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.

• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1996 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-18
  post-arrest bailmurderinstigationLalkarafurther inquirypolice investigationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with instigation (Lalkara) who was declared innocent during successive police investigations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where an accused is found innocent by two police officers during intensive investigations, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of innocence by investigating police officers create a reasonable ground for further inquiry, making out a fit case for post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with instigation and found innocent in successive police investigations is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a finding of innocence by police officers constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and others vs Mian Khan and others1996 SCMR 1071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-08
  interim reliefrevenue courtsres judicatacivil suitinjunctionfinality of judgmentproduce share
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their revision petition regarding the refusal of interim injunctive relief in a civil suit. The dispute originated from conflicting claims over land ownership, previously adjudicated in two rounds of civil litigation that attained finality. Subsequently, respondents successfully obtained decrees from Revenue Courts for a share of the produce, which were upheld through the appellate hierarchy up to the Board of Revenue. The petitioners challenged these Revenue Court orders in a civil suit, seeking an injunction to suspend them. The Trial Court, Additional District Judge, and High Court all refused interim relief, citing the finality of the Revenue Court orders and the lack of an arguable case. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts erred in refusing interim relief. The Court held that since the rights of the parties were finally determined by previous civil litigation and the Revenue Court orders remained valid and unchallenged, the refusal of interim relief was legally sound. The principle established is that interim relief cannot be granted to suspend valid, final orders of competent Revenue Courts where no arguable case is presented.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court grant an interim injunction to suspend the execution of a final order passed by a competent Revenue Court?
  • Does the finality of previous civil litigation regarding land ownership preclude a party from challenging subsequent Revenue Court orders for produce share?
  • Is the refusal of interim relief justified when the applicant fails to demonstrate an arguable case against valid, final orders of a Revenue Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 1411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-21
  abscondencecorroborative evidenceinjured witnessmotivedelay in FIRocular testimonymurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court affirming the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of an accused person's abscondence as corroborative evidence, the impact of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the legal effect of a weak or unproven motive on otherwise creditworthy ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly relied upon the consistent and natural testimony of eyewitnesses—including injured witnesses—and that the petitioners' unexplained abscondence for over three years provided sufficient corroboration for their convictions. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principles that delay in the FIR per se is not fatal to the prosecution case, and that the absence or weakness of motive does not discredit reliable eyewitness testimony. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the unexplained abscondence of an accused person serve as a corroborative piece of evidence in a murder trial?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report per se render the prosecution case untrustworthy?
  • Is the absence or failure to prove motive fatal to the prosecution's case when creditworthy ocular testimony is available?
  • Does the presence of fire-arm injuries on prosecution witnesses automatically guarantee the truth of their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif through Legal Heirs and 2 others vs Zulfiqar Ali and 561996 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-18
  mortgage redemptionlimitation periodevacuee propertysettlement allotmentwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the allotment of land previously subject to a mortgage in favor of an evacuee. The core legal question was whether the lapse of the limitation period for redeeming a mortgage extinguished the mortgagor's rights, transforming the allottee of mortgagee rights into a full owner, and whether such a question could be determined within constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the Settlement Authorities only transferred the evacuee's mortgagee rights to the appellants, the complex question regarding the extinguishment of the mortgagor's right of redemption due to the expiry of limitation could not be properly decided in a writ petition. The Court upheld the High Court's finding regarding the transfer of mortgagee rights but left the question of redemption and ownership open for determination in appropriate proceedings before a competent forum. The key principle laid down is that disputed questions concerning the extinguishment of redemption rights and adverse claims of ownership based on limitation should not be resolved through writ proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the allotment of evacuee land subject to a mortgage conveys full ownership rights or only mortgagee rights to the allottee?
  • Can the question of whether a mortgagor's right of redemption has been extinguished by limitation be decided in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • What is the effect of the expiry of the limitation period for redemption on mortgaged property allotted through settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hamid Shah vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council through Secretary and 4 others1996 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  medical studentsfirst professional examMBBS examinationexpulsion from collegeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises five petitions filed by medical students who failed to clear their first professional M.B.,B.S. examination within the stipulated four chances and consequently faced expulsion under the college prospectus rules. The core legal question addressed is the validity of the rule limiting students to four chances to pass the first professional M.B.,B.S. examination failing which they stand expelled from the college. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the controversy is fully covered by its earlier precedent in Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur (1994 SCMR 532), and upheld the validity of the rule and the dismissal of the writ petitions by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the rule limiting attempts for professional medical examinations and mandating expulsion upon failure within those attempts is legally valid and binding, following settled precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a medical student can be expelled for failing to clear the first professional M.B.,B.S. examination in four chances?
  • Does a rule in the college prospectus limiting examination attempts to four chances violate the law?
  • Is the controversy regarding the four-chance limitation for medical examinations covered by the precedent in Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs The State1996 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28
  post-arrest bailmurderF.I.R. misidentificationcausation of deathmedical negligencefurther inquiryeye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not initially named in the F.I.R., the injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body, and the death occurred due to tetanus complications rather than the direct impact of the gunshot. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's identity was sufficiently established by eye-witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which corroborated the prosecution's case despite the initial misnaming in the F.I.R. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence to suggest that the tetanus infection resulted from medical negligence rather than the gunshot injury itself. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses consistently identify an accused during investigation, the initial omission or misidentification in the F.I.R. does not automatically entitle the accused to bail, particularly when the causal link between the injury and death remains a matter for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the misnaming of an accused in the F.I.R. automatically entitle them to bail when eye-witnesses have identified them during investigation?
  • Is a death caused by tetanus resulting from a gunshot wound considered a direct result of the injury for the purpose of bail?
  • Can a bail petition be granted on the grounds of medical negligence without evidence on the record to support such a claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid vs The State1996 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-02
  criminal petitionexpeditious trialwithdrawal of petitionsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Farid. The core legal question concerns the expeditious conclusion of trial proceedings where eye-witness evidence has already been recorded and the trial judge is disinclined to hear the matter despite directions from the High Court. The court dismissed the petition as not pressed upon the statement of the petitioner's counsel that he would not press the petition provided a direction is issued for the completion of the trial in the shortest possible time. The holding of the court is that the petition stands dismissed as not pressed, with a concurrent direction for the expeditious completion of the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal petition be dismissed as not pressed upon the request of the petitioner's counsel?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can issue directions for the expeditious completion of trial proceedings upon withdrawal of a petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Neblet Representative of Doon School of Pakistan1996 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11
  contempt of courtviolation of stay orderinterim ordermaintainability of contempt petitiondemolition of tube wellpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprised two petitions for contempt of court filed by Muhammad Bashir against representatives of the Doon School of Pakistan for allegedly violating an interim stay order granted on 21-11-1993. The interim order directed that if a tube well existed on the disputed land, it should not be demolished or damaged by the respondents pending the hearing of the petition. The petitioner alleged that the respondents leveled the land and demolished the tube well despite the stay order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the respondents had obtained possession of the property long before the contempt applications were submitted. Consequently, any alleged damage to the property likely occurred prior to the issuance of the stay order while the respondents were in lawful possession. The Court held that contempt petitions are not maintainable under such circumstances. Both contempt petitions were accordingly dismissed by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contempt petition for violation of an interim stay order is maintainable when the alleged damage occurred before the stay order was issued?
  • Whether contempt proceedings lie against a respondent who was in lawful possession of the property prior to the passage of an injunctive order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, J Abdul Khaliq vs Khan Bahadur and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10
  bail cancellationright of audiencereprimand of judicial officercriminal trialsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of the Lahore High Court whereby bail granted to the petitioner facing trial under sections 324, 337-F(vi), and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code was cancelled. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's actions in cancelling bail without affording a hearing to the petitioner's counsel who arrived at the appointed time, and the practice of summoning a magistrate to reprimand him regarding a judicial order. The Supreme Court held that superior courts must correct judicial errors through proper appellate forums rather than reprimanding judicial officers directly, and that cancelling bail without hearing the accused's counsel who reached on time is without legal warrant. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that judicial orders must be scrutinized through legal forums without personal reprimands to lower court judges, and a party cannot be condemned unheard when their counsel timely attends court proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a superior court judge can summon and reprimand a magistrate for passing a judicial order granting bail?
  • Can bail be cancelled by the High Court without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's counsel who arrives at the designated time?
  • What is the appropriate legal mechanism for a superior forum to correct a judicial order not passed in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baksh Awan vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Bahawalpur and 5 others1996 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-12
  service tribunaldepartmental examinationseniority and promotionjunior clerkssub-divisional clerksaccounts clerkssupersession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises three petitions directed against a common order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing appeals concerning seniority and promotion disputes within the Irrigation Department. The core legal question revolves around whether senior junior clerks who passed a mandatory departmental examination later than their junior colleagues can claim seniority in higher promotional posts. The Supreme Court held that passing the prescribed departmental examination is a condition precedent for promotion as Sub-Divisional Clerks, and juniors who clear the examination earlier are lawfully entitled to be promoted in supersession of their seniors and subsequently gain further promotion upon fulfilling the requisite service criteria. The key principle laid down is that seniority in a lower cadre does not override statutory or rules-based examination requirements for eligibility to promotion in higher cadres, and juniors passing mandatory examinations earlier legally steal a march for promotion over delayed seniors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether senior employees who pass a prescribed departmental examination later than their juniors can claim seniority over them in higher promotional posts?
  • Does passing a departmental examination earlier confer a lawful right to promotion in supersession of senior employees?
  • Whether subsequent promotion of juniors to higher posts based on earlier eligibility and requisite service is open to interference when seniors failed to qualify in time?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Mst. Ruqayya Begum and others1996 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  consent orderejectmentleave to appealbinding authority of counsellandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal against an ejectment order concerning a shop. The core legal question is whether a consent order passed by the High Court based on an agreement by the petitioner's counsel—wherein the petitioner was granted time to vacate the premises—is binding upon the petitioner when the counsel acted to secure time upon realizing the court was not inclined to rule in the petitioner's favor. The Supreme Court held that the consent order, negotiated and agreed upon by counsel after extensive arguments in good faith to obtain an extension of time, is fully binding on the petitioner, and the contention that instructions were lacking cannot be accepted. The key principle laid down is that a bona fide concession or compromise entered into by a counsel during court proceedings to secure a beneficial outcome for the client is binding on the client, and leave to appeal against such a consent order will be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a consent order passed by the High Court based on an agreement by the petitioner's counsel binding on the petitioner?
  • Can a client challenge a consent order on the ground that the counsel acted without specific instructions after arguing the matter at length?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order where the appellant's counsel opted to secure time to vacate the premises rather than face immediate dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bahar vs The State1996 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-07
  leave to appealdeath sentencemitigating circumstancemurdercompromisefamilial relationshipreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Bahar against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld his conviction and death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the intentional murder of two persons, alongside convictions under section 324 for causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the close familial relationship between the convict and the victims constituted a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any compromise or pardon from the legal heirs or injured relatives, and given the brutal nature of the double murder and injuries inflicted, no mitigating circumstance existed to alter the death sentence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that mere familial ties without a genuine compromise do not justify leniency in capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether close familial relationship between the convict and the victims can serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment without a formal compromise?
  • Does the absence of a pardon or compromise from injured relatives preclude the reduction of capital punishment?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1996 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-20
  pre-arrest bailrapehouse trespassOffence of Zina Ordinanceleave to appealcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Azam against the dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was implicated in a criminal case registered under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 451 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) at Police Station Noor Kot, District Narowal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail in the face of serious allegations of house trespass and rape at pistol point. The Supreme Court held that the discretion in refusing pre-arrest bail was rightly exercised by the lower courts, noting that the right to pre-arrest bail is restricted to exceptional and rare cases involving mala fide, enmity, or where the F.I.R. discloses no offence on its bare reading. The Court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail is not warranted in the presence of serious incriminating allegations and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when facing serious allegations of rape and house trespass?
  • What are the exceptional and rare circumstances required for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing pre-arrest bail in the absence of established mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Sajid Hashmi vs Federation of Pakistan and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-08
  service lawselection graderemand orderdepartmental representationservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had remanded the petitioner's claim for a selection grade in BPS-18 to the departmental authority rather than granting the relief directly. The petitioner, a civil servant on deputation, argued that the Tribunal should have mandated the grant of the selection grade given his qualifications and that the department was unnecessarily delaying the process. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter to the department instead of adjudicating the merits of the selection grade claim itself. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for departmental consideration was appropriate, as the power to grant selection grades rests with the departmental authority and requires specific procedural approval. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly directed the department to hear the petitioner and decide the representation with cogent reasons. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, while directing the department to finalize the petitioner's case without further delay, emphasizing the necessity of timely administrative resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to grant a selection grade directly, or must it remand the matter to the departmental authority?
  • Is the grant of a selection grade an automatic right for an eligible civil servant?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal direct a departmental authority to hear a civil servant and decide their representation within a specified timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atique vs Muhammad Hanif Khan1996 SCMR 1260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-16
  personal requirementejectmentsuppression of material factsconcurrent findingslandlord and tenantrent case
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sindh dismissing the appellant landlord's rent application filed on the grounds of default, nuisance, and personal requirement. Leave to appeal was specifically granted to examine whether the lower courts were justified in declining the personal requirement claim given the appellant's heart condition and co-residence with his married son. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellant's suppression of material facts—specifically, concealing the possession of two additional rooms on the second floor—and his failure to substantiate his alleged heart ailment with reliable medical evidence warranted no interference. The Court further noted that the landlord did not come to court with clean hands and that an offer by the tenant to exchange floors had been refused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that any subsequent increase in family members could form the basis of a fresh cause of action if so advised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding personal requirement can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when based on evidence on record?
  • Does the suppression of material facts, such as the possession of additional accommodation, affect the credibility of a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement?
  • Does the definition of personal requirement under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 include the need of a mother brought into the house after the inception of tenancy?
  • Can a landlord rely on an increase in family members occurring after the institution of a rent case to reinforce an unproven claim of personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1996 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-15
  post-arrest bailleave to appealinvestigationdeclaration of innocencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his post-arrest bail petition by the High Court, after the bail initially granted by a Magistrate was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's declaration of innocence during police investigation by an A.S.P. and his advanced age of 65 years warrant the grant of bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions and ordered that the interim bail shall continue pending the appeal. The principle laid down is that declarations of innocence by investigating officers and age are material considerations for the grant of leave to appeal in bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does a declaration of innocence by an investigating officer constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • Can advanced age of an accused be considered as a mitigating factor for granting bail in criminal matters?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against the dismissal of bail by the High Court based on police investigation findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Rafiq Ahmed and another1996 SCMR 1701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-09
  registered sale deedregistration jurisdictionlimitation periodfraudulent transfercivil revisionconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts dismissing the petitioner's suit. The petitioner sought a declaration that a 1952 registered sale deed regarding inherited agricultural land in favor of his brothers (respondents) was fraudulent. The core legal question was whether the sale deed was void because it was registered in Lahore rather than Sheikhupura, where the land was situated, allegedly violating Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the contention was untenable. The Court noted that under Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, a Registrar may receive documents regardless of the property's location if satisfied with the cause. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove fraud and did not raise the issue of the Registrar's authority during trial. Additionally, the Court found the suit time-barred, as the petitioner had knowledge of the registration since 1952. The key principle established is that a party alleging invalidity of registration must raise the issue of the Registrar's authority at the trial stage and prove fraud to overcome limitation periods.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Registrar register a document for property situated outside their jurisdiction under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Is a suit challenging a registered sale deed barred by time if the plaintiff had knowledge of the registration for decades?
  • Does the failure to raise an issue regarding the Registrar's authority at the trial stage preclude a party from raising it in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs Muhammad Amin1996 SCMR 1646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-08
  computation of timejudicial decreeequitable principlespecific performancelimitation periodGeneral Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the computation of a sixty-day period stipulated in a court decree for the refund of an advance payment. The core legal question was whether the starting date, from which the time period was to run, should be included or excluded in the computation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the principle embodied in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908—that the date from which a period is reckoned must be excluded—constitutes a principle of equity and good conscience. Consequently, this principle applies to the interpretation of judicial decrees and orders, not merely statutes, to ensure uniformity and fairness in legal proceedings. By excluding the starting date, the respondent's deposit was found to be within the prescribed time limit. The Court affirmed that unless a contrary intention is explicitly clear, this equitable rule of construction governs the computation of time in judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Should the starting date be excluded when computing a time period specified in a court decree?
  • Does the principle of excluding the first day in a time computation, as found in the General Clauses Act, apply to judicial orders?
  • Is the principle of excluding the starting date in time computation a rule of equity applicable to the interpretation of court decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs Syed Muhammad Azeem Shah and 31996 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03
  pre-emptioncross-objectionsregular second appealsuperior right of pre-emptionestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed the appellants' regular second appeal. The underlying matter arose from a pre-emption suit filed by respondent No. 1 regarding land sold to the appellants via a registered sale-deed dated 18-5-1976. The trial Court found that the pre-emptor had a superior right but dismissed the suit on the ground of estoppel. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding on estoppel and decreed the suit, while the appellants failed to file cross-objections regarding issue No. 1. In the second appeal, the appellants attempted to claim a superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy, which the High Court repelled because the unappealed finding on issue No. 1 had attained finality. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that a respondent cannot attack a decree or reopen an issue decided against them without filing cross-objections before the First Appellate Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a respondent can attack a decree or ask for its variation without filing cross-objections before the First Appellate Court?
