the dismissal of an ejectment petition and ordered the eviction of the appellants from the demised premises. The respondent-firm had sought the ejectment of the tenant under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 on grounds of default in rent, bona fide personal requirement, structural alterations impairing the value and utility of the premises, and unlawful subletting. The core legal questions involved whether a fresh eviction petition is barred under section 23 of the Act when earlier petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution or default, whether the petition was maintainable, and whether the grounds for ejectment were established. The Supreme Court held that an eviction petition dismissed for default of appearance or failure to produce evidence does not operate as res judicata and a subsequent petition on the same cause of action is maintainable under section 23 of the Act. The Court further affirmed the findings regarding bona fide personal need, unlawful subletting through sharing possession for commission, and structural changes impairing property utility, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent ejectment application is barred under section 23 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 when previous applications were dismissed for default of appearance or non-prosecution?
  • Does the concept of multifariousness under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 strictly apply to rent restriction proceedings where the Rent Controller acts as a persona designata?
  • Whether the payment of commission by an occupant to the tenant for running a business in a portion of the demised premises constitutes unlawful subletting?
  • Does the sub-division of premises into portions by raising semi-permanent partitions amount to materially impairing the value, look, or utility of the premises under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Saeed Quresh1 vs The Board of Intermediate & Secondary1996 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-22
  educational institutionre-evaluation of papersconstitutional jurisdictionexamination rulesjudicial reviewadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a student's challenge to the evaluation of his Secondary Board Annual Examination papers. The petitioner, having secured the 27th position, sought re-evaluation and re-assessment of his answer books by a new panel of examiners, alongside a comparison with the answer books of higher-ranked candidates to ensure uniform marking standards. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to order a re-evaluation beyond the scope of the existing regulatory framework. The Supreme Court observed that the only applicable provision, Rule XV, Chapter 5 of the Rules of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, restricts re-checking to clerical errors, such as total calculation mistakes or unmarked questions. Finding that the petitioner's papers had already been re-checked in accordance with this rule and no errors were found, the Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere. The judgment establishes that courts will not exercise constitutional jurisdiction to compel re-evaluation of examination papers where such action falls outside the specific statutory rules governing the educational institution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to order the re-evaluation of examination papers beyond the scope of the rules provided by an educational board?
  • Does the power to re-check examination papers under Rule XV, Chapter 5 of the Rules of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha include the power to re-assess the quality of marking?
  • Is a candidate entitled to have their answer books compared with those of other candidates to ensure uniform marking standards in the absence of a specific rule authorizing such comparison?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood and 2 others vs Muhammad Nadeem and 3 others1996 SCMR 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-17
  cross-versioncriminal complaintsummoning of accusedconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appealright of private defenceaggressor
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a criminal cross-version arising from an incident resulting in death and injuries, where the police case and a private criminal complaint were instituted by rival parties. The Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint after recording initial evidence, finding insufficient grounds to summon the accused, and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld that dismissal in revision. However, a Single Judge of the High Court accepted the complainant's constitutional petition, set aside the lower courts' orders, and restored the complaint, holding that a prima facie case for summoning was made out. The Supreme Court evaluated whether interference with the High Court's judgment was warranted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was just, fair, and not perverse, noting that allowing only the police case to proceed without the cross-complaint would leave the aggressors in the complaint unpunishable in the police trial. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing that where mutual aggression and injuries are claimed by opposing parties in cross-versions, restoring a dismissed private complaint alongside a police case serves the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the concurrent dismissal of a criminal complaint by lower courts?
  • Can a private criminal complaint be restored alongside a police challan case when both parties allege cross-versions of the same occurrence?
