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.

• Sarwar Khan and anothers vs The State and 2 others1994 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-06
  criminal appealcompromiseacquittalmurderpardon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a petition where the father of the deceased affirmed a compromise, stating that he and the other legal heirs of the deceased had forgiven the petitioner for the sake of Almighty Allah and harbored no further grievances. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and ordered his immediate acquittal and release, provided he was not required in any other case. Additionally, a connected criminal petition challenging the acquittal of other individuals was dismissed as not pressed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal petition be converted into an appeal upon a compromise between the parties?
  • Does forgiveness by the legal heirs of a deceased person result in the setting aside of a conviction and acquittal of the accused?
  • What is the effect of a compromise affirmed by the legal heirs of the deceased in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Ali Khan vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01
  service appealhigher postown pay and statusback benefitscivil servantpromotionspecial pay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal seeking the salary of the higher post of Registrar (BS-18) from the date he assumed charge on his own pay and status. The core legal question was whether a civil servant appointed to a higher post on a temporary basis or in his own pay and status, who performs the full duties of that post for an extended period despite being fully qualified for regular promotion, is entitled to the salary and benefits of that higher post. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment, and held that a temporary arrangement lasting three years cannot be used to deprive a qualified employee of regular salary when there was no legal impediment to his promotion. The key principle laid down is that where an employee performs the duties of a higher post for a prolonged period and is fully qualified, they cannot be denied the salary of that post on the basis of a temporary appointment or the receipt of special pay.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to the salary of a higher post when appointed in his own pay and status for an extended period?
  • Whether proviso (1) to section 18 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 applies to justify lower pay during a prolonged temporary assignment of a qualified employee?
  • Can a service appeal be dismissed as time-barred for failing to challenge the initial notification of appointment in own pay and status when the arrangement continues for years?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Ali Khan vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01
  civil servicepromotionown pay and statussalary arrearsservice tribunalrecruitment rulesback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for salary arrears and benefits associated with the post of Registrar (BS-18) for the period he served in that capacity on his own pay and status. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, appointed to a higher post on his own pay and status for an extended period despite being qualified for regular promotion, is entitled to the salary and benefits of that higher post. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was eligible and qualified for promotion at the time of his initial appointment. The Court ruled that the temporary arrangement, which lasted three years, was not justified, and the denial of salary was inequitable. The Court established the principle that where a civil servant performs the full duties and responsibilities of a higher post for which they are qualified, they cannot be deprived of the salary and benefits of that post, especially when the delay in regular promotion lacks a plausible legal justification.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to the salary of a higher post if they perform its duties while appointed on their own pay and status?
  • Can the government deny salary benefits for a higher post to a qualified civil servant based on a temporary appointment that persists for an extended period?
  • Does the receipt of special pay under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 preclude a claim for the full salary of a higher post when the appointment was not truly temporary?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and 7 others vs Muzaffar Khan1994 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  pre-emptionprinciple of sinkerburden of proofadmissibility of evidenceKhasra Girdawarisrevision petitionsuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of land via a registered deed dated 14-1-1978. The respondent, claiming to be a collateral of the vendor, successfully pre-empted the sale in the trial court, which found the petitioners' evidence regarding pedigree tables insufficient. The appellate court maintained the decree, invoking the principle of sinker, noting that while the petitioners were recorded tenants, the joint nature of the sale precluded them from asserting a superior right of pre-emption. The High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petition, primarily holding that the Khasra Girdawaris supporting the petitioners' tenancy claims were not properly exhibited and thus inadmissible. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court adopted an inconsistent approach by relying on unexhibited documents produced by the respondent while rejecting similar unexhibited evidence favorable to the petitioners, and whether the burden of proof regarding the superior right of pre-emption was correctly applied. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions regarding evidentiary standards and the burden of proof in pre-emption litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can rely on unexhibited documents while rejecting similar unexhibited documents produced by the opposing party?
  • Does the principle of sinker apply to a joint sale where individual purchasers are recorded tenants of the suit land?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a superior right of pre-emption in a suit involving competing claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Muqeem Khoso vs President of Pakistan1994 PLD Supreme Court 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-11
  disqualification for membershipmisconductabuse of powerloan disbursementparliamentary representativedisqualification tribunalcivil nature of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a direct appeal under Article 7 of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 against the judgment of the Disqualification Tribunal, Karachi, which found the appellant, a member of the National Assembly, guilty of misconduct and disqualified him from being elected or chosen as a member of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly for a period of seven years. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant abused his official position as a Member of National Assembly to prevail upon bank authorities to disburse a previously sanctioned loan in two instalments instead of twelve without fulfilling pre-conditions, and whether such acts constituted misconduct under the Order. By a majority view (Ajmal Mian and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.; Sajjad Ali Shah, J., dissenting), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and disqualification. The court laid down the principle that proceedings under the Order are of a civil nature rather than criminal, and that a public representative utilizing their position to secure financial favours or bypass institutional pre-conditions in loan disbursements amounts to an abuse of position and misconduct under the second part of Article 2(a) of the Order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 are of a civil or criminal nature?
  • Does securing the release of a bank loan in fewer instalments by exploiting the position of a Member of Parliament amount to misconduct under Article 2(a) of President Order No. 17 of 1977?
  • Whether the fact that a loan is fully secured by mortgage absolves a public representative from liability for misconduct if official position is abused to alter loan disbursement terms?
  • Is a reference made by the President under President Order No. 17 of 1977 competently authenticated when signed by the Secretary to the President?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar and 5 others vs Rashid Ahmad and 12 others1994 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-09
  mutationrevenue recordcompromise decreeconstitutional jurisdictionland titleplenary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over land ownership. The original owner gifted his land to his sister, which was later settled via a compromise decree splitting the property equally. However, the revenue record erroneously reflected the transfer of the entire land to the petitioners, who had purchased the sister's share. Revenue authorities subsequently corrected the mutation to align with the compromise decree and the registered sale deed. The Supreme Court addressed whether the revenue authorities' correction of the mutation was subject to interference under Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that mutation entries do not establish title, which must be independently proven. Since the revenue authorities were merely correcting an obvious mistake to align with the registered deed and the compromise, their actions were not subject to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that if the petitioners' title was in doubt, they must seek relief through courts of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Do mutation entries in revenue records establish title to land?
  • Can the correction of a mutation entry by revenue authorities be challenged under Constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a party claiming a cloud on their title to land after a mutation correction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmed Yar Jang vs Sardar Noor Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-16
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintcourt-feecivil revisionmerger of ordersvaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit for pre-emption where the trial court decreed the suit, finding the valuation and court-fee payment proper. The High Court, in revision, subsequently rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the plaintiff's failure to comply with interim orders regarding the submission of revenue records for court-fee calculation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in this rejection. The Court established that interim or regulatory orders passed during the pendency of a suit merge into the final judgment and decree, losing their independent legal existence. Furthermore, for a court to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c), it must positively and specifically determine the exact amount of deficit court-fee payable and grant the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to rectify the deficiency. An order merely directing a party to calculate fees based on external documents does not constitute a valid direction for the purposes of rejecting a plaint. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the trial court's decree restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim or regulatory order passed during the pendency of a suit survive after the final decree is passed?
  • What are the mandatory conditions that must be satisfied before a court can reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court reject a plaint for non-payment of court-fee if the court has not specifically determined the exact amount of the deficit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmed Yar Jang vs Sardar Moor Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-16
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintcourt-feecivil revisionmerger of ordersvaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption where the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the suit was properly valued and the court-fee paid was sufficient. However, the High Court, in revision, rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the plaintiff's failure to comply with interim directions regarding the payment of court-fee based on net profits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in its application of the law. The Court established that interim or regulatory orders passed during the pendency of a suit merge into the final decree and lose independent existence. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that for a plaint to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(c), the court must first positively and specifically determine the exact amount of deficit court-fee and grant the plaintiff reasonable time to make up such deficiency. As these conditions were not met, the High Court's rejection of the plaint was legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a specific determination of the deficit court-fee?
  • Do interim or regulatory orders passed during the pendency of a suit survive after the final decree is passed?
  • What are the mandatory conditions required for the rejection of a plaint due to deficient court-fee under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Settlement Commissioner and another1994 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-30
  Settlement Scheme No. IXResidual PropertiesEqual treatmentTransfer of propertyDisposal of Residual Properties SchemeAdministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of residual property (Ahata No. 1171, Sialkot) under Settlement Scheme No. IX. The appellant sought the transfer of a portion of the property based on his possession and construction thereon, similar to other occupants (Abdul Ghaffar etc.) who had successfully obtained transfers. Despite a Settlement Inspector's report confirming the appellant's possession and construction, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dismissed his application, citing the need for auction, while granting transfers to others in identical circumstances. The appellant's revision petitions were unsuccessful, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to equal treatment under the law, given that his situation was indistinguishable from other beneficiaries whose transfers were approved after the withdrawal of demolition notices by the Cantonment Board. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant's case was identical to those granted relief, he was entitled to the same treatment. The Court allowed the appeal, directing the transfer of the constructed portion to the appellant upon payment of the requisite price.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an applicant is entitled to the transfer of residual property if their case is factually identical to other applicants who have already been granted such transfers?
  • Does the withdrawal of a demolition notice by a Cantonment Board create a basis for the transfer of residual property under Settlement Scheme No. IX?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others1994 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-26
  double murderocular testimonyinterested witnessmedical evidencerecovery of weaponscommon objectcriminal appealsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a double murder case where six accused were convicted under sections 302/149, 324/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the ocular witnesses, the validity of the medical evidence regarding an alleged self-inflicted injury, and whether the sentences imposed by the High Court warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony, motive, medical evidence, and the recovery of blood-stained weapons. The Court affirmed the convictions, finding that the testimony of an independent, disinterested witness (the injured party) was reliable and did not require further corroboration. Furthermore, the Court refused to enhance the sentences, reasoning that where multiple accused act in concert and specific roles are difficult to isolate, life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. The judgment reinforces the principle that medical evidence corroborating the ocular account and the recovery of incriminating weapons at the instance of the accused are sufficient to sustain convictions in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be relied upon without corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused corroborate the ocular account?
  • Is the testimony of an interested witness necessarily unreliable if supported by a disinterested witness?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment when specific roles in a joint attack are difficult to distinguish?
  Read full judgment →
• Salehon and others vs Mst. Sardaran through Legal Heirs and others1994 SCMR 1856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-27
  res judicatacollateral successioncustomary lawlimited estateleave to appealancestral property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court dismissing their Regular Second Appeal, which had affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of their declaratory suit. The petitioners claimed a 3/8 share in the estate of Mst. Sardaran and Shihan as collaterals. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata and whether the promulgation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, provided a fresh cause of action. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly applied the principle of res judicata, as a previous suit filed in 1954 regarding the same land had already attained finality, wherein the land was found to be non-ancestral and the plaintiffs failed to prove they were collaterals. The Court laid down that a prior final adjudication regarding collateral status and the nature of the property operates as res judicata, and the termination of limited estates under customary law by subsequent legislation does not revive already adjudicated and finalized claims where collateral status was not established. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of limited estates under Customary Law by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, provide a fresh cause of action to plaintiffs whose previous suit regarding collateral status was dismissed on merits?
  • Whether a previous finding that plaintiffs are not proved to be collaterals operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit for declaration of inheritance?
  • Can a party claim inheritance as a collateral when findings in a prior final judgment establish that they are not near collaterals of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Longai and anothers vs Abida Sultana1994 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-12
  dowry articlesrecovery of movable propertyconcurrent findingsexecuting court powersmatrimonial property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between the parties, wherein the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles and bridal gifts following the dissolution of her marriage. The trial court decreed the suit in her favour, a decision subsequently upheld by both the appellate and revisional courts. The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings before the Supreme Court, primarily contending that the courts below erred in relying on a specific document (Exh. P.2) which the petitioner claimed was unsigned. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners raised only questions of fact already concurrently decided against them by the lower courts, which had also relied on an admission made by the petitioner in a separate application (Exh. P.3) regarding his intent to return the articles. While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that even where a decree for the delivery of movable property does not specify an alternative monetary value, the executing court possesses the authority under the Code of Civil Procedure to address such matters during execution proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an executing court have the power to order monetary compensation in lieu of the delivery of movable property even if the original decree did not specify an alternative amount?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding the possession of dowry articles?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State1994 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-21
  fabrication of evidenceinvestigating officersupplementary statementsbenefit of doubtcriminal appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of a police Sub-Inspector under Section 194 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly fabricating false evidence during a murder investigation. The core legal question was whether the appellant intentionally altered witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to align with medical evidence, or whether these were legitimate supplementary statements. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge, as no witnesses were examined to prove the alleged fabrication. Conversely, the appellant provided a plausible explanation that the statements were supplementary, a practice common in investigations, which was corroborated by defense witnesses, including one of the original witnesses who denied the fabrication. Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution's case lacked evidentiary support, and the appellant’s explanation raised a reasonable possibility of truth. Applying the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of supplementary statements by an investigating officer constitute the fabrication of false evidence under Section 194 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to examine any witnesses to substantiate the charge of fabricating evidence?