  • Does a finding on an issue not challenged via cross-objections before the First Appellate Court attain finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1996 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-17
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptionraiding partypolice testimonyindependent witnessespersonal searchbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by the trial court, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the uncorroborated and contradictory testimonies of police officials and a biased complainant, without independent witnesses or proof that the raiding party overheard the bribe conversation, are sufficient to sustain a conviction for accepting illegal gratification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that in bribery and trap cases, members of the raiding party must overhear the conversation between the bribe giver and receiver, and independent witnesses should be associated with personal searches when available, to eliminate the chances of framing innocent persons. The key principles laid down emphasize that reliance solely on interested police testimony without corroboration in discrepant circumstances is legally unwarranted, and failure to prove the specific place of occurrence or recover the exact alleged amount creates fatal doubts in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for bribery without independent corroboration?
  • Is it mandatory for members of a raiding party to overhear the conversation between the bribe giver and the accused to eliminate chances of false implication?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to associate independent public witnesses during the personal search of an accused where such witnesses are readily available?
  • Does a material discrepancy regarding the exact place of occurrence and the amount recovered vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1996 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-06
  criminal revisionlimitationopportunity of hearingleave to appealappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal questions are whether the petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity of hearing as required by law, and whether a criminal appeal that is time-barred can be treated as a criminal revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the petition raises the issue of whether the lower courts failed to properly appraise the evidence in accordance with established principles of criminal justice. The Supreme Court, finding that the contentions raised require detailed consideration, granted leave to appeal to examine these procedural and evidentiary issues. The decision emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that procedural bars, such as limitation, do not preclude the court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction where appropriate and that the right to a fair hearing is strictly upheld in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a time-barred criminal appeal be treated as a criminal revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 act as a bar to treating a criminal appeal as a revision?
  • Is a court required to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before passing an order of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen and another vs The State and another1996 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-23
  oral dying declarationenhancement of sentencemotive in murderadmissibility of newspaper reportslife imprisonmentcapital punishmenteyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprised cross-appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a conviction under Sections 302, 301/320, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The convict challenged his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, while the State sought enhancement of the sentence to death penalty following the murder of a senior police official and another individual. The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility and reliability of an unwritten oral dying declaration, the effect of non-recording of a dying declaration by attending magistrates or police officers, the evidentiary value of newspaper reports in criminal proceedings, and whether death penalty is mandatory where the origin of the offense or motive remains unestablished. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that an oral dying declaration made by a conscious victim to credible witnesses is admissible and reliable even if not reduced to writing. Furthermore, newspaper reports cannot constitute admissible evidence unless their author is examined in court. Lastly, the absence of a proved motive or clear origin of the offense justifies withholding the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Is an oral dying declaration admissible in evidence and sufficient to form the basis of a conviction if supported by credible witness testimony?
  • Does the failure of police or executive authorities to formally record a dying declaration automatically invalidate an oral declaration made by the victim?
  • Can unproven newspaper cuttings be relied upon as evidence in a criminal trial without examining their author as a witness?
  • Is the Court justified in withholding the sentence of death and maintaining life imprisonment where the prosecution fails to establish a specific motive for the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-11
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonycorroborationfirearm recoveryforcible possessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding convictions and sentences in a criminal case involving murder and assault arising from a dispute over joint property. The core legal questions concern the appreciation of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of weapon recoveries, and the appropriateness of capital punishment for co-accused acting under the influence of an elder. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of natural witnesses present at the scene during broad daylight was rightly relied upon by the lower courts, and that the accused had no right to take forcible possession of land in cultivating possession of the deceased. While the petitions of certain co-accused were dismissed, leave to appeal was granted specifically to Muhammad Ashraf to re-appraise the evidence because the firearm recovered from him did not match the crime empties. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witness testimony is natural and credible, and corroborated by medical and material evidence, conviction will be sustained, but discrepancies regarding weapon matching warrant a re-appraisal of evidence for the specific accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of natural witnesses can be relied upon when corroborated by medical and material evidence?
  • Does a co-accused who acts at the behest of an elder while armed with a firearm qualify for a lesser punishment?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted for the re-appraisal of evidence when the weapon recovered from an accused fails to match the crime empties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque Chief and others vs Home Secretary, Government1996 PLD Supreme Court 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-23
  criminal trial venueprison trialSuppression of Terrorist Activitiesconstitutional right to public trialvenue of trialspecial courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions challenging a notification issued by the Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, which designated the Central Prison, Karachi, as the venue for the trial of the petitioners under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The petitioners challenged the legality of conducting criminal trials within prison premises, arguing against the validity of the notification issued under subsection (3) of section 3 of the Act. The High Court had previously dismissed their petitions, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the law and the Constitution permit the fixing of a criminal trial venue inside a prison facility. Furthermore, the Court sought to examine whether the High Court correctly applied established precedents regarding the venue of criminal trials, specifically referencing the legal principles discussed in Asif Ali Zardari v. Special Judge (Offences in Banks) and Mairaj Muhammad Khan v. The State. The core legal question addresses the intersection of statutory authority regarding trial venues and constitutional rights concerning open and public trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal trial be legally conducted inside a prison under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Does the fixing of a criminal trial venue inside a prison violate constitutional provisions regarding the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Federal Service Tribunal and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-13
  advance incrementshigher educational qualificationcivil servantservice tribunalleave to appealrecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking to annul recovery notices regarding advance increments and to secure four advance increments for possessing higher educational qualifications. The core legal questions involve whether the recruitment rules prescribing a higher educational qualification for the post of Stenographer in Pakistan Railways superseded earlier federal office memorandums, and whether advance increments for higher qualifications apply to promotees or are restricted to direct recruits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised merit detailed examination regarding the applicability of the relevant recruitment rules and the distinction between promotion and direct recruitment in the context of advance increments for higher qualifications. The key principle laid down is that the entitlement of civil servants to advance increments for higher educational qualifications under government policy must be evaluated in light of the applicable recruitment rules and the mode of appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant promoted as a Stenographer is entitled to advance increments for possessing higher educational qualifications under the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated 29-6-1991?
  • Do the recruitment rules for Pakistan Railways prescribing B.A./B.Sc. as the basic educational qualification for Stenographers supersede earlier federal government office memorandums prescribing lower qualifications?
  • Is a civil servant who entered service through promotion rather than direct recruitment eligible for advance increments granted for higher qualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Sultan, Section Officer, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and anothers vs Prime Minster of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-27
  seniority disputecivil servicedeputationistOffice Management Groupservice appealcadre seniorityESTACODE
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals regarding seniority disputes between civil servants in the Office Management Group (O.M.G.) and deputationists subsequently absorbed into the O.M.G. The core legal question was whether these absorbed officers were entitled to claim seniority from their initial date of deputation or from the date of their regular absorption into the O.M.G. The Supreme Court held that seniority must be determined according to the instructions contained in the ESTACODE (Serial No. 30, Para 6). The Court clarified that a civil servant cannot claim seniority in a new cadre until they formally become a member of that cadre. If a deputationist had the option to accept or refuse the appointment, seniority counts from the date of transfer. Conversely, if the transfer was compulsory, previous continuous service may be counted. As the record failed to clarify whether the respondents had the right to refuse the offer, the Court set aside the Federal Service Tribunal's orders and remanded the cases to the departmental authority for re-determination of seniority based on these established principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist become a member of the borrowing office's cadre immediately upon deputation or only upon formal absorption?
  • Can a civil servant claim seniority in a new cadre from a date prior to their formal absorption into that cadre?
  • How is the seniority of a deputationist determined upon their permanent transfer to a borrowing office?
  • Does the right to refuse an offer of appointment in a borrowing office affect the determination of a civil servant's seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs The State and another1996 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-20
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationpolice excesseswrongful confinementillegal gratificationleave to appealcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the confirmation of pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners—police officials accused of abducting, wrongfully confining, and injuring the complainant, and extorting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, facing serious allegations of taking the law into their own hands while serving as police officials, were entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the investigation prima facie connects the accused with the commission of heinous offences and shows no mala fides or enmity in the case's registration, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused. The key principle laid down is that members of the police force, whose duty is to maintain public order and enforce the law, forfeit their claim to extraordinary discretionary pre-arrest relief when credible allegations of abusing their official authority to commit crimes are established on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether police officials facing credible allegations of abduction and extortion are entitled to pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the lack of mala fides or enmity in the registration of a criminal case disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Is leave to appeal maintainable against the high court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail when prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Saeed vs Shamim-Ul-Haq1996 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21
  leave to appealcondonation of delayremand of suitreview petitionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that set aside an appellate dismissal of a time-barred suit and remanded it for fresh decision after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in condoning a prolonged delay in filing the appeal where the delay was largely attributable to the pendency of a review petition before the trial court. The Supreme Court held that since the trial court took an inordinate time in deciding the review application and there was no contribution to the delay by the opposing party, the High Court rightly exercised its discretion to condone the delay in furtherance of the policy of law that disputes should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the remand order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in condoning a long delay in filing an appeal where the delay in deciding a review petition was caused by the trial court itself?
  • Should legal disputes be decided on merits rather than on technicalities such as limitation?
  • Whether special leave to appeal should be granted against an order of the High Court remanding a suit for fresh decision after condoning delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The Chief Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P.1996 SCMR 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-19
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantreasonable opportunityminor penaltynatural justicemala fidesservice tribunalstoppage of increments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his departmental punishment of stoppage of two annual increments before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, alleging procedural unfairness due to the denial of certain documents during disciplinary proceedings and asserting mala fides by the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the petitioner had admitted to the omission during a personal hearing and pleading for leniency. Upon review, the Supreme Court addressed whether the failure to provide requested documents vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that the requirement for a 'reasonable opportunity' under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, does not equate disciplinary inquiries to criminal trials. It clarified that such proceedings are administrative processes intended to reach a prudent conclusion regarding misconduct. Consequently, the omission to provide documents was deemed inconsequential, particularly given the minor nature of the penalty and the petitioner's prior admission of guilt. The Court further affirmed that allegations of mala fides require substantial proof, which the petitioner failed to provide, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a civil servant with requested documents during a disciplinary inquiry automatically vitiate the proceedings?
  • Is a disciplinary inquiry against a civil servant equivalent to a criminal trial regarding the application of procedural rules?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the propriety of a disciplinary order after having admitted to the omission and pleaded for leniency during a personal hearing?
  • Does the bar on appeals against minor penalties under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act 1974 extend to challenges regarding the legality or jurisdiction of the order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Jamaluddin1996 SCMR 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-19
  personal requirementejectmentjurisdictionmixed question of fact and lawrent controllertenancyappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order for the ejectment of a tenant on the grounds of the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Rent Controller's factual findings regarding personal requirement, and whether a tenant can raise a jurisdictional objection—specifically that the premises constituted a 'hotel' and thus fell outside the Rent Controller's jurisdiction—for the first time during the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional plea, being a mixed question of fact and law, could not be raised for the first time in appeal without having been pleaded or evidenced before the Rent Controller. Furthermore, the Court found the landlord's personal requirement was substantiated by evidence. The Court established the principle that a legal plea founded upon a factual basis must be raised before the trial court to allow for evidence to be led; it cannot be introduced for the first time before an appellate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant raise the plea that the premises are a 'hotel' to challenge the Rent Controller's jurisdiction for the first time in appeal?
  • Is a legal plea that is founded on a factual basis permissible for the first time before an appellate forum?
  • Does the term 'hotel' in the context of rent laws include establishments that only provide refreshments without lodging?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Hafiz Muhammad Akbar Chughtai and 6 others1996 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-14
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-Ishhadamendment of plaintrepeal of statutesaving clauseIslamic lawpre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a pre-emption suit in 1985 under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Following the repeal of the 1913 Act by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the petitioner sought to amend his plaint to incorporate the performance of 'Talbs' as required under Islamic law. The trial court and appellate courts rejected the amendment and the suit. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor could amend a pending suit, filed under the repealed 1913 Act, to include the fulfillment of 'Talbs' to satisfy the requirements of the 1991 Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's suit was not covered by the saving clause of the 1991 Act as no judgment or decree had been passed by the cut-off date of 31-7-1986. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the requirement of 'Talbs' does not arise in cases instituted under laws declared void by the Said Kamal Shah and Sardar Ali judgments. The principle established is that amendments to introduce 'Talbs' are impermissible in such pending pre-emption litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff amend a pre-emption plaint to include the fulfillment of 'Talbs' in a suit filed under the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Does the saving clause of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 apply to pre-emption suits where no judgment or decree was passed before 31-7-1986?
  • Is the requirement of making 'Talbs' applicable to pre-emption cases instituted under laws declared void by the Supreme Court in the Said Kamal Shah and Sardar Ali judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Rahi and anothers vs Muhammad Afzal Khan and 41996 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-18
  pro forma promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeservice lawcompetent authorityadministrative powerremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had remanded a service matter to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department for a decision regarding the respondent's pro forma promotion. The core legal question was whether the SGA&I Department possessed the legal authority to approve or disapprove recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) regarding promotions, specifically in light of the amended Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly determined that the SGA&I Department lacked the authority to interfere with the D.P.C.'s recommendations at the time the decision was made. The Court affirmed the principle that under the amended Rule 6, the Secretary of the relevant Department is the sole competent authority to act upon D.P.C. recommendations for appointments to specific BPS posts, rendering the SGA&I Department's refusal to approve the promotion legally ineffective. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order to remit the case to the Secretary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the SGA&I Department have the authority to approve or disapprove recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Who is the competent authority to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee for appointments to BPS-16 and 17 posts under the amended Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be selected for promotion solely on the basis of eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Rahi and another vs Muhammad Afzal Khan and 41996 PLC (C.S.) 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-18
  pro forma promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeservice rulesadministrative authoritycivil servicepromotion eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the promotion of a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the Services, General Administration and Information (SGA&I) Department possessed the legal authority to approve or disapprove recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding pro forma promotion, particularly in light of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the SGA&I Department lacked the requisite authority to interfere with the DPC's recommendations. The Court held that under the amended Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the Secretary of the concerned Department—in this case, the Agriculture Department—held the exclusive competence to act upon DPC recommendations for posts in BPS-16 and 17. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department for appropriate action, establishing the principle that administrative authority over promotions must strictly adhere to the specific powers vested by the governing service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the SGA&I Department have the legal authority to approve or disapprove recommendations made by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Who is the competent authority to act upon recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee for posts in BPS-16 and 17 under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Can a service tribunal remand a matter to a departmental secretary for a fresh decision on a promotion recommendation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Naseem vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujranwala Zone and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  service tribunalseniority listnecessary partiesnon-joinder of partiespetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning a seniority list on the ground that the petitioner failed to implead eighteen affected persons. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal was justified in non-suiting the petitioner for failing to implead the necessary parties, particularly when an oral request to implead them was made in response to an objection raised by the opposing side. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the justification of the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on this ground under the circumstances of the case, establishing that the question of proper parties and oral requests for impleading them requires detailed examination upon appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal for failure to implead affected persons when an oral request to implead them was made?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1996 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-26
  civil serviceretrospective promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeefitness for promotionconstitutional petitionmala fidewithdrawal of promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition regarding his promotion. The appellant, an employee of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission, was cleared for promotion to Senior Scale Stenographer (B-15) effective from 17-2-1990, but declined the promotion demanding it be given retrospective effect from 1-1-1986. The Departmental Promotion Committee had previously considered his case and found him unfit for promotion on the earlier date, leading the department to subsequently withdraw the promotion order due to his refusal. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court correctly declined relief against the department's refusal to grant retrospective promotion and whether the withdrawal of the promotion was justified. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Departmental Promotion Committee's assessment of fitness based on the appellant's performance record could not be questioned in writ jurisdiction absent allegations of mala fides. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the promotion order was justified as the appellant forced the department's hand through his unreasonable refusal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decision of a Departmental Promotion Committee regarding an employee's fitness for promotion based on performance record be challenged in writ jurisdiction in the absence of mala fides?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to claim retrospective promotion when the Departmental Promotion Committee previously found them unfit for promotion from that earlier date?
  • Are departmental authorities justified in withdrawing a promotion order if the employee refuses to accept it unless granted from an earlier retrospective date?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Zaidi vs Water and Power Development Authority1996 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  move-overservice benefitsWAPDAlength of servicepensionable serviceFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the denial of a move-over from B-18 to B-19 within the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner, originally a government servant absorbed into WAPDA, contended that his previous continuous government service should be counted toward the length of service required for the move-over. He argued that since WAPDA already acknowledges this prior service for pension and earned leave purposes, it is inconsistent to exclude it for move-over eligibility. The core legal question is whether the length of service criteria for move-over to a higher pay scale must include prior government service when such service is already recognized by the employer for other benefits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the petitioner's submission that the criteria for counting service should be consistent across different employment benefits, thereby setting the stage for a determination on the applicability of service counting rules.