  • Whether the ends of justice require the trial of a cross-complaint where accused persons in a police case claim to be the actual aggressors and sustain injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajihulhassan Zaidi vs Government of Punjab through D.C., Jhelum and 2 others1996 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10
  Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958Evacuee propertyTransfer of propertyPlinth areaResumption of propertyNotified officerPending proceedingsSettlement Scheme No. 1
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the transfer of urban immovable property, known as 'S.P. House', under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions were whether land exceeding three times the plinth area of the house could be transferred as part of the premises, whether a valid transfer order existed for the excess land, and whether the notified officer possessed jurisdiction to issue a resumption notice following the repeal of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the definition of a 'house' under the Act is strictly limited to the residential premises plus three times its plinth area. Consequently, any land in excess of this limit could not be transferred as part of the house without specific, valid authorization from the Chief Settlement Commissioner. As no such competent order existed for the excess land, the transfer was deemed invalid. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that because the case was subject to an earlier remand order, it remained 'pending' upon the Act's repeal, thereby validating the notified officer's jurisdiction to issue the resumption notice.

  Questions settled

  • Can land in excess of three times the plinth area of an evacuee house be transferred as part of the house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does a case remanded by a superior court prior to the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 constitute a 'pending' case under the Evacuee Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
  • Does a notified officer have the jurisdiction to issue a resumption notice for property after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if the matter was pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shah Ibrar Qadri vs Mst. Farrukh Naheed Hashmi1996 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-02
  custody of minorshabeas corpusSection 491 Cr.P.C.Guardian Court jurisdictionforeign custody ordersabduction of minors
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a custody dispute between a father and mother over two minor daughters, following their divorce in Canada. The mother, having obtained a custody order from a Canadian court, alleged that the father abducted the children and brought them to Pakistan. She filed an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the Lahore High Court seeking the production and custody of the minors. The High Court allowed the application, restoring custody to the mother and returning their passports. The father challenged this decision, arguing that the High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. while the matter was already pending before a Guardian Court. He contended that the High Court's final order effectively usurped the jurisdiction of the Guardian Court, which is the competent forum to adjudicate custody disputes. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court's intervention under Section 491, Cr.P.C. was appropriate given the concurrent proceedings in the Guardian Court and whether such an order improperly preempted the Guardian Court's authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine child custody when the matter is already pending before a Guardian Court?
  • Does the High Court's final order granting custody under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 improperly usurp the jurisdiction of the Guardian Court?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to pass a final custody order under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rather than an interim order while the Guardian Court is seized of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Hussain vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet1996 PLC (C.S.) 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-18
  civil servicelienre-absorptionpermanent civil servantad hoc appointmenttermination of servicefundamental rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of a civil servant's lien on his substantive post after he accepted temporary appointments in other government departments. The appellant, a confirmed Upper Division Clerk in the Post Office, sought re-absorption after his temporary services in other departments were terminated. The core legal question was whether a permanent civil servant loses their lien on a substantive post by resigning from subsequent temporary or ad hoc appointments. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s lien remained intact because he was never confirmed against any other permanent post. The Court emphasized that a permanent civil servant’s lien cannot be terminated even with consent, except upon confirmation against another permanent post. Consequently, the Court set aside the Federal Service Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the appellant was entitled to be re-absorbed into his parent department. The judgment reinforces the principle that temporary or ad hoc service in other departments does not sever the lien held on a permanent substantive post, and that Supreme Court decisions are binding on all executive and judicial authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a permanent civil servant lose their lien on a substantive post by resigning from a temporary or ad hoc appointment in another department?
  • Can a civil servant's lien on a permanent post be terminated without them being confirmed against another permanent post?
  • Are the decisions of the Supreme Court binding on executive and judicial authorities under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Hussain vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet1996 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-18
  civil servicelienpermanent civil servantreabsorptiontemporary appointmentconfirmationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the termination of a civil servant's lien in his parent department after he sought temporary employment elsewhere. The appellant, a confirmed Upper Division Clerk in the Post Office, secured temporary appointments in other government departments and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, but was never confirmed in those subsequent posts. Upon his release from the Supreme Court, the Post Office refused to reabsorb him, a decision upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal on the grounds that he had voluntarily left his parent department. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether a permanent civil servant loses their lien upon accepting temporary employment in other departments without confirmation. The Court held that a permanent civil servant retains their lien in the parent department unless confirmed against a permanent post elsewhere. Resignation from temporary or ad hoc posts does not extinguish the lien in the parent department. Relying on the principle that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all authorities under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and ordered the appellant's reabsorption.