  • Can an investigating officer be convicted for fabricating evidence when the defense provides a plausible explanation for the discrepancy in witness statements that is supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Hanan vs Chairman, WAPDA And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-07
  service lawpay scaleadministrative policyjudicial reviewdiscriminationterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the denial of a higher pay scale (BPS-15) for his position as a Theology Teacher. The petitioner, who served in BPS-9 from his appointment in 1970 until his retirement in 1990, alleged discrimination because another teacher in a different location held a higher grade. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed his appeal, ruling that the matter involved administrative policy rather than an actionable grievance, and that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the terms of his appointment. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that the petitioner, having voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of his service at the time of appointment, had no legal basis to claim a higher pay scale retrospectively. The Court further affirmed that the up-gradation of posts is an administrative policy matter outside the scope of judicial interference, particularly when the petitioner has already retired from service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a higher pay scale based on discrimination if they voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of their appointment?
  • Is the up-gradation of a post in an educational institution a justiciable matter or an administrative policy matter?
  • Can a court interfere in administrative policy decisions regarding the up-gradation of posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Hanan vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1994 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-07
  service lawpay scaleadministrative policydiscriminationconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceupgradation of post
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding service conditions. The petitioner, a Theology Teacher who retired in 1990, sought relief on the grounds of discrimination, alleging that another teacher in a similar position had been granted a higher pay scale (BPS-15) than the BPS-9 scale he held throughout his service. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, having voluntarily accepted specific terms and conditions of service upon appointment, could subsequently claim a higher pay scale based on the upgradation of posts held by others, and whether such administrative policy matters are justiciable. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the petitioner had accepted his appointment terms voluntarily and could not claim a higher scale as a matter of right. The Court affirmed that the upgradation of posts is an administrative policy matter, and courts cannot interfere in such policy-making, particularly where the petitioner had already retired and accepted the original terms of service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a higher pay scale based on the upgradation of posts held by other employees if they voluntarily accepted their own terms of service?
  • Is the upgradation of posts in an educational institution a justiciable matter for the courts?
  • Can a court interfere in administrative policy matters regarding the upgradation of posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Pannah1994 PLD Supreme Court 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionhandwriting expertcomparison of signaturestandard of proofpreponderance of evidencemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a half-share of a house. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the agreement genuine. The appellate court reversed this, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's signature beyond reasonable doubt, and that the plaintiff's failure to examine a handwriting expert was fatal. The High Court dismissed the revision application, declining to disturb the finding of fact. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the appellate court applied an incorrect standard of proof and erred in law by assuming a handwriting expert was mandatory. The Court ruled that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, comparison of signatures by the court is a valid mode of proof. Finding that the appellate court misread evidence, ignored material admissions in the pleadings, and relied on minor contradictions, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree, establishing that revisional jurisdiction is attracted when lower courts base decisions on wrong legal propositions or misread vital evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff in a civil suit for specific performance is required to prove the execution of a disputed agreement beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is it a mandatory legal requirement to examine a handwriting expert to prove a disputed signature on a document?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction if an appellate court bases its decision on an incorrect proposition of law or misreads vital evidence?
  • What are the legally recognized modes of proving a signature or handwriting under the law of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Pannah1994 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-11
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionpreponderance of evidencestandard of proof in civil caseshandwriting expertmaterial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction regarding a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The trial court had decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this, primarily questioning the authenticity of the respondent's signature based on a comparison of signatures and the absence of a handwriting expert, as well as the delay in attestation by an Oath Commissioner. The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court erroneously applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is inapplicable to civil proceedings, and incorrectly emphasized the necessity of a handwriting expert. The Court held that the appellate court's approach contradicted the established rule of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, given that the appellate court may have acted illegally or with material irregularity in its assessment of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable to civil proceedings for specific performance?
  • Does the failure to examine a handwriting expert in a civil suit regarding disputed signatures constitute a fatal flaw in the plaintiff's case?
  • When does an appellate court's misapplication of the standard of proof warrant interference by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Randhawa vs Secretary, Agriculture Department, Lahore1994 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23
  service appealtime-barredcompulsory retirementPunjab Service Tribunalretrospective effectShariat jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as withdrawn. The petitioner, a civil servant, had been retired under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Following the dismissal of his initial departmental appeal, he filed a second, unauthorized appeal to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, subsequently approaching the Service Tribunal after that was also dismissed. The petitioner contended that he had not withdrawn his appeal before the Tribunal and challenged the validity of his retirement based on Shariat rulings declaring provisions allowing retirement without show-cause notices as un-Islamic. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred, as he had no legal justification for pursuing a second departmental appeal rather than approaching the Tribunal after the first appeal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Shariat jurisdiction decisions do not have retrospective effect. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second departmental appeal, not provided for in service rules, a valid ground for condoning delay in approaching the Service Tribunal?
  • Do decisions rendered under Shariat jurisdiction have retrospective effect on service matters?
  • Does the filing of an unauthorized second departmental appeal toll the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeedul Hassan, Exadditional District and Sessions Judge vs Government of the Punjab through the Chief Secretary, Lahore1994 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-10
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantpersistent reputation of being corruptdepartmental inquirystandard of proofpersonal hearingjudicial officer misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged his removal from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The core legal questions concerned whether the 'Authority' was obligated to grant a second personal hearing if the designated hearing officer’s report favored the accused, and whether proving a 'persistent reputation of being corrupt' necessitates specific instances of corruption or proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the Authority was not required to provide a further hearing. The Court ruled that the designated officer erred by applying the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' to a departmental inquiry and by demanding specific instances of corruption to substantiate a reputation-based charge. The Court affirmed that in disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is based on reasonable inferences from facts, and 'persistent reputation' is established by the general consensus of those in a position to observe the officer’s conduct, rather than isolated, proven incidents. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'Authority' under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, have to grant a second personal hearing if the designated officer's report is favorable to the accused?
  • Is the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' applicable to departmental or administrative inquiries?
  • Does a charge of 'persistent reputation of being corrupt' require proof of specific instances of corruption to be substantiated?
  • What is the scope of a designated officer's role when conducting a personal hearing under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Begum vs Shameem Ahmad1994 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-14
  ejectmentparting with possessionburden of proofpartnership deedlandlord and tenantsubletting
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the appellant landlord's ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the ground that the tenant had parted with possession of the rented premises. The core legal question was whether the respondent had discharged the burden of proof to rebut the allegation of parting with possession merely by producing a partnership deed and registration certificate, without producing mandated account books or proving continued physical possession. The Supreme Court held that while the initial burden lies on the landlord to prove that another person is in possession, simply producing a partnership deed and registration certificate is insufficient to rebut this if the landlord establishes exclusive physical use by a third party. The tenant must establish that they retain physical possession or a bona fide working presence. The case was remanded to the Rent Controller to allow parties to lead further evidence including tax and account documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere production of a partnership deed and registration certificate suffice to discharge the tenant's burden of proof when a landlord alleges parting with possession?
  • What constitutes handing over possession under section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the tenant in an ejectment application based on parting with possession of a rented tenement?
  • Is an adverse inference drawn against a party who fails to produce account books admitted to be in existence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Rabbani vs Directorgeneral Leather Industry Development1994 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23
  civil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionautonomous bodyadministrative controlexecutive resolutioncorporate status
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an employee of the Leather Industry Development Organization (LIDO), challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal, which was based on the finding that he was not a civil servant. The core legal question was whether an employee of LIDO, an organization under the administrative control of the Ministry of Industries, qualifies as a civil servant under the law, thereby granting the Federal Service Tribunal jurisdiction to adjudicate his service dispute. The Supreme Court held that LIDO was created by an executive resolution rather than by statute or incorporation under the Companies Act, and it functions essentially as a government department under the Ministry of Industries. Consequently, the Court determined that the appellant holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. The key principle laid down is that an organization created by executive order, rather than by statute or corporate registration, does not possess a separate corporate status, and its employees are considered civil servants entitled to the protection and jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee of an organization created by executive resolution, rather than by statute or corporate registration, qualify as a civil servant?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes involving employees of organizations under the administrative control of a federal ministry?
  • What criteria distinguish a government department from a statutory corporation or a company incorporated under the Companies Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Rabbani vs Director General Leather Industry Development1994 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23
  civil servantFederal Service TribunalLeather Industry Development Organizationautonomous bodycivil postjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the ground that he was not a civil servant. The appellant, appointed as an Assistant in the Leather Industry Development Organization (LIDO) and subsequently deputed to the National Housing Authority, sought a selection grade which the Director-General rejected, treating LIDO as an autonomous body. The core legal question was whether an employee of LIDO holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, thereby qualifying as a civil servant under the law, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Supreme Court held that LIDO was created by executive resolution rather than under a statute or incorporation under the Companies Act, functioning effectively as a government department under the administrative control of the Ministry of Industries. Consequently, the appellant holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation and is a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the Leather Industry Development Organization is a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes of employees of the Leather Industry Development Organization?
  • Whether an organization created by executive resolution without statutory incorporation or registration under the Companies Act constitutes a corporate body or a government department?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Afzal vs Mumtaz Hussain and others1994 SCMR 2085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  public auctionminor mineralstemporary injunctionbid negotiationconcession rulescivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed an application for a temporary injunction regarding the auction of mineral excavation rights. The petitioner, the highest bidder in an open auction, challenged the authorities' decision to initiate negotiations with other parties to secure a higher bid, arguing that such negotiations were contrary to the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having refused to participate in the negotiation process initiated by the authorities to improve the bid amount, possessed a valid grievance to seek injunctive relief against the confirmation of a higher bid. The Supreme Court held that the authorities were empowered under Rule 15 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, to conduct negotiations if the initial bid was deemed inadequate. The Court determined that because the petitioner voluntarily abstained from the negotiation process, he lacked a prima facie case to challenge the proceedings, particularly as his own bid had not yet been confirmed. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bidder who refuses to participate in a negotiation process initiated by authorities to improve bid amounts subsequently challenge the outcome of those negotiations?
  • Does the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, authorize the licensing authority to negotiate for a higher bid if the initial auction bid is considered inadequate?
  • Is a bidder entitled to an interim injunction against the confirmation of a contract when their own bid has not yet been formally confirmed by the authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others1994 PLC 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-22
  workmanassistant accountantgrievance petitionburden of proofsupervisory dutiespith and substance of dutiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, which upheld the findings of the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner, an Assistant Accountant, was not a workman. The core legal question was whether the petitioner fell within the definition of a workman under the relevant labour laws so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the onus is on the employee to prove by sufficient evidence that he is a workman, and that the pith and substance of his duties—rather than his designation or salary—must be evaluated. Upon examining the evidence, the Court found that the petitioner performed supervisory functions, such as recommending leave applications, signing overtime sheets, and checking vouchers and pay-rolls. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the forums below that the petitioner was not a workman, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Accountant performing supervisory functions qualifies as a workman under labour laws?
  • Upon whom lies the onus to prove that an employee is a workman within the meaning of labour laws?
  • What criteria must be evaluated when determining whether an employee is a workman?
  • Whether the High Court's finding that an employee is not a workman warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-22
  workmanassistant accountantgrievance petitionsupervisory dutiesburden of prooflabour court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service dispute where the petitioner, formerly employed as an Assistant Accountant by an industrial company, was dismissed after being found guilty in inquiry proceedings. He challenged his dismissal through a grievance petition before the Labour Court, which ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. After protracted litigation involving remands and conflicting findings by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labour laws to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Supreme Court held that the onus heavily lies on the employee to establish by sufficient evidence that he is a workman, and that the pith and substance of the duties performed—rather than the designation or salary—determine the status. Finding that the petitioner exercised supervisory powers and performed duties of a supervisory nature rather than routine manual or clerical work, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Tribunal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the burden of proof to establish that an employee falls within the definition of a workman under labour laws?
  • Does the designation or salary of an employee determine whether they qualify as a workman?
  • Whether an Assistant Accountant performing checking, verification, and supervisory functions is considered a workman?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Khan and anothers vs Government of N.W.F.P. Education1994 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-06
  service lawsenioritydirect recruitmentpromoteesdate of appointmentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal regarding the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Education Department. The petitioners, appointed as Assistants via direct recruitment on 23-8-1987, contended that they should be ranked senior to promotees appointed on the same date because the vacancies they filled were technically available in 1986. They argued that the delay in the selection process was a deliberate attempt to favor promotees. The core legal question was whether direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the date vacancies became available or from the date of their actual appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that seniority cannot be assigned from a date prior to the actual appointment to the post. The Court found that since the advertisement for the posts occurred in 1987 and the petitioners were appointed on 23-8-1987, they could not claim seniority over promotees appointed on the same date. The principle established is that seniority is determined by the date of appointment, not by the date vacancies theoretically arose.