  Questions settled

  • Should previous government service be counted toward the length of service requirement for move-over to a higher pay scale in WAPDA?
  • Does the recognition of prior service for pension and leave benefits necessitate its inclusion for move-over eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Zahid Chaudhry vs Multi Professional Cooperative1996 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-28
  stay of executionmoney decreedecretal amountfurnishing of securityappellate discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a Regular First Appeal, whereby the execution of a money decree was stayed subject to the petitioner depositing the decretal amount in the Executing Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in ordering the deposit of the decretal amount instead of accepting security under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that under Order XLI Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellate court possesses the discretion in money decree appeals to order either the deposit of the decretal amount or the furnishing of security for staying execution, unless the appeal must succeed due to an error apparent on the record. The Court concluded that the discretion was validly exercised and dismissed the petition, laying down that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) and Rule 8 proviso (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be read together regarding the stay of execution in monetary decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can condition a stay of execution of a money decree on the deposit of the decretal amount rather than furnishing security?
  • How are the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be read together in appeals against money decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderocular evidencechance witnessinterested witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of criminal appeals arising from the murder of a student in Quetta, stemming from an inter-family retaliatory dispute. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, the status of eyewitnesses as chance or interested witnesses, and the reliability of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses. Holding that the evidence against one appellant was reliable and corroborated while lacking against another, the Court maintained the conviction of Muhammad Akram, acquitted Mir Hassan due to lack of corroboration, upheld the acquittal of Muhammad Arif, and dismissed the appeals filed by the State and the complainant. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of chance or related witnesses can form the basis of a conviction if it is natural, convincing, and corroborated on material particulars with respect to the specific accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder case?
  • Does a minor discrepancy regarding the timing of the First Information Report vitiate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can the conviction of an accused be sustained when independent corroboration is missing with respect to his specific role?
  • Whether the evidence of a related and interested witness loses its evidentiary value solely due to domestic affinity with the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice (Justice Division), Islamabad through Secretary and another1996 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  public service commissionconditional recommendationvested rightservice recordjudicial appointmentadvisory bodywithdrawal of nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed his challenge to the withdrawal of his nomination for the post of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that his nomination was withdrawn without a hearing and that his service record, which contained adverse entries, had been expunged. The Supreme Court addressed whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appointment upon a conditional recommendation by the Federal Public Service Commission and whether the Commission's advisory role binds the appointing authority. The Court held that a conditional recommendation by the Commission, subject to verification of character and antecedents, does not create a vested right to appointment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Commission acts as an advisory body and is entitled to re-evaluate a candidate's suitability based on their service record. Finding that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that adverse entries were expunged and that the Commission acted within its authority to withdraw the nomination, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conditional recommendation by the Federal Public Service Commission create a vested right to appointment for a candidate?
  • Is the appointing authority legally bound to accept the recommendations of the Federal Public Service Commission?
  • Can the Federal Public Service Commission withdraw a nomination upon re-evaluating a candidate's service record and character antecedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Saleem1996 PLD Supreme Court 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06
  evictionpersonal neednatural justicecross-examinationsecond appeallandlord and tenantrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an eviction petition filed by a landlord against a tenant on the grounds of personal need. The core legal question was whether a High Court judge, hearing a second appeal, could bypass established evidentiary procedures by personally summoning and questioning the landlord regarding his bona fide need, without administering an oath or allowing the tenant to cross-examine the landlord. The Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted by the High Court was legally flawed and violated the rules of natural justice. The Court reasoned that while the High Court judge acknowledged the landlord should ordinarily testify, the judge's subsequent reliance on the landlord's unsworn, un-cross-examined explanation to influence the decision caused prejudice to the tenant. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, directing that the landlord's statement be recorded on oath with full opportunity for cross-examination by the tenant. The key principle established is that judicial proceedings, even in appellate stages, must adhere to fundamental rules of natural justice, ensuring that any evidence considered by the court is subject to cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court rely on an unsworn statement made by a party in chambers without allowing the opposing party to cross-examine?
  • Does a landlord's failure to personally depose regarding personal need in rent proceedings constitute a fatal defect?
  • Is it a violation of natural justice for a judge to base a decision on information obtained outside the formal evidentiary record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamm Ad Khan through Legal Heris and others vs Ghulam Rasul and 21996 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31
  pre-emptionco-sharermutationright of pre-emptionremand of caseburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a pre-emption dispute where the appellants challenged the dismissal of their suits by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the vendees/respondents had successfully acquired the status of co-sharers in the suit land, thereby defeating the appellants' right of pre-emption, based on the assertion that certain sale transactions (Mutations Nos. 635, 636, and 641) had not been challenged by the appellants. The High Court and District Judge had previously dismissed the appellants' suits, concluding there was no evidence that these specific sales were subject to pre-emption litigation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appellants had produced sufficient documentation demonstrating that these transactions were indeed subject to pending pre-emption proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellants' testimony regarding the pre-emption of these sales remained unchallenged in cross-examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the respondents could not be deemed co-sharers at this stage. The judgments of the High Court and District Judge were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to challenge a witness's statement regarding the pre-emption of specific sale transactions constitute an admission of those facts?
  • Can a vendee be considered a co-sharer in suit land if the sale transactions relied upon to establish that status are themselves subject to pending pre-emption litigation?
  • Is a case liable to be remanded when the lower courts have failed to properly appreciate evidence regarding the existence of pending pre-emption suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mueenullah vs The Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital, Kasur and another1996 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  Punjab Service TribunalRemoval from serviceDismissed as not pressedReview jurisdictionDepartmental inquiryMisconductLeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his review application seeking recall of an earlier order that had dismissed his service appeal as not pressed. The petitioner, a Laboratory Assistant removed from service following departmental inquiry proceedings concerning allegations of severe misconduct and attempt to rape a hospital visitor, claimed that he had not withdrawn his appeal. The core legal questions pertained to the review jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal under the relevant procedural rules and whether an order dismissing an appeal as withdrawn could be reopened on factual contestations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the review power of the Service Tribunal under the procedural rules is restricted to correcting clerical errors or exceptional circumstances, rather than resolving contested factual questions regarding whether an appeal was voluntarily withdrawn when the appellant was admittedly present at the hearing. Examining the inquiry on merits, the Court found no substance in the challenge. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction under Rule 22 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975 to review an order beyond correcting clerical mistakes?
  • Can a party reopen an appeal dismissed as not pressed by challenging the factual recording of withdrawal when they were present at the time of the order?
  • Does the Registrar of the Service Tribunal have the authority to dispose of an application seeking review or recall of a Tribunal's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muddassar alias Jimmi vs The State1996 SCMR 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-25
  ocular evidenceinterested witnessprompt F.I.R.medical evidenceQatl-i-Amdsentence specificationcross-examination practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for murder under Section 302 PPC. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' reliance on ocular evidence, arguing that the witnesses were interested and the F.I.R. was delayed, thereby suggesting a concocted case. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the occurrence took place in broad daylight, the F.I.R. was lodged promptly, and the medical evidence supported the ocular account. The Court held that mere relationship to the deceased does not render witnesses 'interested' if no specific enmity is proven. It affirmed the convictions, ruling that when the presence of eye-witnesses is established in a daylight occurrence and the F.I.R. is prompt, no further corroboration is required. Additionally, the Court criticized the trial court's failure to specify the subsection of Section 302 PPC under which the accused were convicted, emphasizing the mandatory requirement under Section 367 Cr.P.C. for courts to clearly state the specific provision and reasoning for the sentence imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render them 'interested' witnesses requiring independent corroboration?
  • Is a trial court required to specify the exact subsection of Section 302 PPC when convicting an accused for murder?
  • Can a court rely on ocular evidence without further corroboration if the occurrence happened in daylight and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly?
  • Does the presence of rigor mortis in a post-mortem report necessarily contradict an ocular account of the time of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi and others vs Rehabilitation Commissioner1996 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-01
  leave to appealland allotmenttemporary allotmentrehabilitation commissionerconcurrent findings of factstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Division Bench which allowed an intra-court appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order and the Rehabilitation Commissioner's order regarding the disputed land. The core legal dispute involved the legality of a permanent land allotment made to the respondents' predecessor over land temporarily allotted to the petitioners, specifically questioning whether the allotment was obtained without notice and without proper transfer of claims. The Supreme Court considered the contentions regarding the lack of notice, the absence of a competent authority's order for transferring the claim, and whether the Division Bench erred in setting aside concurrent findings of fact without establishing misreading or non-consideration of material. The Court held that the contentions required consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal, ordering that status quo continue in the meanwhile.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of land can be obtained without notice to the temporary allottee in possession?
  • Can a Division Bench set aside findings of fact recorded by a Rehabilitation Commissioner and affirmed by a Single Judge without establishing misreading or non-consideration of material on record?
  • Whether a person can obtain permanent allotment of land without transferring their claim by order of a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasneem Jahan, Assistant Mistress vs Mrs. Saeeda Azra Sabri, Assistant Mistress and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-17
  service seniorityteacher senioritytemporary appointmentregularization of servicedepartmental selectionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a service dispute concerning the inter se seniority of two Assistant Mistresses, Mrs. Tasneem Jahan (appellant) and Mrs. Saeeda Azra Sabri (respondent No. 1), in the P & T Model School, Lahore. The core legal question involved the correct determination of seniority between teachers appointed on different dates and under varying temporary or leave vacancy arrangements prior to the enforcement of departmental service rules. The Federal Service Tribunal had previously accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside the departmental seniority determination. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the criteria adopted by the Service Tribunal were outside the law and that neither party's initial temporary appointment was regular until the formalization under the departmental rules of 1983. The Court ruled that since the appellant had passed her B.Ed. examination earlier in 1971 compared to the respondent in 1974, and had been continuously officiating and appointed earlier, the departmental authority's finding on her seniority was valid and not liable to be interfered with. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can adopt criteria for determining inter se seniority that are outside the applicable civil servants law and rules?
  • Does an earlier appointment and earlier qualification of a professional examination confer superior seniority when initial appointments were temporary?
  • Are administrative orders canceling previous appointments behind the back of an employee binding on them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another vs Allah Bakhsh1996 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-06
  civil procedurestatus quo orderinjunction violationex parte decreeundertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether a prohibitory order not directly addressed to the petitioners could be enforced against them through an attorney. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had instituted a civil suit which was decreed ex parte, and subsequently gifted the suit land to the appellants. The respondent applied to set aside the ex parte decree and obtained a status quo order. Later, the respondent alleged violation of this order through construction on the land. The trial court found the violation occurred and ordered removal of the construction, which was upheld through successive appeals in the High Court. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the appellants' attorney and counsel offered a binding written undertaking that upon the dismissal of their suit, the appellants would at their own cost remove the structures and machinery and vacate the land within fifteen days. The respondent's counsel expressed no objection to this course. The Supreme Court accepted the joint statement, modified the High Court's order in terms of the undertaking, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a prohibitory order not directed towards a party can be utilized for punishing them on the assumed knowledge of a subsequently appointed attorney?
  • Can construction raised in violation of a subsistence status quo order be ordered to be removed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Bibi vs Muhammad Khan and others1996 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-03
  inheritanceadverse possessionjoint khatalimitationco-ownerssecond appealjoint possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of a deceased landowner, Umar Din, who died in 1951-52. A mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in 1953, allocating shares to the appellant (daughter of the deceased's sister) and the respondents. In 1966, the respondents filed a suit for joint possession, claiming the appellant was not a legal heir. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the appellant was not entitled to inherit and had not established adverse possession, and that the suit was within limitation being part of a joint khata. The Additional District Judge reversed this, but the Lahore High Court accepted the second appeal and restored the trial court's judgment. The core legal questions involved the limitation period and the plea of adverse possession by a person holding land within a joint khata. The Supreme Court held that since the land was held in a joint khata and possession remained with all co-owners, and the appellant produced no evidence of open and hostile possession, the plea of adverse possession failed and the suit was within limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for joint possession of land held in a joint khata is within limitation when filed by co-owners against a person not entitled to inheritance?
  • Can a person claiming adverse possession over joint property succeed without proving open, hostile, and continuous possession against the real owners?
  • Does possession of a co-owner in a joint khata amount to adverse possession against other co-owners in the absence of clear evidence of hostility?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samra Ashfaq vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, S &1996 PLC (C.S.) 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  advance incrementshigher qualificationsservice tribunal jurisdictionscientisttechnical departmentpsychologistterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Psychologist appointed on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, challenged the dismissal of her appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal regarding her claim for advance increments based on her M. Phil. degree under a Finance Department Circular dated 24-8-1983. The core legal questions involved whether a psychologist qualifies as a "scientist" under the circular, whether her employer constitutes a "technical department," and whether the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that psychology falls within social sciences, making a psychologist a "scientist," and that the evaluation duties performed render the department technical, meaning the appellant was entitled to the advance increments as a term and condition of service. The Court further held that the Service Tribunal did possess jurisdiction. Although the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds of limitation, the Court directed the respondents to review the appellant's case in light of this judgment. The key principle laid down is that the term "scientist" in notifications granting financial incentives for higher qualifications encompasses social scientists like psychologists when performing technical assessment duties, and service tribunals have jurisdiction over disputes concerning terms and conditions of service such as entitled advance increments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Psychologist holding an M. Phil. degree qualifies as a scientist entitled to advance increments under the Finance Department circular?