  Questions settled

  • Does a permanent civil servant lose their lien in the parent department by accepting temporary employment in another department?
  • Can a civil servant's lien be terminated if they have not been confirmed against a permanent post in a new department?
  • Is the law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan binding on the Federal Service Tribunal and executive authorities?
  • Does resignation from an ad hoc or temporary post extinguish a civil servant's lien in their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, S&Gad, Karachi and another1996 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-23
  ad hoc appointmentservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionMartial Law OrderArticle 212civil servantouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the High Court's dismissal of Constitution Petitions filed by a civil servant challenging his removal from service and the applicability of Martial Law Order No. 55 (MLO 55) to his ad hoc appointment. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain these petitions, particularly after a final order of removal had been passed by the Martial Law Administrator. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. The Court ruled that once a final order regarding the terms and conditions of service is passed, the exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. Consequently, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge interim orders or to bypass the exclusive forum created by law. The Court affirmed that even constitutional issues concerning service matters must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed, as the High Court’s dismissal of the petitions was correct, albeit for reasons related to the lack of jurisdiction rather than the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding service matters once a final order has been passed by the competent authority?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge interim orders when the statute provides for an appeal only against final orders?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional issues related to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the definition of 'ad hoc appointment' in Martial Law Order No. 55 prevail over definitions in the Civil Servants Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Pir Zainuddin Algilani vs Nasrullah and others1996 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-15
  res judicatarejection of plainteasement rightslocus standicause of actioncantonment landcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a lessee of cantonment land, filed a suit against the respondents for the removal of illegal obstructions in a street that blocked access, light, and air to his property. Previously, the petitioner's vendee had filed a separate suit regarding the same obstruction, which was rejected by the District Judge on grounds of limitation and lack of standing, a decision upheld by the High Court. When the petitioner subsequently filed his own suit, the respondents raised a plea of res judicata. The trial court rejected this plea, but the High Court, in revision, dismissed the petitioner's suit, holding that the previous decision against the vendee barred the petitioner's claim. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether a decision in a previous suit, to which the petitioner was not a party and which was dismissed for lack of cause of action and standing, legally debars the petitioner from filing a subsequent suit regarding the same subject matter. The Court is tasked with clarifying the application of res judicata in these specific circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment in a suit filed by a vendee, to which the original lessee was not a party, operate as res judicata against the original lessee in a subsequent suit?
  • Can a suit be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata when the previous suit was dismissed for lack of cause of action and standing?
  • Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff fails to establish a right of easement under Section 26 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazar Hussain Shah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1996 PLD Supreme Court 592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-17
  service appealdismissal from serviceFederal Service Tribunalconviction in absentiaMartial Law Regulation No. 31remission of sentencePrevention of Corruption Actremand of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal against his dismissal from service. The appellant, an officer on deputation, was tried and convicted in absentia by a Military Court under Martial Law Regulation No. 31 (MLR 31) for non-appearance, leading to his dismissal under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Following the Federal Government's general remission of MLR 31 in absentia sentences, the appellant challenged his dismissal. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the erroneous assumption that he had also been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Supreme Court held that the record contained no evidence of conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the Tribunal failed to advert to material facts and evidence. Emphasising that an appeal is a continuation of original proceedings requiring adjudication of all raised points, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the appeal for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to decide a service appeal by evaluating the evidence and all material legal and factual pleas raised before it?
  • Whether an order of dismissal from service based on an assumed conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 can be sustained when the record shows the conviction was solely under Martial Law Regulation No. 31?
  • Whether an appellate forum's failure to consider material points and evidence warrants setting aside its judgment and remanding the matter for fresh decision?
  Read full judgment →