  Questions settled

  • Can direct recruits claim seniority from the date vacancies became available rather than their date of appointment?
  • Does the delay in the selection process for direct recruits entitle them to seniority over promotees appointed on the same date?
  • Is seniority in government service determined by the date of appointment or the date of vacancy availability?
  Read full judgment →
• Re_ Contempt of Court Proceedings Against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig vs Not1994 PLD Supreme Court 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29
  contempt of courtinterference with judicial processscandalizing the courtsuo motu noticemitigating circumstancesarmed forces and judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg, former Chief of Army Staff, following a press statement made on February 4, 1993, in which he claimed he had conveyed a message to the Supreme Court seeking to influence its decision in a 1990 case concerning the restoration of the Junejo Government. The core legal question was whether the respondent's admitted public statements and actions regarding attempting to influence the judicial verdict amounted to contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that attempting to convey a message to the highest court of the country to obtain a desired verdict constitutes a grave act of contempt of court by interfering with the judicial process and scandalizing the judiciary. The Court established that public statements suggesting the superior judiciary can be influenced by persons in authority undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Finding the respondent guilty, the Court considered mitigating circumstances, including his expression of regret, and sentenced him to a severe reprimand.

  Questions settled

  • Does attempting to convey a message to the Supreme Court to obtain a desired verdict during the pendency of a case constitute contempt of court?
  • Whether public statements by a former military official claiming interference in judicial decisions tend to bring the court into hatred, ridicule, or contempt?
  • What principles govern the assessment of libellous and defamatory statements in contempt of court proceedings under Pakistani law?
  • Can expression of remorse and mitigating circumstances be taken into account while determining the quantum of sentence in a contempt case?
  Read full judgment →
• Re_ Contempt of Court Proceedings Against General (R) Mirza Aslam Baig vs Not1994 PLD Supreme Court 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29
  contempt of courtscandalizing the courtinterference with judicial processsuo motu noticemitigating circumstancesjudicial independence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg, former Chief of Army Staff, following his public statement at a 'Meet the Press' programme that he had attempted to convey a message to the Supreme Court during the pendency of a major constitutional case in 1988 to ensure that its verdict did not impede scheduled general elections. The core legal question was whether the respondent's admitted public remarks regarding his intervention and messaging to the judiciary constituted criminal contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Holding the respondent guilty, the Court determined that attempting to influence judicial proceedings and suggesting that the highest court could be pressured by authorities severely undermines public confidence in the judicial process and constitutes a grave act of scandalizing the court. The key principle laid down is that any conduct calculated to diminish the dignity, authority, and independence of the judiciary, or to impair public faith in its impartiality, constitutes criminal contempt of the highest order. Taking into account mitigating circumstances, the Court sentenced the respondent with a severe reprimand.