  • Does the Public Service Commission or a similar department qualify as a technical department for the purpose of granting advance increments for higher qualifications?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction over claims regarding advance increments claimed as a term and condition of service?
  • How should statutory terms like 'scientist' and 'technical' be interpreted when used in a notification enumerating distinct professional categories without a common genus?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samra Ashfaq vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary S'&1996 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  advance incrementsservice lawsocial scientisttechnical departmentservice tribunal jurisdictioninterpretation of circularspublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for advance increments based on higher qualifications, citing lack of jurisdiction and limitation. The appellant, an Assistant Psychologist, argued she qualified as a "scientist" under a Finance Department Circular. The core legal questions concerned whether a psychologist constitutes a "scientist" within the circular's meaning, whether the Public Service Commission qualifies as a "technical department," and whether the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over the dispute. The Supreme Court held that psychologists fall within the category of social scientists and that the nature of the appellant's duties in the Public Service Commission constitutes technical work. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, as the entitlement to increments constituted a term and condition of service. The Court further established that when a tribunal determines it lacks jurisdiction, it should refrain from adjudicating the merits of the case. Although the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds, the Court directed the respondents to review the appellant's claim in light of this interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'scientist' in the context of government advance increment policies include psychologists?
  • Is the Public Service Commission considered a 'technical department' for the purpose of granting advance increments?
  • Should a Service Tribunal express an opinion on the merits of a case after determining it lacks jurisdiction?
  • Does a claim for advance increments based on a government circular constitute a term and condition of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Bibi vs Manzoor Hussain and others1996 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-09
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MuwasibatTalab-i-Ishhadright of pre-emptionpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the proper fulfillment of the prerequisite demands of Talab-e-Muwasibat (demand of jumping/immediacy) under the law of pre-emption, specifically whether a demand made by the husband of a pre-emptor who lacked power of attorney at the time satisfies the legal requirement, and whether the pre-emptors themselves established making the requisite demand. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court—that Talab-e-Muwasibat was not proved to have been made by the pre-emptors themselves and that the demand by the husband was legally incompetent—were based on a correct appraisal of evidence and not open to exception. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a demand by an unauthorized person cannot substitute for the personal demand required of the pre-emptor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Talab-e-Muwasibat can be legally made by a husband on behalf of pre-emptor wives without a valid power of attorney at the relevant time?
  • Is the concurrent finding of lower courts regarding the failure to prove Talab-e-Muwasibat open to interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Jan alias Noor Jehan vs The State1996 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23
  forgeryimpersonationcriminal proceedingsstay of proceedingsrevenue mutationconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's convictions under sections 419, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of impersonating a deceased woman to fraudulently claim land ownership, involving the procurement of a forged national identity card and false revenue record entries. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for forgery and impersonation should be stayed pending the outcome of parallel proceedings before Revenue Authorities regarding the validity of land mutations. The Supreme Court held that the criminal proceedings were independent of the revenue proceedings. The Court reasoned that while civil courts may take precedence in cases of breach of contract, the criminal offences of forgery and impersonation were distinct acts already accomplished, regardless of the revenue mutation outcome. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt and refused leave to appeal, establishing that criminal liability for forgery and impersonation does not depend on the outcome of concurrent revenue mutation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Should criminal proceedings for forgery and impersonation be stayed pending the outcome of parallel revenue proceedings regarding land mutation?
  • Does the pendency of a civil or revenue dispute regarding property title bar criminal prosecution for forgery and impersonation related to that property?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal absent plausible grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi and 4 others vs Naazir Hussain1996 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-09
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionconsolidation of suitscoercion and undue influencefindings of factcivil procedureappellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute involving two consolidated suits: one for the cancellation of an agreement due to alleged coercion and undue influence, and another for specific performance of the same agreement. The Trial Court decreed the cancellation suit, but the Appellate Court reversed this, dismissing the cancellation suit. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, set aside the Appellate Court's decision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional powers and whether the Appellate Court's failure to address the specific performance suit, due to technical defects in filing, warranted dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by interfering with findings of fact that were not perverse. Furthermore, the Court established that technical failures arising from the consolidation of suits, such as the omission to file separate decree sheets, should be rectified by the court rather than resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Appellate Court's judgment and decreed specific performance, finding no evidence of coercion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the findings are not perverse?
  • Should an appellate court dismiss an appeal due to technical defects in filing when the underlying suits were consolidated?
  • Does the failure to file separate decree sheets in consolidated suits justify the dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qasiloar Bibi vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary N.-1996 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  family pensioncivil servantresignationdeputationlachesservice recordleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the refusal of the respondent government authorities to grant family pension to the petitioner in respect of her deceased husband. The core legal questions involve whether the deceased husband had validly resigned from service in 1974, disentitling him to pensionary benefits, and whether the constitutional petition suffered from gross laches. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the validity of the alleged resignation, the conduct of the departmental inquiry without association of the employee, the entitlement to pension for the period served prior to resignation, and the condonation of delay for an invalid female claimant involve substantial questions of law and public importance. The key principle laid down is that contentious factual issues regarding resignation and fraud in service records, alongside the question of condoning delay in compassionate service matters, warrant a thorough examination by the apex court upon granting leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who allegedly resigned while on deputation is deprived of pensionary benefits for the service rendered prior to the resignation?
  • Can a departmental inquiry regarding the removal and suppression of a resignation from service records be conducted without associating the employee concerned?
  • Whether the delay in filing a constitutional petition for family pension by an invalid female claimant can be condoned on the ground of hardship?
  • Whether the parent department or the borrowing department is responsible for settling pensionary claims and collecting pension contributions during a period of deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qashqar Bibi vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P. and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  family pensionleave to appealdeputationqualifying serviceresignationlachescivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 24-10-1994, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking family pension following the death of her husband. The petitioner's husband had retired from the Buildings and Roads Department of the Government of N.-W.F.P. After serving on deputation in the Rural Works Programme. Both the parent and borrowing departments denied pensionary benefits, asserting that the employee had resigned in 1974, fraudulently manipulated service records, and lacked the requisite qualifying service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on merits and for gross laches. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged resignation and subsequent inquiry were conducted without associating the deceased, that qualifying service prior to 1974 was completed regardless, and that delay ought to have been condoned. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised involved substantial questions of law and public importance, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inquiry into an employee's alleged resignation and record manipulation conducted without associating the employee can validly form the basis for denying pensionary benefits?
  • Whether service rendered prior to an alleged resignation constitutes qualifying service entitling an employee or their legal heir to proportionate pensionary benefits?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a constitutional petition for family pension solely on the ground of gross laches where the petitioner is an invalid female pursuing relief across departments?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat vs The State1996 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-27
  ad interim bailwelfare of minorsuckling childIslamic jurisprudenceadministration of justicebail in murder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for ad interim bail filed by Mst. Nusrat, who was accused of murder and detained in jail alongside her suckling infant. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the presence of a suckling child in jail with an accused mother warrants the grant of bail, considering the welfare of the minor. The Court held that the detention of an innocent infant in jail is incompatible with the child's welfare. Relying on Islamic jurisprudence, specifically the precedent set by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) regarding the suspension of sentences for pregnant women and nursing mothers, the Court emphasized the paramount importance of protecting a child's rights. Consequently, the Court granted ad interim bail to the petitioner to ensure the child's well-being. The judgment establishes the principle that the welfare of a suckling child is a significant consideration in bail proceedings and affirms that Islamic principles of justice should guide judicial decision-making in Pakistan, taking precedence over Western legal concepts in the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a suckling child in jail with an accused mother constitute a valid ground for the grant of ad interim bail?
  • Should Islamic principles of justice be given overriding effect over Western principles in the administration of justice in Pakistan?
  • Is the detention of an innocent infant in jail compatible with the concept of the welfare of the minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Firdaus vs Khadim Hussain1996 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-26
  minor custodyguardians and wardswelfare of the minorfather's right to custodyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a writ petition regarding the custody of a minor. The minor, Adnan Khadim, had been in the custody and care of his maternal aunt, Mst. Nighat Firdaus, since the death of his mother in 1983, pursuant to an agreement executed by the respondent father. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor, which was eventually allowed by the courts below, directing the custody to be handed over to the father, while the High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition. The core legal question concerns whether the father is entitled to custody as of right upon the minor attaining a certain age, or whether the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the minor. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether it is in the best interest and welfare of the minor to remain with the petitioner or be handed over to the father, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the father is entitled to the custody of a minor as of right after the minor attains the age of seven years?
  • Does the welfare of the minor override the natural father's right to custody under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • What is the determining factor in cases involving the custody of a minor when the child has been raised by a relative for a prolonged period?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Bashir vs Shoukat Faizi through his Legal Heirs1996 SCMR 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23
  eviction applicationpersonal needbona fide requirementchange of circumstancesRent ControllerSindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979tenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which set aside an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant and dismissed the landlord's eviction application. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in holding that the appellant-landlord failed to establish a bona fide personal need under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 due to an earlier dismissed eviction application filed by her mother. The Supreme Court observed that material changes in circumstances had occurred since the previous application, including the transfer of the parents' house to the appellant's brother and the return of the appellant's husband from abroad to work in Pakistan. Finding that the landlord owned no other premises and that her assertion to reside independently in her own house was bona fide, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's eviction order while allowing the tenant's legal representatives one year to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in circumstances justify a fresh eviction application on the ground of personal need following the dismissal of an earlier application?
  • Whether a married landlord living in a house owned by her brother can establish a bona fide personal requirement to occupy her own rented house?
  • Can a High Court set aside a Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement without considering material changes in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Niaz Par Veen vs Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19
  service mattertransfer orderlimitationcondonation of delayservice tribunaladministrative efficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute between two Lady Health Visitors (L.H.Vs) regarding frequent, conflicting transfer orders issued by health authorities. The respondent, Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen, challenged a cancellation of her transfer order before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which accepted her appeal and restored her previous posting. The petitioner, Mst. Niaz Parveen, sought leave to appeal, primarily arguing that the respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, as it was filed beyond the 120-day statutory period without a formal application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter and observed that the authorities had engaged in a cycle of frequent transfers and cancellations, which adversely impacted the efficiency and morale of the employees. While acknowledging the petitioner's argument regarding the limitation period, the Court found no fault in the Service Tribunal's decision to deprecate the authorities' erratic transfer practices. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal condone a delay in filing an appeal without a formal application for condonation of delay?
  • Does the frequent issuance and cancellation of transfer orders by administrative authorities constitute a valid ground for judicial intervention?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musrat Begum and others vs Syed Ghulam Ali and others1996 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  ejectmentsublettingpartnership deedtenancy rightsdefault in rentbona fide requirementleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the concurrent orders of ejectment passed against the petitioners in respect of a shop. The respondents filed an ejectment application on grounds of subletting without consent, default in rent, and personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller and the appellate court both ordered ejectment, finding all grounds proved, particularly emphasizing that a partnership deed executed by the original tenant's successor had created an interest in the tenancy in favour of a non-tenant partner, thereby constituting unlawful subletting. The Supreme Court examined the terms of the partnership deed and observed that the agreement conferred proprietary and tenancy rights upon the incoming partner, which amounted to parting with possession and subletting without the landlord's consent. The Court held that creating an interest of a third party in the tenancy through a partnership agreement without the landlord's permission constitutes subletting under the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of an interest of a non-tenant partner in a tenancy through a partnership agreement amount to subletting?
  • Whether entering into a partnership deed without the landlord's consent constitutes unlawful parting with possession of the demised premises?
  • Does the death of one of the partners in a two-person partnership result in the dissolution of the firm?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower forums regarding subletting and default open to interference when supported by terms of a partnership deed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehbooba vs Abdul Jaul1996 SCMR 1063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-08
  dowry articlesmovable propertymarket value assessmentexecution of decreerestitution of ornamentsfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between a divorced wife and her former husband and father-in-law regarding the recovery of dowry articles and golden ornaments retained by the defendants. The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit, but after remand, decreed it in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court subsequently modified this decree, reducing the awarded amount to the original purchase price of the ornaments rather than their current market value. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was determining the appropriate date for assessing the market value of movable property (gold ornaments) when a decree for delivery is unexecutable. The Supreme Court held that under Order XX, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court must assess the value of the property based on the market rate prevailing at the time of the institution of the suit, rather than at the time of the decree or the cause of action. The Court set aside the lower courts' valuation and directed the executing court to determine the value based on the market rate at the time of the suit's institution.