  Questions settled

  • Does a public statement admitting an attempt to convey a message to the Supreme Court to influence a pending case constitute contempt of court?
  • Whether remarks tending to suggest that the highest court can be influenced by authorities amount to scandalizing the court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What principles govern the interpretation of allegedly libellous or disparaging statements in contempt of court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Munshi Wahid Bakhsh and others1994 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-20
  evacuee propertysettlement schemetransfer of propertywrit petitionlachesconstitutional jurisdictionlocal claimant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee house under settlement laws. The respondent, a local, initially applied for the transfer of the house, but his L.H. Form was rejected in 1960 due to non-appearance, and the property was subsequently auctioned and transferred to the appellant, culminating in P.T.D. issuance in 1964. Years later, after an ejectment suit was filed against him, the respondent challenged the settlement orders through a constitutional writ petition in 1974. The High Court accepted the petition and remanded the case, holding that the rejection order suffered from procedural illegalities and that the petition was not barred by laches. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the respondent was legally ineligible for the transfer of the house as its value exceeded the statutory limit for locals, that subsequent settlement schemes could not apply retrospectively to divest completed transfers, and that the writ petition suffered from unexplained laches and acquiescence amounting to fourteen years of inaction. The Supreme Court accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the transfer orders in favour of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a local claimant can be transferred an evacuee house exceeding the statutory value limit prescribed for locals?
  • Does a settlement scheme promulgated after the completion of a property transfer apply retrospectively to affect that transfer?
  • Whether a constitutional petition filed after an inordinate delay of fourteen years against settlement orders is maintainable despite the plea of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah through Legal Heirs and others vs Abdul Karim1994 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-03
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionagricultural landorder of successionjoint right of pre-emptionsuperior right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land sold by three co-owners (a brother and two sisters) to a stranger. The respondent, the brother's son, filed a suit for pre-emption, claiming a superior right as an heir of the vendors. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding waiver, collusion, and the respondent's standing. The Supreme Court granted leave to determine whether a brother's son could maintain a pre-emption suit for the sisters' share under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Court held that the right of pre-emption is a statutory right that must be asserted by filing a suit. When the contest is between an heir and a stranger, the heir's right is superior. The Court clarified that the 'order of succession' under the Act applies to competition between the pre-emptor and the vendee, not between potential pre-emptors who have not asserted their rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an individual heir maintain a suit for pre-emption if other heirs of the vendor do not join the suit?
  • Does the 'order of succession' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, apply to competition between potential pre-emptors who have not filed suits?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be maintained by an heir against a vendee who is a stranger to the vendors?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Rashid Ahmad and 2 others vs Muhammad Younus and another1994 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-19
  review petitionsettlement commissionertransfer of propertyfactual appreciationnew plea in review
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed by the petitioners seeking a review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 1-12-1992, which had set aside a High Court order and restored an order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 10-9-1976 regarding the transfer of a roof of a shop. The core legal questions involved whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the power of review at the material time and whether the roof constituted an integral part of the residential portion or an independent unit. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the plea regarding the Settlement Commissioner's lack of review power was never raised before the High Court or in the memo of appeal, and thus could not be agitated for the first time in review proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that the arguments concerning the factual nature of the roof and the shop unit were matters of factual appreciation already decided, which provided no grounds for review. The key principle laid down is that new legal pleas not raised in lower courts or the original proceedings cannot be introduced for the first time in a review petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new legal plea regarding the authority of a Settlement Commissioner for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
  • Does a review petition lie against a judgment based on the re-appreciation of facts already decided?
  • Is a shop transfer limited to the ceiling, excluding the roof?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ramzan and 21 others vs Union Council, Bajnial and another1994 SCMR 1484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-19
  constitutional petitionalternative remedywrit jurisdictiontax levymarket feedisputed questions of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed against the refusal of the High Court to entertain Constitutional Petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution due to the petitioners' failure to exhaust adequate alternative remedies provided by law. The core legal question concerns whether the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, provides an adequate alternative remedy for challenging the levy of the impugned tax, thereby barring writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petitions, as the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, including sections 139, 156, 166, and 173, furnish adequate alternative remedies. Furthermore, the Court ruled that disputed questions of fact, such as whether the tax in question constitutes a market fee, are more appropriately resolved before specialized functionaries or through a civil suit where evidence can be recorded. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the impugned judgment and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provide an adequate alternative remedy barring a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the levy of a tax be properly agitated in writ proceedings when alternative forums and civil suits are available?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has not exhausted available alternative remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Rashid Ahmed Khan vs President of Pakistan1994 PLD Supreme Court 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-05
  misconductdisqualificationparliamentary membershipundue influenceloan write-offcivil nature of proceedingsfavouritismabuse of power
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Member of the National Assembly, challenged his seven-year disqualification imposed by a Special Court for "misconduct" under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant’s influence in securing a loan interest write-off for his wife constituted misconduct and the nature of the proceedings under the Order. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings under the Order are civil in nature, though the court must extend the benefit of doubt to the respondent given the severe penalty of disqualification. The Court found that the appellant, by using his status as an MNA to bypass established procedures and influence the Debt Write-off Committee to grant an unjustified remission of interest on his wife's loan, committed "misconduct" through favouritism and abuse of position. The Court affirmed that influence can be established through circumstances, even without explicit verbal commands. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court emphasized the need for strict regulatory guidelines regarding the arbitrary write-off of loans by financial institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977, civil or criminal in nature?
  • Does the exercise of influence by a public representative to secure a financial benefit for a family member constitute 'misconduct' under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977?
  • Can 'misconduct' through undue influence be established without proof of explicit verbal commands?
  • Does the standard of proof in proceedings under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977, require the benefit of doubt to be extended to the respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ahmed vs The State1994 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-14
  private defenceculpable homicideunnatural lustsodomyexceeding right of self-defencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after the trial court and the High Court found he had exceeded his right of private defence. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who claimed he killed the deceased while resisting an attempted act of sodomy, was entitled to a full acquittal under the right of private defence provided by Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts had accepted the appellant's version of events as probable and natural. The High Court had erroneously concluded that the appellant exceeded his right of private defence because the deceased was disarmed and the appellant's injuries were insignificant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's actions were justified under the fourth clause of Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which permits the causing of death to prevent an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 extend to causing death when resisting an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust?
  • Can a conviction for exceeding the right of private defence be sustained if the court accepts the accused's version of events as natural and probable?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-14
  private defenceexceeding right of self-defenceculpable homicideunnatural lustsuspension of sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for causing the death of the deceased. The petitioner, a student at the time, claimed he acted in self-defence after being waylaid and subjected to an attempted act of sodomy by the deceased and his companion. Both the trial court and the High Court concluded that while the petitioner had a right of private defence, he had exceeded that right. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner’s actions fell within the scope of the right of private defence as defined under Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding the apprehension of grievous hurt or the commission of unnatural lust. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law of self-defence. Pending the appeal, the Court suspended the petitioner's sentence, noting his status as a law student and his prior bail history.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence of the body extend to causing death when there is an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust?
  • Can a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the accused exceeded the right of private defence?
  • Under what circumstances can a sentence be suspended pending the hearing of an appeal in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz And Other vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-11
  prohibition ordercharas smugglingbenefit of the doubtenhancement of sentencerevisional powerspilot vehicleburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which had dismissed the appellants' appeal against their conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and enhanced their sentences in revision. The prosecution alleged that certain appellants, who were excise officials, were piloting a truck carrying a large quantity of contraband charas, while the remaining appellants were the driver and owner transporting the narcotics. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the defense version of the excise officials intercepting the smugglers was more probable, and the legality of the appellate court enhancing sentences beyond the trial magistrate's powers under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the allegation of piloting against the excise officials, whose defense version was found to be plausible, thereby entitling them to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal. Furthermore, the Court held that the Federal Shariat Court could not legally enhance the imprisonment and fine beyond the maximum limits competent to a Magistrate of the 1st Class under Section 439(3) Cr.P.C., but maintained the mandatory sentence of whipping. The key principles laid down include that the prosecution must prove its case independently and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense, that a plausible defense must be extended the benefit of doubt, and that an appellate/revisional court cannot enhance a sentence beyond the jurisdictional competence of the original trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can derive benefit from the weakness of the defense in a criminal trial?
  • Does suspicion by a police officer substitute for proof of abetment?
  • Can an appellate court legally enhance a sentence beyond the maximum limits imposable by a Magistrate of the 1st Class under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.?
  • Is the imposition of whipping mandatory under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Qutabuddin vs Farzand Ali1994 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-10
  pre-emptionoccupancy rightscivil revisionduty of courtright of substitutionPunjab Tenancy Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of occupancy rights in land. The trial court and the district court decreed the suit in favor of the pre-emptor, holding that the sale was pre-emptible. In revision, the High Court applied Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which had extinguished occupancy rights and converted such tenants into owners by operation of law, a point not raised in lower courts. The appellant challenged this, arguing that a new legal ground could not be introduced in revision without notice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Judge has a duty to apply the law of the land to the facts proved on the record, regardless of whether counsel invokes it. The Court affirmed that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, meaning the pre-emptor acquires no better title than what the transferor was capable of passing. The Court concluded that the sale of occupancy rights in 1982 was legally untenable, and the pre-emptor's right is limited to the extent of the interest the vendor actually possessed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court legally justified in deciding a case based on a point of law not raised by the parties in the lower courts?
  • Does the right of pre-emption allow a pre-emptor to acquire a better title than what the transferor was capable of passing to the vendee?
  • Is a judge under a duty to apply the law of the land to the facts proved on the record even if counsel fails to invoke it?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadu and 3 others vs The State1994 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  bail cancellationcriminal lawmurderprima facie casecompromisemedical evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by a Judge in Chambers, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by an Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving charges of murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being implicated in a serious crime supported by eye-witness accounts and medical evidence, and whether a purported compromise between the parties justified the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the petitioners were assigned specific roles in the First Information Report, which were corroborated by medical reports, and that there were prima facie reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the alleged crimes of murder and causing grievous injury. The Court further established the principle that at the bail stage, it is not appropriate to evaluate the merits of an alleged compromise, and that bail should be refused when there is sufficient prima facie evidence linking the accused to the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court consider an alleged compromise between parties at the bail stage?
  • Does the existence of specific roles assigned in an FIR and supported by medical evidence constitute reasonable grounds to refuse bail?
  • Is the cancellation of bail justified when there is prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab vs Abdul Aziz Qureshi1994 PLC (C.S.) 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22
  civil servantcompulsory retirementanti-corruptionacquittalservice tribunalmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 14-7-1988, whereby the respondent's removal from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 was set aside. The respondent, a Principal of a Government Commercial Training Institute, had been retired after completing 25 years of qualifying service based on a recommendation citing a pending trial in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal question was whether the removal from service based on such grounds was sustainable when the foundation of the recommendation was subsequently undermined by an honorable acquittal and expunged adverse entries. The Supreme Court held that since the very basis of the recommendation for retirement—namely the anti-corruption case—was knocked out by the acquittal judgment demonstrating that the charges were frivolous and motivated by extraneous reasons, the Service Tribunal was fully justified in setting aside the removal. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that an order of retirement under section 12(ii) based on pending criminal proceedings cannot be sustained once the substratum of those proceedings collapses through an acquittal that exonerates the civil servant from misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether retirement of a civil servant under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 can be sustained when the criminal case forming the basis of such retirement results in acquittal?
  • Can a service tribunal set aside an order of retirement where the foundational material for the action is found to be non-existent or frivolous?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab vs Abdul Aziz Qureshi1994 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22
  civil servantcompulsory retirementremoval from serviceacquittalservice tribunalanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal, Lahore, dated 14-7-1988, whereby the respondent's removal from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, was set aside. The respondent, a Principal at a Government Commercial Training Institute, had been retired upon completing 25 years of service qualifying for pension, based on a recommendation noting that a case was under trial against him in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal question concerned the validity of retirement under section 12(ii) when the foundational premise—the pending anti-corruption case—resulted in an honorable acquittal and the allegations were found to be frivolous and motivated by extraneous reasons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the very basis of the recommendation for removal was knocked out by the subsequent acquittal and the Punjab Service Tribunal correctly appreciated the record without any misreading or non-reading, the appeal against the Tribunal's judgment must fail. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a retirement order predicated on pending criminal proceedings cannot sustain when the foundational criminal case results in an acquittal demonstrating that the civil servant was subjected to prosecution for extraneous reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether retirement from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 can be sustained when the foundational anti-corruption case results in acquittal?
  • Can a service tribunal set aside an order of retirement where the basis for recommendation was found to be non-existent or frivolous?
  • Is a civil servant's retirement order immune from judicial scrutiny when the underlying criminal proceedings leave no slur on the conduct of the employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, through Collector, Rawalpindi and 2 others vs Naseeruddin and 13 others1994 SCMR 2091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-14
  land acquisitionenhanced compensationcompetency of appealreference courtLand Acquisition CollectorProvincial Government
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals addressed the competency of appeals filed by the Provincial Government and Land Acquisition Collectors against enhanced compensation awards under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether the acquiring department, Provincial Government, or Land Acquisition Collector could maintain an appeal before the High Court against a reference court's judgment enhancing land compensation. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government, having the statutory right to seek a reference and being a party to the proceedings, is fully competent to maintain an appeal. Furthermore, an appeal filed by a duly notified Land Acquisition Collector is also maintainable in law. The Court laid down that statutory amendments governing references and cross-objections do not bar the Provincial Government's right of appeal, and appeals instituted by competent Land Acquisition Collectors or where the Province is a co-appellant are legally competent and cannot be dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed by the Provincial Government against an enhanced compensation award under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is competent?
  • Does a Land Acquisition Collector have the legal capacity to maintain an appeal before the High Court against a reference court's judgment?
  • What is the effect of various legislative amendments to section 18 and section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the Provincial Government's right of reference and appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Tayyab and 2 others1994 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-29
  land acquisitioncompensation quantumcivil appealjudicial consistencylandowner compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of appeals filed by the Province of the Punjab challenging a judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a modification made by a Senior Civil Judge to an award originally determined by the Collector, Bahawalpur. The core legal question involved the determination of the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to landowners in land acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, noting that the issues raised in the present appeals were identical to those previously adjudicated in Civil Appeals Nos. 18 to 22 of 1988, relied upon the reasoning established in that earlier decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the findings of the High Court regarding the compensation amount. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial consistency, holding that where the legal and factual issues in a set of appeals have been previously resolved by the Court in related matters, the same reasoning and outcome apply to subsequent identical challenges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan follow the reasoning of previously decided identical appeals when disposing of subsequent appeals involving the same judgment?
  • Is the quantum of compensation determined by the High Court in land acquisition matters subject to interference by the Supreme Court when identical issues have already been adjudicated?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, W11/Secretary, Pension Cases1994 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-17
  service lawpensionary benefitsService Tribunal jurisdictionregularization of servicecontingent employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against an order of the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the authority of the Service Tribunal to grant pensionary benefits to an employee in the absence of a specific government notification declaring their service as pensionable. The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be converted into an appeal and allowed. The Court's preliminary holding suggests that the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by unilaterally ordering the regularization of service for pension purposes based on a notification that applied to a different category of contingent employees. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot create pensionary rights or regularize service for pension purposes where no specific notification exists to support such a claim, nor can it extend the benefits of notifications intended for distinct categories of employees to those not covered by such instruments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal order pensionary benefits for an employee in the absence of a specific notification declaring their service as pensionable?
  • Is it legally permissible for a Service Tribunal to extend the benefits of a notification concerning one category of contingent employees to a different category of employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore1994 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30
  civil servantarrears of payjurisdiction of civil courtsservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit filed by a Headmaster against the Province of Punjab, claiming arrears of pay based on a specific pay scale notification. The trial and appellate courts held that the claim for arrears was not a service matter and thus fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 barred Civil Courts from entertaining such claims. The Court held that the respondent was a civil servant and his claim for pay arrears constituted a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was completely excluded by Article 212, and the appropriate forum for such grievances is the Service Tribunal. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the plaint was rejected as incompetent, establishing that disputes concerning the pay and emoluments of civil servants are exclusively within the domain of Service Tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters relating to the pay and arrears of civil servants?
  • Are claims for arrears of pay by a civil servant considered matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Is a civil suit maintainable for the recovery of pay arrears by a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30
  civil servantarrears of payjurisdictionService TribunalArticle 212terms and conditions of servicecivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a claim by a civil servant for arrears of pay. The respondent, a Headmaster, had successfully sued the provincial government in Civil Court for arrears based on a specific pay scale notification. The core legal question was whether such a claim falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The Supreme Court held that the claim for arrears of pay constitutes a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, as defined under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. Consequently, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is completely excluded in such matters by Article 212. The principle laid down is that any claim involving the enforcement of terms and conditions of service, including pay, must be adjudicated by the appropriate Service Tribunal, and Civil Courts lack the competence to entertain such suits. The appeal was allowed, and the plaint was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil servant's claim for arrears of pay?
  • Is a claim for arrears of pay considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education Department and anothers vs Saeed Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21
  service matterwrit jurisdictionArticle 212 barinterim orderpromotionservice tribunalacting charge appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court, which admitted a writ petition for regular hearing and suspended the appointment of a Director (Sports) while the matter remained sub judice. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, particularly in light of the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding service matters. The Supreme Court, having already set aside a related Service Tribunal order that had improperly antedated the respondent's promotion, declined to decide the jurisdictional issue at the interim stage. Instead, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the High Court to proceed with the final adjudication of the writ petition, explicitly instructing the High Court to determine the question of its own jurisdiction under Article 212 within two months. The principle laid down is that where a matter involves complex service issues and pending related litigation, the High Court should be allowed to resolve the entire controversy, including jurisdictional challenges, in its final judgment rather than having interim orders adjudicated piecemeal by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service matters in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide the question of High Court jurisdiction at the interim stage of a writ petition?
  • Does a Service Tribunal have the competence to antedate the promotion of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Education Department And Another vs Saeed Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21
  service matterwrit jurisdictionArticle 212interim orderappointmentpromotionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an interim order of the Lahore High Court, which admitted a writ petition for regular hearing and suspended the appointment of a Director (Sports). The respondent, Saeed Ahmed Khan, had challenged the appointment of another individual, Miss Shahida Khanum, while simultaneously seeking his own promotion. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition given the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding service matters. The Supreme Court, having already disposed of a related appeal concerning the respondent's promotion, declined to decide the jurisdictional issue at the interim stage. Instead, the Court held that the High Court should determine the question of its own jurisdiction and the merits of the writ petition finally. The principle laid down is that where a writ petition involves complex service matters and questions of jurisdiction under Article 212, it is appropriate for the High Court to decide the matter finally rather than having the Supreme Court intervene at the interim order stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service matters in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide the question of High Court jurisdiction at the interim stage of a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, C and W Department, Lahore and 2 others vs M_s. Shafsal Enterprises, Government Contractor through its Managing Partner1994 SCMR 1993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-31
  arbitrationrescission of contractgovernment contractoraward made rule of courtbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over a government road construction contract that was rescinded by the petitioner. The respondent contractor filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference to arbitration. The appointed arbitrators concluded that the rescission of the contract by the government was improper and awarded a sum to the respondent, which was subsequently made a rule of the court. The High Court partly modified the award in an appeal. The core legal question was whether the contract was rightly rescinded and whether the arbitrators and courts below erred in making the award a rule of the court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the default of the contractor and that the rescission of the contract was illegal, upholding the modified award. The court laid down the principle that the power to rescind a contract and forfeit security under contract terms is contingent upon the contractor rendering themselves liable to pay compensation, which cannot be invoked when the government itself is found in breach.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rescission of a government contract is valid when the authority fails to prove the default of the contractor?
  • Can a party object that an agreement was not placed on record when it failed to produce the same before the trial court?
  • Does the power to rescind a contract and forfeit security arise when the contractor has not been found liable to pay compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through District Collector, Vehari vs Ghulam1994 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21
  proprietary rightsstate landcolonization of government landsjurisdictional factsremandBoard of Revenue instructionsprohibited zone
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the conferment of proprietary rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The respondent, a tenant on state land, was denied proprietary rights by the Collector on two grounds: the land fell within a prohibited zone, and it was located within the bed of the 'KHUSK BIAS' river, which was excluded from allotment. The Supreme Court observed that the Collector erred in applying the prohibited zone distance criteria applicable at the time of conferment rather than at the time of original allotment, and failed to consult WAPDA authorities regarding the riverbed exclusion. While the High Court correctly identified these jurisdictional defects, it erred by substituting its own finding rather than remanding the matter. However, given that the Board of Revenue subsequently clarified that the 'KHUSK BIAS' river is no longer in flow and existing grantees need not be dislocated, the Court found the jurisdictional questions moot. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, directing that the respondent's entitlement be reconsidered in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the distance criteria for a prohibited zone in land allotment should be measured at the time of original allotment or at the time of conferment of proprietary rights?
  • Can the High Court record a substitutive finding on a jurisdictional issue instead of remanding the matter to the designated authority?
  • Does the failure of a Collector to consult relevant authorities regarding land exclusion constitute a jurisdictional defect requiring judicial interference?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Rawalpindi vs Zafar Ali Shah1994 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10
  leave to appealstay of executionspecific performancedecree executionundertakingcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The Province of Punjab through Collector Rawalpindi sought leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court declining to stay the execution of a sale-deed and suspend the operation of a decree for specific performance passed in favor of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to stay execution proceedings under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 pending the disposal of the main appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no legal error, noting that the refusal was based on an undertaking by the decree-holder's counsel to vacate the premises and restore possession if the appeal succeeded, thereby sufficiently protecting the petitioner's rights. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to stay execution of a decree for specific performance when the decree-holder provides an undertaking to restore possession if the appeal succeeds?
  • Does the refusal to stay execution under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 warrant interference by the Supreme Court when adequate safeguards for restoration are in place?
  Read full judgment →
• Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Lahore And Another vs Ghulam1994 PLC (C.S.) 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10
  service appeallimitation periodFederal Service Tribunalcompulsory retirementdismissal from serviceremandmisappropriation of funds
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the respondent's penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with pecuniary benefits. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in failing to address the issue of limitation regarding the service appeal and whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal to reduce the penalty without deciding the appeal on its merits, particularly when the appeal was allegedly time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the objection regarding the limitation period and erred by not disposing of the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal is legally obligated to address the question of limitation and dispose of an appeal on its merits, rather than merely reducing a penalty based on a request, especially when the maintainability of the appeal is challenged.