  Questions settled

  • What is the relevant date for determining the market value of movable property when a decree for its delivery is unexecutable?
  • Does Section 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, provide a mechanism for determining the market value of movable property in an unexecutable decree?
  • Under Order XX, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, must a court specify an alternative monetary value for movable property if delivery cannot be effected?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Malik and others vs Assistant Commissioner and others1996 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-31
  evacuee propertyjoint khataallotment of landconstitutional jurisdictionreview petitionpartition of landremedy exhaustion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns review petitions filed against a Supreme Court judgment that had dismissed appeals challenging a High Court order. The dispute originated from the allotment of land to displaced persons, which included land allegedly owned by Muslim co-sharers in joint Khatas. The core legal questions were whether the High Court was justified in interfering with a Collector's remand order in its constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the allotment of evacuee property could override the rights of Muslim co-sharers without proper partition. The Court, by majority, dismissed the review petitions. It held that the High Court's interference with the Collector's remand order was improper because the Collector’s order was based on sound reasoning regarding the necessity of first incorporating registered sale-deeds into the record and then partitioning the joint holdings to separate evacuee land from Muslim-owned land. The judgment emphasizes that while the High Court has discretionary power under Article 199, it should not interfere with orders where adequate alternate remedies exist, and that finality of previous adjudications regarding non-evacuee status must be respected.

  Questions settled

  • Is the rule requiring the exhaustion of alternate remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction a rigid rule of law or a rule of convenience and discretion?
  • Can an allotment of evacuee property in a joint Khata be sustained without first partitioning the land to separate the evacuee interest from the interest of Muslim co-sharers?
  • Does the discovery of a judgment that was binding on the parties but overlooked by the Court constitute a sufficient ground for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C.?
  • Does the issuance of an allotment order by settlement authorities automatically effect a partition of a joint Khata?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jewan Bibi and 2 others vs Inayat Masih1996 SCMR 1430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21
  public auctionhighest bidvested rightwithdrawal of constitutional petitionlease rightsexport taxcivil procedure codelocal government
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the public auction of lease rights for the collection of export tax by the Zila Council, Okara, for the year 1995-1996. The core legal questions involved whether there was a concluded binding contract in favor of the appellants who offered the highest bid at the initial auction, whether they were legally deprived of it, and whether the High Court rightly declined an unconditional withdrawal of a connected constitutional petition while ordering a fresh re-auction. The Supreme Court held that merely participating in a public auction and submitting the highest bid does not vest any absolute right in the bidder, particularly when the auction was subject to government approval and was validly rejected by the competent authority for cogent reasons in the public interest. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to civil-nature writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, meaning a court has discretion to refuse unconditional withdrawal if it defeats accrued rights or perpetuates injustice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a participant in a public auction acquires a vested right to the acceptance of their bid merely by offering the highest bid?
  • Whether the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to constitutional petitions of a civil nature?
  • Under what circumstances can a court decline a request for the unconditional withdrawal of a constitutional petition?
  • Does the government or a public functionary have the authority to reject the highest bid in a public auction on the ground of inadequacy of consideration or in the public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajran through Mst. Umatul Hafeez vs Abdul Aziz and another1996 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-13
  leave to appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayex parte orderconsolidation of holdingsreview petitionBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a Board of Revenue order on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question is whether the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a review petition filed pursuant to a specific direction in an earlier ex parte order, or if such a petition falls outside the scope of statutory limitation periods. The High Court had held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable to the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957, thereby invalidating the Board's condonation of delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the petitioner's argument that the review was not a standard statutory review but was filed in compliance with a specific reservation made by the Member, Board of Revenue in the original 1966 order, which had directed that the petitioner be heard upon production of the order copy. The Court held that the applicability of the Limitation Act to this specific procedural context requires further examination.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a review petition filed under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957?
  • Can a review petition filed in compliance with a specific reservation in an earlier ex parte order be treated as distinct from a statutory review petition for limitation purposes?
  • Is a party entitled to file a review petition if the original order specifically granted liberty to seek review upon production of the order copy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gumbad and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1996 SCMR 1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-14
  revisional jurisdictionsuo motu actionlimitationrevenue recordpossessioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court, which had exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a trial court's decree and remand the matter for re-writing due to an alleged failure to properly address the question of limitation under section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908. The core legal question was whether the High Court could validly invoke its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., when no appeal or revision had been filed by any aggrieved party against a final decree. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court possesses vast discretionary powers to act suo motu under section 115, C.P.C. in exceptional circumstances, there were no special circumstances justifying interference in this case, especially since the appellants had been in continuous possession of the suit land since 1904 and the suit was not time-barred. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the High Court's remand order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when no appeal has been filed by any party?
  • Does section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 impose a mandatory duty upon the court to consider the question of limitation before embarking on other aspects of a case?
  • Does continuous long-standing possession of land from 1904 negate a limitation bar in a suit for correction of revenue records?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Nisa and 4 others vs Muhammad Arif and 12 others1996 SCMR 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-09
  Land ownership disputeLimitation periodRevenue record correctionBanjar QadeemCause of actionPossessory title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a dispute over land ownership, possession, and the limitation period for challenging revenue record entries. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and correction of revenue records was time-barred, specifically regarding when the cause of action accrued. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by deciding the limitation issue without first determining the underlying questions of title and possession. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits. The key principle laid down is that a mere incorrect entry in the revenue record does not necessarily trigger the limitation period for a suit. Instead, the limitation period is determined by when a positive threat to the owner's title or possession arises. Consequently, the court must first establish the nature of the land, the rightful title holder, and the party in possession before applying the relevant limitation provisions to determine if the suit was filed within time.

  Questions settled

  • Does a simple incorrect entry in the revenue record automatically trigger the limitation period for a suit for declaration of title?
  • Must a court determine the questions of title and possession before adjudicating on the issue of limitation in a land dispute?
  • When does the cause of action arise for a suit challenging revenue record entries regarding land ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bor Bibi and others vs Abdul Qadir and others1996 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-17
  landlord and tenantagreement to sellspecific performancedefault in payment of rentejectmentco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan ordering the eviction of the appellants. The core legal question involved whether a tenant, having set up an agreement to sell executed by one of the co-owner landlords during the currency of the tenancy and having filed a suit for specific performance, can resist eviction and retain possession without paying rent pending the resolution of the title dispute. The Supreme Court held that the status of a tenant remains that of a tenant notwithstanding a pending agreement to sell, and non-payment of rent entitles the landlord to seek ejectment. The Court laid down that an agreement to sell does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship or the obligation to pay rent, and a tenant setting up a hostile title cannot indefinitely retain possession during protracted litigation without establishing their right before a competent civil court at their own cost, leaving the issue of the validity of the sale agreement to the pending civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can withhold rent and resist eviction on the basis of a pending suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell?
  • Does an agreement to sell executed by a co-owner landlord alter the status of the tenant to that of an owner during the pendency of a title suit?
  • Can a landlord institute ejectment proceedings against a tenant notwithstanding a disputed agreement to sell regarding a portion of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilquis Fatima and 3 others vs Nasim Ahsan and 2 others1996 SCMR 1057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-02
  Specific Relief ActCode of Civil ProcedureRight of cross-examinationProcedural defaultRemand of caseInheritance rightsSubstantive justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for possession of property filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court and High Court erred in denying the defendants the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs and lead evidence due to procedural defaults, and whether the High Court failed to address the merits of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by prioritizing technical procedural defaults over substantive justice. The Court emphasized that in matters involving significant rights, such as inheritance claims by a widow and children, the Trial Court should have adopted a lenient approach, allowing the defendants to lead evidence and cross-examine the plaintiffs, subject to appropriate costs. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case for a fresh decision, establishing the principle that procedural rules should be applied to facilitate, not obstruct, the determination of substantive rights, particularly where a party's right to defend their inheritance is at stake.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court should allow a defendant to lead evidence and cross-examine plaintiffs despite previous procedural defaults?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to dismiss a revision petition by focusing solely on procedural history without addressing the merits of the underlying decree?
  • Should a court prioritize technical procedural compliance over the substantive rights of legal heirs in a suit for possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Suhair Mamdouth Sudki Deais Dar vs Nabeel Dar and another1996 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10
  minor custodyinterim custodyGuardians and Wards Acthabeas corpusleave to appealFamily Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sindh High Court regarding the custody of a minor child, Afzal Nabeel Dar. The petitioner, a Jordanian national, had previously obtained interim custody of the child through proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Subsequently, the High Court directed that the question of interim custody should be determined by the Family Court at Hyderabad, where substantive proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 were already pending. The petitioner challenged this direction before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's order, reasoning that the Family Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate interim custody matters under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 while the main custody application is pending. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal and discharged the interim stay order, noting that any alleged violation of the High Court's previous orders regarding the child's removal from jurisdiction remained a matter for the High Court to address.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can direct parties to seek interim custody orders from the Family Court when substantive custody proceedings are already pending there?
  • Is a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the appropriate remedy for determining interim custody of a minor when a Family Court is already seized of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi and 4 others vs President of Pakistan and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-14
  Field General Court MartialArticle 184(3)public importancemilitary jurisdictionouster of jurisdictioncoram non judicemala fidewaging war against Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  Five Constitutional Petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan directly challenging the arrest, detention, and ongoing trial of military officers by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) convened under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, for alleged conspiracy to overthrow the Federal Government. The primary legal questions concerned whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to entertain challenges against Court Martial proceedings, given the constitutional and statutory limitations under Article 8(3), Article 199(3), and Section 133 of the Army Act, and whether the matter raised a question of public importance concerning Fundamental Rights. By a majority of 2 to 1, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable. The Court held that Court Martial proceedings and matters involving military personnel are generally outside the writ jurisdiction of superior courts unless the actions are shown to be coram non judice, without jurisdiction, or mala fide, and that the internal disciplinary trial of military officers did not involve a question of public importance under Article 184(3).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can exercise original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to interfere with the ongoing trial of military personnel before a Field General Court Martial?
  • Does a criminal proceeding and Court Martial trial of military officers for conspiracy against the State constitute a question of public importance for the purposes of Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Can superior courts exercise judicial review over actions taken under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in the absence of proof that the proceedings are coram non judice, without jurisdiction, or mala fide?
  • Does the non-production of an arrested military officer before a civil Magistrate within 24 hours under Article 10(2) of the Constitution invalidate an arrest validly executed under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Maqsooda Begum vs Ghulam Qadir and others1996 SCMR 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-30
  suit for possessionlimitation periodadverse possessionbenami transactioncivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the summary dismissal of her civil revision application by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts granting a suit for possession of the disputed property in favour of the respondents. The predecessor of the respondents had purchased the property via a registered sale-deed in 1947. After an unsuccessful ejectment petition where the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established, the respondents filed a suit for possession based on title. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner abandoned the plea that the property was purchased benami and pressed solely on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that Article 142 did not apply as the suit was based on title rather than dispossession. Regarding Article 144, the Court held that limitation begins when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff, which in this case occurred when the petitioner denied the respondents' title in her written statement in the prior rent proceedings. Since the suit was filed within twelve years of that date, it was within time. The petition was dismissed and leave refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit for possession of immovable property filed on the basis of title rather than dispossession?
  • When does the limitation period commence for a suit for possession governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the denial of a plaintiff's title in a written statement during prior rent proceedings constitute the starting point for adverse possession?
  • Whether a suit for possession filed within twelve years of setting up an adverse claim in rent proceedings is within time under Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohsinur Rehman vs The State1996 SCMR 490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  murderleave to appealeyewitness credibilityrecovery of weaponappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Lahore High Court regarding the murder of the deceased, Rehmat Ali. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the natural presence of witnesses at the scene, the validity of the recovery of the weapon of offense, and the sufficiency of the motive established by the prosecution. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, determining that the presence of the deceased's family members at the scene was natural given the location of the occurrence. The Court further held that the recovery of the blood-stained weapon was sufficiently corroborated by police testimony and that no material contradictions existed in the prosecution's case. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the conviction was based on a proper appraisal of the evidence presented.