  Questions settled

  • Is a service tribunal required to decide the question of limitation before disposing of an appeal on merits?
  • Can a service tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement without first adjudicating the appeal on its merits?
  • Does a request by a respondent for the reduction of a penalty constitute a valid ground for a tribunal to bypass a decision on the merits of the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Lahore and another vs Ghulam1994 SCMR 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delayreduction of penaltyFederal Service Tribunalmisappropriation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which disposed of the respondent's service appeal by converting the penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement with pecuniary benefits. The core legal questions involve whether the Tribunal erred in failing to address the issue of limitation and in reducing the penalty without deciding the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was required to address the question of limitation and dispose of the appeal on merits rather than reducing the penalty upon a request without adjudication. The Court laid down the principle that service tribunals must properly consider limitation and decide matters on merits, particularly when objections regarding time-bar are raised, rather than altering penalties based solely on concessions or requests without examination of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is bound to decide the question of limitation before granting relief in a service appeal?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal reduce a penalty without disposing of the appeal on merits?
  • Does a request for reduction of penalty by the appellant justify bypassing the determination of a time-bar objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Sabir Shah vs Federation of Pakistan and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-21
  Constitutional petitionPresidential Proclamationde facto doctrineouster of jurisdictiondefectionvote of confidenceprovincial autonomyjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province (N.-W.F.P.) challenging a presidential Proclamation issued under Article 234 of the Constitution. The Proclamation directed the Governor to assume the functions of the Provincial Government, declared that the powers of the Provincial Assembly would be exercised by Parliament, and ordered that the Chief Minister and his Cabinet cease to hold office. The core legal questions were whether the court's jurisdiction was barred under Article 236(2); whether the Acting Governor's appointment could be collaterally challenged; whether the Proclamation was valid; and whether the President could permanently dismiss a Cabinet under Article 234. The Supreme Court, by a 7-to-2 majority, held that while the temporary assumption of provincial functions was valid due to a Constitutional deadlock, the Proclamation was in excess of presidential authority under Article 234 to the extent that it permanently dismissed the Cabinet. The Court ruled that upon the lapse of the Proclamation, the Chief Minister and his Cabinet stand revived, though the Governor may re-fix a date requiring a vote of confidence under Article 130(5).