  Questions settled

  • Is the presence of family members at the scene of a crime considered natural when the location is adjacent to their residence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon of offense, corroborated by police testimony, constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohmmad Arshad and others vs State1996 SCMR 1686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-19
  leave to appealmurderocular evidenceappreciation of evidencelimitationeyewitness testimonysentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 30-1-1993, which maintained the conviction of the petitioner Muhammad Arshad under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life, and dismissed the complainant's petition on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns the reliability of related and chance eyewitnesses and the sufficiency of uncorroborated ocular testimony for maintaining a murder conviction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the credibility of the eyewitnesses were based on valid reasons and detailed scrutiny of the record, and no grounds existed to interfere with the conviction. Furthermore, the complainant's petition was barred by limitation without sufficient cause shown for condonation. The Supreme Court laid down that ocular testimony found reliable upon detailed scrutiny by courts below warrants no interference, and related or chance witnesses whose presence is established can sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncorroborated testimony of related and chance eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the reliability of eyewitnesses recorded by the trial court and the High Court?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal barred by time can be entertained without showing a reasonable ground for condoning the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Mitha vs The State1996 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-11
  murderdeath sentenceocular testimonypolice station occurrencejail petitiontime-barred
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arose from a judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner on three counts for murder committed inside a police station. The prosecution case was that the petitioner's wife had been detained pursuant to a search warrant, and during her stay at the police station, the petitioner inflicted fatal and grievous injuries with a Kassi on his wife, mother-in-law, and father-in-law. The petitioner denied the charges, claiming false implication by police officers to conceal their own alleged misconduct and sexual abuse. The Supreme Court evaluated the ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, finding the prosecution witnesses natural and corroborated, and the petitioner's defense implausible. Furthermore, the petition was found to be barred by a delay of 900 days. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had properly assessed the evidence, and accordingly dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ocular testimony of police officials and eyewitnesses can be relied upon when corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries?
  • Can a belated jail petition suffering from an inordinate delay of hundreds of days be entertained without sufficient cause?
  • Whether the defense plea of false implication by police officials for an occurrence inside a police station is tenable without substantiating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Zubeda Bibi vs Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-03
  medical college admissiondomicile certificateadministrative hypertechnicalitybona fide residencedistrict bifurcationreserved seats
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the denial of admission to the First Year M.B.,B.S. course at Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the 1990-91 session. The appellant was rejected because her father's domicile certificate, issued in 1973, predated the 1975 bifurcation of Quetta District, which created Pishin District where the family resided. The Selection Committee insisted on a fresh certificate for Pishin District. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be denied admission based on a technicality regarding the domicile certificate when the family remained bona fide residents of the area. The Supreme Court held that the refusal was legally unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the 1973 certificate remained valid for the area now falling within Pishin District, as the family's residency status had not changed. The Court established the principle that administrative requirements for domicile certificates should not be applied in a hypertechnical manner to defeat the rights of bona fide residents, provided the underlying factual residency is established and the certificate has not been cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Does a domicile certificate issued prior to the bifurcation of a district remain valid for the newly created district if the holder's residence has not changed?
  • Can a candidate be denied admission to a medical college on the basis of a hypertechnical interpretation of domicile certificate requirements?
  • Is the production of a fresh domicile certificate mandatory when the original certificate covers the geographical area in question despite administrative district changes?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Waheeda Shafi vs University of Engineering & Technology, Taxila1996 PLD Supreme Court 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-07
  review petitionuniversity admissionprospectus interpretationeducational institutionservice quotawrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition arises from a dispute regarding admission criteria at the University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila. The petitioner, Miss Waheeda Shafi, sought admission under Category 'M' of the 1994 Undergraduate Prospectus, claiming entitlement based on her father's prior seven-year service at the institution. The University authorities denied admission, as the petitioner failed to qualify on open merit and did not satisfy the specific requirements of Rule 27.11. The Lahore High Court dismissed her initial writ petition, and an Intra-Court Appeal was subsequently rejected. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. In this review petition, the petitioner contends that Rule 27.11(b) of the Prospectus, when read in its entirety, covers her case despite her father having left the University's service. The petitioner argues that the Court is obligated to apply the prevailing law regardless of whether it was explicitly cited during the initial hearing. Finding that the points raised by the petitioner warrant further judicial examination, the Supreme Court admitted the review petition for regular hearing and issued notice to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does a rule in a university prospectus regarding admission quotas for children of employees apply if the employee has already left the service of the institution?
  • Is the Court obligated to apply the prevailing law to a case even if that law was not brought to its notice during the initial hearing?
  • Does the interpretation of a specific category in an undergraduate prospectus require a holistic reading of the entire rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Safia Haider vs Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and 3 others1996 SCMR 1251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-05
  medical college admissionprospectus interpretationeligibility criteriarelaxation of rulesultra viresacademic qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from the rejection of the appellant's admission to Bolan Medical College, Quetta, on the ground that she had passed her Matriculation in the Humanities Group rather than with Science subjects. The Selection Committee had relaxed this condition under Paragraph 30 of the Prospectus, citing the absence of science teachers in her home area and a prior relaxation policy of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Baluchistan. The core legal question was whether Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Prospectus must be read together to determine eligibility, and whether the Selection Committee possessed the power to relax the requirement of Matriculation with Science. The Supreme Court held that Paragraphs 29 and 30 must be read in conjunction, making Matriculation with Science an mandatory eligibility requirement. The exemption power in Paragraph 30 only applied to studying outside Baluchistan, not to bypassing the Science subject requirement. Consequently, the Selection Committee's relaxation was ultra vires. However, noting that the appellant had already completed one year of medical education under government orders, the Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Government to sustain its order without disrupting her studies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Bolan Medical College Prospectus must be read together as joint eligibility criteria or independently as dealing with different situations?
  • Does the exemption power granted to the Selection Committee under Paragraph 30 of the Prospectus extend to relaxing the requirement of passing Matriculation with Science subjects?
  • Can a relaxation granted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education override the explicit eligibility criteria set out in a medical college prospectus in the absence of corresponding amendments to the prospectus?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Bibi Farzana vs Selection Committee through Secretary, Principal1996 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18
  medical college admissionreserved seatsconstitutional petitionleave to appealdiscriminatory treatmentprospectus requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition challenging the Selection Committee's refusal to grant her admission to the First Year class of Bolan Medical College, Quetta, against a reserved seat for District Pishin on the ground that she did not receive her education within the Province of Baluchistan. The core legal question was whether the residency and education requirements in the college prospectus could be applied to deny admission to the appellant when her siblings, who were similarly situated and educated outside the province, had been granted admission in professional colleges in Baluchistan based on previous judicial findings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the ground for declining admission was unsustainable given the identical circumstances of her siblings' admissions. The Court laid down the principle that educational institutions and selection committees cannot arbitrarily deny admission to an applicant on grounds that have been judicially declared unsustainable in identical circumstances involving direct family members.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an educational institution can deny admission to an applicant on the ground of studying outside the province when similarly situated siblings were granted admission against reserved seats?
  • Can the Selection Committee rely on a ground for refusing admission that has already been held unsustainable by the Supreme Court in an identical case?
  Read full judgment →
• Misal Khan and anothers vs Additional District Judge, Kohat and 21996 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  rent restrictionevictionconversion of propertyreconstructionresidential to commercialleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the eviction of tenants from a residential property. The petitioners challenged their eviction, arguing that the landlord could not legally convert the property into a commercial market after reconstruction, citing Section 11 of the N.-W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Upon appeal, the petitioners shifted their argument to rely on Section 13(2)(vi) of the same Ordinance. The Supreme Court noted that established jurisprudence, specifically in cases like Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain, holds that Section 13(2)(vi) does not restrict the conversion of non-residential buildings into residential ones. By analogy, the Court questioned whether this provision similarly fails to restrict the conversion of residential buildings into commercial ones upon reconstruction. Finding that the legal position regarding such conversion required definitive consideration despite existing precedents, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically determine whether Section 13(2)(vi) of the N.-W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 prohibits the conversion of a residential building into a commercial one following reconstruction.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 13(2)(vi) of the N.-W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 prevent a residential building from being converted into a commercial one after reconstruction?
  • Is there a legal restriction under the N.-W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 prohibiting the conversion of a residential building into a commercial unit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Nawaz Khan vs Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1996 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-11
  departmental proceedingscriminal acquittalmisconductservice lawdiscrimination in disciplinary actionproportionality of penaltyindependent proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of the petitioner from service as an Assistant National Savings Officer following departmental proceedings for misappropriation of funds. The petitioner contended that his acquittal in a parallel criminal case regarding the same incident should invalidate his departmental removal. Additionally, he argued that the disciplinary action was discriminatory because other staff members involved in the incident received lesser punishments. The Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent processes. An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically nullify the outcome of departmental proceedings unless the departmental action was explicitly predicated solely upon a criminal conviction that was subsequently overturned. Regarding the plea of discrimination, the Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's finding that the penalties were proportionate to the specific nature of each employee's misconduct. The Court established that departmental authorities possess the discretion to impose penalties based on individual culpability, and an employee found guilty of embezzlement cannot claim discrimination simply because colleagues guilty of lesser negligence received lighter sanctions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically invalidate a removal from service ordered through independent departmental proceedings?
  • Can an employee claim discrimination in disciplinary action if colleagues involved in the same incident received lesser punishments for different levels of negligence?
  • Is a departmental authority required to impose identical punishments on all employees involved in a single incident regardless of their specific culpability?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Rafique Saigol and anothers vs Bank of Credit and Commerce1996 PLD Supreme Court 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-13
  summary suitleave to defendconditional leavebank guaranteenegotiable instrumentspromissory noteacknowledgement of liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from three consolidated civil appeals filed by Mian Rafique Saigol and Mian Shafique Saigol against the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and another, challenging the imposition of a condition to furnish a bank guarantee for the grant of leave to defend summary suits instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in making the grant of leave to defend conditional upon furnishing a bank guarantee given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the appellants' total denial of liability versus documentary evidence of liability produced by the respondents. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that the grant of conditional leave to defend was a proper exercise of judicial discretion under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. The Court laid down that while unconditional leave should be granted when a bona fide defence or triable issue is raised and the defendant's conduct is free from suspicion, conditional leave (such as furnishing security or deposit) is fully justified when the defence raised is vague, lacking in bona fides, or when the defendant's denial is contradicted by unrebutted documentary admissions and acknowledgement of liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee imposed at the time of granting leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII C.P.C. was justified in the circumstances?
  • When is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend a summary suit based on negotiable instruments?
  • Does a vague and general denial of liability, in the face of unrebutted documentary evidence of debt acknowledgement, justify the imposition of conditions for granting leave to defend?
  • What are the principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding conditional versus unconditional leave?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Iqbal vs Mir Mukhtar Hussain and others1996 SCMR 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-17
  specific performancesplitting of claimsmultiplicity of suitscause of actioncivil procedureplaint rejectioncompensation for improvements
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that dismissed a suit for compensation as barred by Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. The petitioner had previously filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was dismissed following a special oath taken by the respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a new suit seeking compensation for alleged improvements made to the disputed land. The trial court initially refused to reject the plaint, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the claim for compensation should have been included in the earlier suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. is designed to prevent the splitting of claims and the multiplicity of suits. The Court held that since the relief for compensation could have been joined with the claim for specific performance, the petitioner's omission to include it in the first suit precluded him from agitating it in a subsequent proceeding.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission to claim compensation in a prior suit for specific performance bar a subsequent suit for such compensation under Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C.?
  • Can a plaintiff split claims arising from the same cause of action into separate suits?
  • Is a suit liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. if it violates the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. regarding the splitting of claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Aslam vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 4 other1996 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18
  service tribunalseniority listpromotioncadres and groupsleave to appealFederal Investigation Agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which accepted respondent No. 4's appeal and declared him senior to the petitioner with a preferential right of promotion as Head Constable. The petitioner contended that he belonged to the investigation wing of the Federal Investigation Agency while respondent No. 4 belonged to the Technical Wing, forming separate cadres and groups under the applicable service rules, specifically rules 12 and 13 of the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975. The Supreme Court considered the arguments that members of different cadres and groups cannot claim seniority or promotion rights across separate service lines, and holding that the contentions raised questions of law of public importance, granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees belonging to different groups and cadres in the Federal Investigation Agency can claim seniority against each other for promotion?
  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975 restrict promotions within distinct administrative groups?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan vs Ghulam Mustafa and 6 others1996 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-31
  cooperative societiesanti-corruption investigationouster of jurisdictioncriminal cognizancestatutory interpretationinjunctioninternal management
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the scope of the bar on jurisdiction under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, regarding criminal investigations into the affairs of a cooperative society. The appellants challenged a High Court judgment that restrained the Anti-Corruption Establishment from investigating criminal complaints against the respondent, a society office-bearer, citing the requirement for the Registrar's sanction under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the ouster of jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, is strictly limited to offences punishable under that specific Act. It does not apply to criminal offences punishable under other laws, such as the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court further determined that the High Court erred in granting an injunction to halt the investigation prematurely. Because the investigation had not yet concluded or resulted in framed charges, it was impossible to ascertain whether the allegations fell within the Act's scope. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Anti-Corruption Department’s investigative powers remain unaffected by the Act’s provisions when the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under general law, setting aside the High Court's restrictive judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar on jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 apply to criminal offences punishable under laws other than the Act?
  • Is a court empowered to grant an injunction halting a criminal investigation before charges are framed to determine if the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 applies?
  • Does the requirement for the Registrar's sanction under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 apply to allegations of criminal conduct by office-bearers that fall outside the scope of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Ejaz Shafi vs Syed Ashraf Shah, 1ST Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi and Returning Officer, Karachi West-1 and 12 others1996 SCMR 605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-06
  election petitionrecount of votesburden of proofballot paper tamperingelection tribunalRepresentation of the People Actinvalid votes
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an election dispute regarding Constituency No. NA-184, where the appellant, initially declared the winner, challenged the Election Tribunal's decision to declare the respondent the elected candidate following a recount. The core legal question concerned the validity of 625 ballot papers discovered during a post-election recount to have double-stamping, and whether these rendered the original election result void. The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the burden of proof lay upon the election petitioner to demonstrate that the double-stamping occurred prior to the initial declaration of the result. The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that the ballot papers were tampered with before the official count, which had been conducted in the presence of candidates without objection. Consequently, the Court ruled that the will of the electorate could not be set aside based on unproven allegations of tampering. The key principle established is that an election petitioner bears the heavy burden of proving that irregularities, such as double-stamping, existed at the time of the original count to justify overturning a declared election result.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the election petitioner to establish that ballot paper tampering occurred prior to the declaration of the election result?
  • Can an election result be set aside based on the discovery of double-stamped ballot papers during a recount without proof that such tampering occurred before the initial count?
  • Is an election petitioner required to provide independent evidence to substantiate allegations of ballot tampering when the original count was conducted without objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tank Steel and Rerolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Dera Ismail Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26
  banking tribunal jurisdictionimplied repealwrit against high courtconstructive res judicatalocus standistatutory appeal pre-depositbanking company schedule
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a recovery decree issued by the Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, claiming that the Regional Development Finance Corporation was not a banking company pursuant to Section 32 of the Regional Development Finance Corporation Ordinance, 1985. The petitioners' initial statutory appeal before the High Court was dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition under Section 9, and subsequent writ proceedings challenging the decree and statute were dismissed in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's dismissal. It held that under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, a Bench of the High Court cannot issue a writ to another Bench of the same Court, as different jurisdictions reflect internal arrangement rather than superior-inferior status. Furthermore, applying the maxim 'leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant', the subsequent inclusion of the Corporation in the Schedule to the 1984 Ordinance impliedly repealed Section 32 of the 1985 Ordinance, confirming the Banking Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 5(3). Constructive res judicata also barred re-agitation of matters where the initial appeal was abandoned.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Constitutional writ under Article 199 of the Constitution be issued by a High Court against an order passed by another Bench of the same High Court?
  • Does a subsequent statutory notification adding an entity to a scheduled list of banking companies impliedly repeal an earlier statutory provision excluding that entity from being deemed a banking company?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a party from challenging an order in writ jurisdiction after abandoning a statutory appeal against that same order?
  • Does Article 2A of the Constitution operate as a supra-Constitutional measure to invalidate statutory recovery provisions of banking laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sindh Glass Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs National1996 PLD Supreme Court 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26
  winding-up petitioncommercial insolvencyinability to pay debtsstatutory presumptionbona fide disputecreditor rightsCompanies Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three direct appeals against a High Court judgment allowing winding-up petitions filed by creditors against the appellant, Sindh Glass Industries Ltd., due to its inability to pay outstanding debts. The core legal question was whether the appellant company was commercially insolvent and whether the winding-up petitions were filed mala fide to pressure the company or frustrate other proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the winding-up orders, finding that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency arising from its failure to satisfy the creditors' demands. The Court held that while a winding-up petition cannot be used as a substitute for a civil suit or to exert improper pressure, it is a valid remedy when a company is unable to pay its undisputed debts. The Court established that mere allegations of mala fides or a desire to reorganize with future capital injections do not displace the statutory presumption of insolvency. A company must demonstrate a bona fide, substantial dispute regarding the debt to defeat such a petition; otherwise, the creditor is entitled to a winding-up order ex debito justitiae.

  Questions settled

  • Does a company's failure to pay a debt after receiving a statutory demand notice create a rebuttable presumption of insolvency?
  • Can a winding-up petition be defeated by a company's mere assertion that it could pay its debts if provided with future working capital?
  • Is a winding-up petition a valid legal remedy when the underlying debt is undisputed?
  • Under what circumstances does a dispute regarding a debt prevent the court from granting a winding-up order?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Millat Tractors Limited through General Manager, Sheikhupura1996 PLC 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-28
  industrial disputetermination of servicelabor court jurisdictionindividual grievancemisconductreinstatementback benefitsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, which ordered the reinstatement with back benefits of respondent No. 3, a technician whose services were terminated by the petitioner-company for failing to establish the authenticity of his Matriculation certificate. The core legal questions involve whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain the grievance petition regarding the termination, and whether the production of a non-genuine certificate at the time of appointment constituted misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court had proper jurisdiction under section 25-A read with Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance of 1968, and that the alleged act did not fall within the definition of misconduct under Standing Order 15. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the High Court rightly declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain a grievance petition against the termination of a workman's services?
  • Whether the termination of a workman's services for failing to establish the authenticity of an educational certificate submitted at appointment constitutes misconduct under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azhar Asia Shipping Agency and another vs Ghaffar1996 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-05
  compromise decreeSection 12(2)counsel authorityrevocation of Vakalatnamaadmiralty suitfraud and misrepresentationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an admiralty suit wherein a compromise decree was passed under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners subsequently filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the compromise decree, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. They contended that their former counsel had entered into the compromise without authority and after new counsel had been engaged. The core legal questions were whether engaging additional counsel automatically revokes a previous counsel's authority, and whether a compromise entered into by an authorized counsel and signed by a representative binds the principal. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the Section 12(2) application, holding that the engagement of additional counsel does not automatically revoke the authority of previously appointed counsel. Furthermore, as the Vakalatnama explicitly authorized compromise, the vessel's captain signed the application, and subsequent counsel raised no objection during execution proceedings, fraud was ruled out. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the engagement of new counsel in a case automatically operate as a revocation of the authority of previously engaged counsel?
  • Can a compromise decree be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for fraud where the Vakalatnama expressly authorized the counsel to compromise and representatives signed the application?
  • Whether a compromise entered into by a counsel on behalf of a party within the scope of their written authority binds that party?
  Read full judgment →
• Member (Judiciali), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others vs Waryam1996 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-07
  Lambardari grantstate land allotmentresumption of landpossession of landColonization of Government Lands Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the resumption of state land allotted to a Lambardar. The respondent, a Lambardar, was allotted land under a government policy, but revenue authorities ordered the resumption of the land on the ground that the respondent failed to take possession in terms of section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and that his documents showing possession were not genuine. The High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition and set aside the resumption orders. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was right in setting aside the orders given that possession had not been taken under section 10(4). The Supreme Court held that since the respondent failed to take possession in accordance with the Act, there was no valid grant in his favor, and the High Court erred in deeming the land allotted under a subsequent departmental memo without prior examination by the competent authority. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority to examine the case for allotment under the policy memo while maintaining status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person acquire any right or title in allotted state land without taking physical possession with the permission of the Collector pursuant to section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
  • Can the High Court directly deem state land to be allotted under a departmental policy memo without requiring the competent authority to examine the case first?
  • Are temporary cultivation conditions applicable to tenancies granted under the 1971 Government Policy for Lambardars?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Khan vs The State1996 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-07
  jail petitiondying declarationmurder referencedeath sentence commutationamnesty order 1988identificationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming his death sentence for a murder committed in 1985, following a conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge-Swabi under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the reliability and sufficiency of a dying declaration made by the deceased, particularly regarding identification at night and whether the absence of specific testimony from the examining lady doctor regarding the reading-over of the statement vitiated its evidentiary value. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was straightforward, truthful, properly recorded, and fully corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and that identity was unquestionable as the accused was a co-villager known to the deceased. The petition was dismissed on merits; however, applying the principle laid down in Eid Muhammad v. The State regarding the Amnesty Order of 1988, the Court commuted the petitioner's death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be safely based on a dying declaration alone when corroborated by medical evidence and when the accused is a known co-villager?
  • Does the failure of a medical doctor to explicitly depose that a dying declaration was read over to the deceased render the dying declaration doubtful?
  • Whether the sentence of death awarded before December 7, 1988, but not yet confirmed by the High Court, qualifies for commutation to life imprisonment under the Amnesty Order of 1988?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Iqbal vs The State1996 SCMR 1910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24
  sodomycriminal appealreasonable doubtappreciation of evidencedelay in FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Attock, for the offence of sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following their acquittal of charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed their appeal, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court observed significant weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including a two-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, the failure of the victim's father to corroborate the victim's claim of narrating the incident to him, and the fact that the prosecution's own eye-witnesses, examined as court witnesses, did not support the case. Additionally, the Court noted material discrepancies in the victim's testimony and a delay in medical examination. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of two days in lodging an FIR, coupled with material discrepancies in the victim's testimony, undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's eye-witnesses fail to support the case and are instead examined as court witnesses?
  • Is the testimony of a victim sufficient for conviction if it lacks corroboration and is contradicted by other evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Masud Akhtar and others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13
  criminal petitionmurdercommon intentionunlawful assemblyappreciation of evidencesentence reductionpost-mortem injurieseyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal petitions arising from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning an incident of firing resulting in murder and injuries due to a dispute over a graveyard site. The Additional Sessions Judge had convicted multiple accused under sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing one to death and others to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court altered the death sentence to life imprisonment, set aside certain convictions due to lack of proof of active participation, altered others to section 302/34, and modified convictions for murderous assaults and unlawful assembly. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including statements of injured eyewitnesses, weapon recoveries, and medical evidence, and found no merit in the petitions filed by the convicts, complainant, and the State. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed all the petitions, upholding the findings and modifications made by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact properly scrutinized by the lower courts based on eyewitness and medical evidence?
  • Does the absence of a strong premeditated motive justify altering a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether individual criminal liability can be separated from common intention when active participation in a crime is not proved against certain co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Master Muhammad Ismaeel and another vs Government of Balochistan1996 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-03
  revenue recordoccupancy tenantsMouroosi Bazgarstenants-at-willproprietary rightscivil revisionland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over revenue record entries concerning land in District Khuzdar, where appellants sought a declaration of their status as 'Mouroosi Bazgars' (occupancy tenants) entitled to proprietary rights under a 1977 government notification. The core legal question was whether the appellants held the status of occupancy tenants or were merely 'tenants-at-will,' and whether the subsequent correction of revenue records by the Deputy Commissioner was lawful given a document signed by the appellants surrendering their proprietary claims. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the appellants were tenants-at-will. The Court held that the appellants had failed to challenge the document in which they voluntarily surrendered their proprietary rights and agreed to be recorded as tenants-at-will. The judgment underscores that where a party fails to specifically challenge a document forming the basis of a revenue entry correction in their original suit, they cannot subsequently contest the validity of those entries or the underlying status change in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a document surrendering proprietary rights, if not challenged in the original suit, preclude a party from claiming occupancy tenant status?
  • Can revenue record entries be corrected based on a written statement provided by the occupants?
  • Is a person who executes a document as an attorney for a sibling bound by the terms of that document?
  Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ali vs Shahnawaz Junejo1996 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13
  election petitionmaterially affectedelectoral rollspostal ballotelection tribunalvoid electionfranchise rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an Election Tribunal judgment that declared the election for National Assembly seat N.A. 181 void due to irregularities. The core legal questions concerned whether the Election Tribunal was strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the framing of issues, and whether the election result was materially affected by administrative failures, specifically the non-issuance of postal ballots, the exclusion of voters with specific Identity Card series, and the failure to provide updated electoral rolls to polling stations. The Supreme Court held that the 1985 amendment to Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, removed the requirement for Election Tribunals to follow the strict CPC procedure, meaning the non-framing of issues was not fatal where evidence was recorded. However, the Court upheld the declaration that the election was void, ruling that the failure of election authorities to provide updated electoral rolls and the improper denial of franchise rights to eligible voters constituted a breach of the Act that materially affected the election result under Section 70(a).

  Questions settled

  • Is an Election Tribunal required to follow the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the framing of issues?
  • Does the failure to provide updated electoral rolls to polling stations constitute a ground for declaring an election void under Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Can an election be declared void if the result is materially affected by administrative failures even if the winning margin is large?
  • Are voters entitled to cast postal ballots if their applications are received in time, even if not on the specific prescribed form?
  Read full judgment →
• Masha Khan vs Chamnai Khan and another1996 SCMR 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21
  criminal leave to appealappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubtabsconsioncorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the respondent, tried and convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was acquitted and given the benefit of the doubt on the ground that the eye-witnesses were related and lacked sufficient corroboration. The core legal question is whether the High Court appraised the evidence in accordance with sound principles for the administration of criminal justice, specifically regarding the weight given to corroborative evidence of absconsion and statements recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the appraisal of evidence by the High Court and ordered that bailable warrants be issued.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court properly appraised the evidence in accordance with sound principles for the administration of criminal justice?
  • What is the evidentiary value of absconsion as corroborative evidence when evaluating a murder conviction?
  • How should statements recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered in absconsion proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  leave to appealocular testimonyinjured witnesscriminal convictionmedical evidenceappreciation of evidenceself-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the High Court, which maintained their convictions and sentences under sections 302, 307, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of an injured witness, in the absence of independent corroboration, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the physical impossibility of the injuries as described by the prosecution warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the injured witness, whose presence at the scene was established and who had no enmity with the accused, was sufficient to support the conviction when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. The Court rejected the argument regarding the impossibility of the injuries, noting that the location of wounds depends on the specific circumstances of the struggle. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Is the solitary testimony of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be maintained where the physical possibility of an injury is challenged based on the positioning of the victim and assailant?
  • Does the presence of an injured witness, whose presence is established and who lacks enmity, provide sufficient basis for conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Sher Ahmad Khan vs The State1996 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-25
  surety bondbond forfeiturebail bondcriminal revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court reducing the forfeiture of his surety bond from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who subsequently absconded and committed another murder. The core legal question concerned the extent of penalty to be imposed upon a surety for default and whether a lenient view similar to the precedent in Dildar v. The State should be applied. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, being the Lambardar of the village and knowing the accused's credentials, was distinguishable from sureties who acted purely out of innocent fellow-feeling without knowing the accused. The Court concluded that the High Court had already taken a sufficiently lenient view, and thus dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that while courts must balance undue leniency and severity in surety default cases, a surety who is a village headman and presumably aware of the accused's dangerous antecedents cannot claim the same mitigation as a surety acting in total ignorance without financial or personal interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a surety who is a village headman and knows the accused's credentials is entitled to a lenient reduction of a forfeited bail bond amount?
  • Does standing surety out of benevolence rather than monetary consideration automatically warrant minimal penalty upon the accused's default?
  • What factors should a court consider when assessing the extent to which a surety bond should be forfeited?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Iqbal vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and another1996 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-13
  land acquisitionnegotiated settlementcompensation awardestoppelfair market valuepower of attorneycompulsory acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a land acquisition award. The core legal question was whether a Land Acquisition Collector is legally barred from relying on a negotiated settlement between landowners and the acquiring agency when determining compensation, and whether landowners who accepted such compensation are estopped from challenging the award. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that while a Collector must independently determine fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they may legitimately incorporate a reasonable negotiated settlement into the award. The Court established that a negotiated settlement reflecting a 'willing buyer-willing seller' dynamic is a valid basis for valuation. Furthermore, landowners who have acted upon such a settlement by accepting payment without protest are estopped from later challenging the award. The Collector’s reliance on such an agreement does not constitute an abdication of statutory duty, provided the Collector independently evaluates the reasonableness of the compensation. The Court affirmed that appellate courts need not re-discuss evidence where lower courts have properly appraised it.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Land Acquisition Collector rely on a negotiated settlement between the parties to determine compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Are landowners estopped from challenging an acquisition award after accepting compensation based on a negotiated settlement?
  • Does the reliance of a Collector on a negotiated settlement constitute an abdication of the statutory duty to determine fair compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Gul Hasan & Co. and 5 others vs Allied Bank of Pakistan1996 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-22
  pecuniary jurisdictionretrospective operationprocedural lawbanking tribunalfurnishing securitychange of forumdecretal amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of a High Court Appeal due to the appellants' failure to furnish a fresh solvent surety under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants also challenged the trial court's jurisdiction following the enactment of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992, which enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court as a Special Court. The Supreme Court held that the security already furnished to a bank for securing a loan can be accepted as security for the purposes of admitting an appeal under Section 12(5), provided its current value is sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that statutory amendments altering pecuniary jurisdiction or changing the forum are procedural in nature and operate retrospectively unless they affect vested rights or cause injustice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and transferred the suit to the competent Special Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a security originally furnished to a bank for securing a loan be accepted as valid security for admitting an appeal under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a statutory amendment that alters or enhances the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court operate retrospectively on pending cases?
  • Can the consent of parties confer jurisdiction upon a court if its statutory jurisdiction has been taken away by a legislative amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Anjum Farooq Piracha vs Ch. Muhammad Asif and another1996 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  bail cancellationmedical groundsheart diseasestatutory delaySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the High Court on medical grounds. The respondent is facing trial for offences including murder and attempt to murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail to an accused suffering from ischemic heart disease who had remained in custody for a prolonged period, and whether such an order warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail was justifiable, taking into account the medical certificate from the Punjab Institute of Cardiology, the duration of incarceration, and the delay in the trial not attributable to the accused. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down that appellate interference with a High Court's discretionary grant of bail on medical and statutory delay grounds is unwarranted where proper medical evidence and prolonged custody are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted on medical grounds to an accused suffering from heart disease?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without the trial being in sight justify the grant of bail?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail?
  Read full judgment →