  Questions settled

  • Does the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 236(2) of the Constitution bar judicial review of a Proclamation that is without jurisdiction, coram non judice, or mala fide?
  • Can the validity of the appointment of an Acting Governor be challenged collaterally in a proceeding contesting a Proclamation based on his report?
  • Does the power of the President under Article 234 of the Constitution extend to the permanent dismissal of a Chief Minister and the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Is the Governor's power to summon the Provincial Assembly under Article 130(5) controlled or restricted by the Speaker's power under Article 54(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Law1994 PLD Supreme Court 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-27
  civil procedure special provisionsdelegation of powersjurisdictiontypographical errortribunal awardde facto exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave addresses whether the Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan, lacked jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of a civil suit instituted after a delegation notification under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The appellant challenged the judgments of special forums and the High Court, arguing that the word 'pending' in paragraph 4 of the Deputy Commissioner's delegation notification restricted the delegate's power solely to cases already pending on the date of the notification. The core legal question is whether the use of the term 'pending' in the delegation order was a clerical or typographical mistake that should be interpreted contextually to include general authorization for future suits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the word 'pending' was a mere typographical error in light of the statutory scheme and the surrounding context, and that the de facto and continuous exercise of jurisdiction without objection was valid. The Court affirmed that courts can rectify or supply omissions to reflect the true intent of the authority and prevent injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the use of the word 'pending' in a delegation notification under section 15 of the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 restricts the delegated powers exclusively to cases pending at the time of issuance?
  • Can a court correct or interpret a clerical or typographical error in an administrative delegation order to reflect the true intention of the authority?
  • Does the de facto exercise of jurisdiction by an officer over a prolonged period cure technical defects in appointment or delegation?
  • Are proceedings conducted by a Political Assistant under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 vitiated by a technical defect in the wording of a delegation notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Ijaz Sheikh vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government1994 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  service appealseniority disputelimitation periodcondonation of delaySecretariat Groupfederal service tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning the assignment of seniority in the Secretariat Group as time-barred and misconceived. The petitioner, initially promoted in the Postal Group, was later inducted into the Secretariat Group as a Deputy Secretary and sought seniority from the date of his regular promotion in his parent group. The core legal questions involve the computation of limitation periods for service appeals regarding seniority disputes, the effect of subsequent judicial pronouncements on time-barred claims, and whether a civil servant can await the outcome of litigation initiated by colleagues to circumvent limitation bars. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly found the appeal time-barred, as the petitioner failed to challenge the gradation list issued in 1990 and could not claim a fresh period of limitation by filing a belated representation based on a subsequent judgment. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot bypass statutory limitation periods or revive stale claims by submitting belated representations awaiting judicial decisions rendered in cases of other employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a fresh period of limitation for challenging a seniority gradation list by filing a belated departmental representation based on a subsequent judicial decision?
  • Does awaiting the outcome of litigation filed by other colleagues constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay under the Limitation Act 1908 in service matters?
  • Whether an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal against a gradation list issued several years prior is maintainable when no timely departmental appeal was pursued.
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation And Another vs Riaz Ahmad1994 PLC (C.S.) 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-11
  petition for leave to appealwrit of mandamusservice rulespromotion quotacorporation employeescivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court directing the petitioners to fill vacant posts of Assistant Divisional Engineer in accordance with the promotion and recruitment quotas prescribed under Rule 2(a) of the Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules of 1976. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus enforcing service rules against the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation in respect of employees transferred under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Ordinance, 1991. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of the High Court's direction and whether the respondents were amenable to writ jurisdiction despite becoming corporation employees. The holding is that leave is granted to examine the propriety of issuing a writ of mandamus based on the said rules, maintaining the interim order pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in issuing a writ of mandamus on the basis of promotion and recruitment rules against the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation?
  • Does the transfer of departmental employees to the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation under section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Ordinance, 1991 alter their status as civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Shaukat Ali, Hamdani And Others1994 PLC 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-14
  payment of wagesillegal deductionjurisdiction of authoritypay rulesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions and maintained the orders of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Punjab Labour Court. The private respondents had filed applications under section 15(2) of the Act for the recovery of amounts illegally deducted from their wages. The petitioner resisted the applications, raising objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction concerning promotions versus increments, and whether the respondents fell within the definition of workers under the Act. The Authority and the Labour Court decided against the petitioner, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petitions. The Supreme Court considered the contentions raised regarding the misapplication of Pay Rules, 1962, and previous case law, and consequently granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower forums and the High Court erred in their findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is maintainable for claims relating to promotions rather than increments?
  • Whether employees drawing more than a specified monthly wage are excluded from the definition of workers under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Whether the provisions of the Pay Rules, 1962 apply to matters of promotion or revision of pay scales?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Shaukat Ali Hamdani and others1994 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-14
  Payment of Wages Actillegal deduction of wagesleave to appealjurisdiction of Authoritydefinition of workerPay Rules 1962promotion vs increment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which upheld orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Punjab Labour Court. The private respondents had initiated proceedings for the recovery of amounts allegedly deducted illegally from their wages. The petitioner contested these claims, arguing that the applications were not maintainable, that the underlying dispute related to promotion rather than increments—thereby falling outside the Authority's jurisdiction—and that the respondents, earning over Rs. 1,000 per month, did not qualify as 'workers' under the Act. The Authority and the Labour Court ruled against the petitioner on both legal and merit-based grounds, decisions subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Pay Rules, 1962, were misapplied regarding the distinction between promotion and pay scale revision, whether the impugned judgments conflicted with established Supreme Court precedents, and whether the Labour Court erred in its reliance on conflicting High Court jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving promotion rather than increment?
  • Do employees drawing more than Rs. 1,000 per month qualify as 'workers' under the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
  • Does paragraph (II) of the Pay Rules 1962 apply to the revision of pay scales or exclusively to promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways and others vs Muhammad Anwar Bhatti1994 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27
  leave to appealservice lawenhancement of penaltydepartmental inquiryPakistan Railways
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways and others against Muhammad Anwar Bhatti. The core legal question concerns the competency of the General Manager of Pakistan Railways to enhance a penalty previously imposed upon the respondent by an authorized officer, specifically whether such enhancement could be lawfully carried out without conducting a regular inquiry as mandated by the applicable service rules. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the matter requires detailed examination to determine the procedural prerequisites and statutory limitations governing the enhancement of penalties by higher authorities within the railway establishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the General Manager, Pakistan Railways is competent to enhance a penalty imposed upon an employee by the authorised officer without holding a regular inquiry under the applicable rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi vs Wafaqi1994 PLD Supreme Court 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22
  Wafaqi Mohtasibservice grievancemaladministrationReview Boardtermination of servicejurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The dispute arose from the termination of respondent No. 2's services in 1981, which he later challenged before a Review Board constituted by the Government in 1989 to address terminations based on political grounds. Although the Board allegedly recommended relief, no written order was produced. Respondent No. 2 subsequently approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib, who found maladministration and directed PIAC to provide retirement benefits and compensation. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, specifically regarding service-related grievances, and the authority of the Review Board to adjudicate the termination. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the interpretation of the notification constituting the Review Board and the statutory provisions of the Wafaqi Mohtasib Order are of general legal importance. The operation of the impugned judgment was stayed pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding service-related grievances of a public servant under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983?
  • Can a party that participated in proceedings before a Review Board without objection later challenge the Board's jurisdiction?
  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have the authority to enforce recommendations of a Review Board where the written findings are unavailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Diploma Engineers Federation (Registered) Through Its1994 PLC (C.S.) 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13
  professional engineering workPakistan Engineering Council Actdiploma engineerspromotion eligibilitystatutory interpretationgovernment employmentlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved multiple appeals concerning the eligibility of diploma-holding engineers in Pakistan Railways for promotion to Grade-18 and the applicability of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 to government-employed engineers. The core legal question was whether diploma engineers could be debarred from promotion based on their lack of registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council, and whether the Act's penal provisions regarding 'professional engineering work' applied to government employees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the specific grievances regarding promotion had been rendered moot or resolved by subsequent administrative actions. Regarding the interpretation of the Act, the Court affirmed the High Court's view that while the Act does not mandate registration for all government-employed engineers merely by virtue of their employment, the Act's prohibitions and penalties apply to any person—whether in private or government service—who undertakes 'professional engineering work' as defined by the statute without being registered. The key principle established is that the Act regulates the nature of the work performed rather than the status of the employer, and government departments cannot assign professional engineering tasks to unregistered persons without attracting statutory penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976 apply to engineers employed in government departments?
  • Can a government department assign professional engineering work to an unregistered engineer without violating the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976?
  • Is a registered body under the Societies Act 1860 considered an aggrieved person for the purposes of a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Diploma Engineers Federation (Registered) through its1994 SCMR 1807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13
  diploma engineerspromotionPakistan Engineering Council Actprofessional engineering workregistration requirementgovernment employmentlocus standiconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard three appeals concerning the promotion of Diploma Engineers in Pakistan Railways to Grade-18. The central question was whether these engineers could be debarred from promotion due to non-registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council, despite meeting other eligibility criteria. Two appeals were dismissed as withdrawn after the appellants acknowledged their apprehension regarding promotion was incorrect. The third appeal challenged the High Court's interpretation of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Act's provisions, particularly Section 27, apply to all individuals undertaking "professional engineering work" as defined in the Act, irrespective of their employment in private or governmental organizations. The Court clarified that while government can appoint non-graduate engineers, if the post involves professional engineering work, such appointment attracts penalties under the Act. However, merely possessing an engineering qualification and being employed in a job requiring engineering skill does not automatically necessitate registration under the Act unless they undertake "professional engineering work" as defined.

  Questions settled

  • Can Diploma Engineers be debarred from promotion to Grade-18 in Pakistan Railways due to non-registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council?
  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 apply to engineers employed in government departments?
  • What constitutes "professional engineering work" under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
  • Is a body registered under the Societies Act, 1860, an "aggrieved person" under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for grievances related to its members' terms and conditions?
  • Can a government department appoint a non-graduate engineer to a post involving professional engineering work without attracting penalties under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Bachelor of Technology Engineers Council through Chairman and anothers vs The University of Engineering and Technology Lahore through ViceChancellor and 4 others1994 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23
  leave to appealquestion of lawjudicial consistencyappellate jurisdictionSupreme Court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Pakistan Bachelor of Technology Engineers Council against the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. The core legal question involves the determination of a specific point of law that has previously been raised in other pending matters before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Upon consideration, the Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to ensure consistency in judicial determination, as the same legal issue is currently under review in other cases, specifically Muhammad Sadiq v. University of Sindh (C.P. No. 264-K of 1989) and Absar Hussain v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad (C.P. No. 103-K of 1989), where leave to appeal has already been granted. The key principle laid down is that where identical questions of law are pending adjudication in other matters where leave has been granted, it is appropriate to grant leave in the instant case to maintain uniformity and avoid conflicting decisions on the same legal question.

  Questions settled

  • Is it appropriate to grant leave to appeal when the same question of law is already pending in other cases where leave has been granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Khan and 3 others vs Habibullah Khan and 27 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-04
  giftMarz-ul-MautMushaaundue influenceIslamic lawinheritancepreferential giftcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged the validity of gifts made by the deceased, Muhammad Aslam Khan, in favor of his grandchildren, which were contested by his collaterals. The appellants alleged that the donor lacked mental capacity, acted under undue influence, and that the gifts were made during Marz-ul-Maut and violated the doctrine of Mushaa. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the donor was of sound mind and the gifts were voluntary. Regarding Marz-ul-Maut, the Court found the criteria for death-bed illness were not satisfied. Crucially, the Court affirmed that under Islamic law, a preferential gift to some heirs, while potentially sinful, is not void. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of Mushaa—the gift of undivided property—is an archaic principle that should be narrowly applied; such gifts are not void, and any irregularity is cured once possession is delivered and shares are ascertainable. The Court emphasized that Islamic jurisprudence permits such alienations, provided the donor has divested ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Muslim validly make a gift of property to some heirs while excluding others?
  • Is a gift of undivided property (Mushaa) void under Islamic law?
  • What are the criteria for determining if a gift was made during Marz-ul-Maut?
  • Does a gift of property to multiple donees without prior partition constitute a void transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Siddique and others1994 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-19
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionpleadingssecond appealconcurrent findingsnew pleaburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a pre-emption suit concerning land purchased by the appellants in 1971. The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption in 1972, asserting a superior right of pre-emption based on their ownership in the estate. The appellants contested this, claiming they were tenants of the land, but failed to substantiate this assertion with documentary evidence. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants attempted to introduce a new plea that they had acquired ownership rights in the estate prior to the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court observed that this plea was not raised in the written statement and was therefore impermissible at such a late stage. Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondents' superior pre-emptive right and the appellants' failure to prove their status as tenants, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that findings based on pleadings and evidence will not be disturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party introduce a new plea of ownership in a pre-emption suit for the first time during appeal proceedings?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the superiority of pre-emptive rights subject to interference in a Supreme Court appeal?
  • Does the failure to raise a specific defense in the written statement preclude a party from relying on it during subsequent appellate stages?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Abdullah and another1994 SCMR 2027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22
  review petitionadjournmentSupreme Court jurisdictioncivil appealdismissal of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition seeking review of a judgment previously rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 1990, dated 30-1-1993. The petitioner sought an adjournment of the review proceedings citing the counsel's medical inability to travel from Lahore to Islamabad due to backache. The Supreme Court, exercising its jurisdiction to review its own judgments, proceeded to examine the merits of the review petition despite the request for adjournment. Upon careful consideration of the grounds presented in the review petition and a re-examination of the original judgment sought to be reviewed, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to establish any valid or sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the well-considered judgment previously delivered. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the earlier decision. The petition for review was accordingly dismissed. The judgment reinforces the principle that a review petition cannot be entertained in the absence of substantial and proper grounds demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient cause justifying a reconsideration of the final order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical condition of counsel constitute sufficient ground for reviewing a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • What is the standard for entertaining a review petition against a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Can a review petition be dismissed on merits despite a request for adjournment?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muha Mad Khan And , Other vs Habibullah Khan And 27 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-04
  giftmarz-ul-mautmushaaexclusion of heirsundue influenceislamic lawburden of proofdeath-bed transactions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court dismissing a civil suit filed by collaterals challenging various gift deeds executed by one Muhammad Aslam Khan in favor of his grandchildren and daughters. The core legal questions involved whether the gifts were vitiated by duress, coercion, and lack of mental capacity; whether they were void under the doctrine of Marz-ul-Maut (death-bed illness); whether a Muslim can validly gift property to some heirs while excluding others; and whether the gifts were invalid under the doctrine of Mushaa. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the donor's sound mental state and the absence of duress or Marz-ul-Maut were unexceptionable. The Court further laid down that under Islamic law, a preferential gift of property excluding certain heirs is not void, and that the rigid doctrine of Mushaa is unadapted to a progressive society and does not render a joint gift void where shares are specified and possession is delivered. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a gift of immovable property made by a Muslim in favor of some heirs while excluding others is void under Islamic law?
  • Does the doctrine of Marz-ul-Maut invalidate gifts made by a person suffering from a prolonged illness without the immediate apprehension of death?
  • Whether a joint gift of property capable of partition in favor of multiple donees is void or merely irregular under the doctrine of Mushaa?
  • What are the essential factors to determine whether a transaction was executed under Marz-ul-Maut?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11
  leave to appealillegal gratificationrecovery of tainted moneycorruptioncriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chambers upholding his conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, along with a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question before the court was whether the recovery of tainted bribe money from a file accessible to multiple persons, coupled with a prior altercation between the petitioner and the complainant, warranted interference with the conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding accessibility of the file and the alleged clandestine placement of the tainted money by the complainant required consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the petitioner's existing bail shall continue during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction for accepting a bribe can be sustained when the tainted money is recovered from a file accessible to other persons?
  • Does a prior altercation between the complainant and the accused provide sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal in a corruption case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Begum and 5 others vs Fazal Dad and 2 others1994 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-20
  pre-emption suitex parte decreecut-off dateleave to appealagricultural landco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The respondent purchased agricultural land in 1968, and the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest filed a pre-emption suit in 1969 based on being a collateral and co-sharer. Although the suit was initially decreed ex parte in 1969, that decree was subsequently set aside. In 1988, the trial court dismissed the suit, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah and Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali, which established that no pre-emption decree could be passed after 31-7-1986. The petitioners' subsequent appeal and revision petition were dismissed by the lower courts. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the initial ex parte decree removed the bar against passing a decree after the cut-off date, relying on later Supreme Court precedents. The Court found that the contention regarding the effect of the prior ex parte decree on the statutory cut-off date required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve whether the earlier decree created a vested right or exception to the established cut-off date.

  Questions settled

  • Does an initial ex parte decree in a pre-emption suit exempt the suit from the cut-off date for passing decrees established in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah?
  • Can a pre-emption decree be passed after 31-7-1986 if the suit was originally decreed ex parte before that date?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Baig alias Jahangir Baig vs Muhammad Anwar and another1994 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21
  bail cancellationcriminal liabilityunlawful assemblypolice investigation recordmisrepresentation of factsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order recalling the bail previously granted to the petitioner in a criminal case. The petitioner was accused of being part of an armed group involved in a shooting incident that resulted in injuries. Initially, the petitioner was denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge due to his presence, specific role in causing injury, and membership in an unlawful assembly. The High Court initially granted bail based on claims that police officers had found the petitioner innocent during the investigation. However, upon subsequent review of the case diary, it was discovered that these claims were factually incorrect and that the police record implicated the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court recalled the bail order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the initial bail grant was premised on a misrepresentation of the police record. The Court affirmed that where a bail order is based on a false premise regarding the investigation findings, the court is justified in recalling such an order upon discovering the true state of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court recall an order granting bail if the order was based on a misrepresentation of the police investigation record?
  • Is a court justified in cancelling bail when the police record contradicts the claim of innocence relied upon for the initial grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Ghulam Rasul and others1994 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08
  post-arrest bailineffective firingmurder caseleave to appealcriminal procedureidentification of assailants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondents in a murder case. The petitioner sought to challenge the bail order, arguing that the respondents had a motive for the crime. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion appropriately in granting bail given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had granted bail based on findings that only ineffective firing was attributed to the respondents, no crime empties were recovered from the scene, and the incident occurred at midnight, making identification difficult. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted the petitioner's inability to controvert these findings or provide a satisfactory explanation for the 75-day delay in filing the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order did not warrant interference. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail is appropriately granted when the prosecution's case relies on weak evidence, such as ineffective firing and lack of corroborative physical evidence, particularly in cases of nighttime occurrences.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail justified when only ineffective firing is attributed to the accused?
  • Does the lack of recovery of crime empties from the scene of the crime constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be granted in a murder case where the occurrence took place at night, making identification difficult?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Fateh Muhammad1994 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-06
  pre-emptioncustom of pre-emptionurban immovable propertynew Abadiagricultural landright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding a house in Multan. The appellant contested the suit, arguing that the property was located in a 'new Abadi' (settlement) where no custom of pre-emption existed at the time of the commencement of the Pre-emption Act, 1913. The trial court and subsequent appellate courts decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court examined whether a right of pre-emption could exist in an area that was agricultural land in 1913 and only became residential after 1947. Relying on Section 7 and Section 3(3) of the Pre-emption Act, 1913, the Court held that a right of pre-emption exists only where a custom of pre-emption is proved to have been in existence at the time of the Act's commencement. Since the area was agricultural land in 1913 and the habitation developed post-1947, the custom could not have existed in 1913. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit, establishing that pre-emption cannot be claimed in areas that were not urban or inhabited at the time of the Act's inception.

  Questions settled

  • Does a right of pre-emption exist in respect of property situated in an area that was agricultural land at the time of the commencement of the Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Is proof of the existence of a custom of pre-emption at the time of the commencement of the Pre-emption Act, 1913, a mandatory requirement for a valid pre-emption suit?
  • Can a suit for pre-emption be maintained in a 'new Abadi' developed after the creation of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-11
  murderdeath sentencelesser penaltyprovocationcriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed by Nazir Ahmad against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming his death sentence for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant's guilt attracts a lesser penalty under the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant at a card-playing spot led to a brief scuffle, followed immediately by the appellant pursuing and attacking the deceased after being separated, the sudden provocation and lack of premeditated immediate motive entitle the accused to a lesser sentence. The Court accordingly converted the appellant's death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sudden provocation arising from a scuffle during a quarrel warrants the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does an earlier minor dispute that does not serve as the immediate motive affect the quantum of sentence when a sudden fight occurs?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Chief Engineer (Ac&R), Tarbela Dam Project, WAPDA, Tarbela and another1994 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10
  departmental enquirycivil servantjoint trialnatural justicecross-examinationservice appealinfructuous appealdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant. The core legal questions involve the procedural validity of jointly trying two delinquent civil servants in a single departmental enquiry and whether such a joint trial caused material prejudice to the petitioner, specifically regarding the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a key witness whose testimony was relied upon to establish guilt. Additionally, the case questions the consistency of the evidence provided by said witness, who offered contradictory statements regarding the custody of a measurement book, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in declaring the service appeal infructuous after the expiry of the one-year period of the punishment (reduction in rank). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of law of public importance, focusing on the principles of natural justice, the right to cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings, and the procedural requirements for departmental enquiries involving multiple accused persons.

  Questions settled

  • Can two delinquent civil servants be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry?
  • Does a joint departmental trial prejudice a civil servant if they are prevented from cross-examining a witness whose evidence is used to establish their guilt?
  • Does a service appeal become infructuous after the expiry of the period for which a punishment of reduction in rank was ordered?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Chief Engineer (Ac&R), Tarbela Dam Project WAPDA, Tarbela And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10
  service appealdepartmental enquiryjoint trialcross-examinationreduction in rankSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service matter concerning a departmental inquiry against civil servants. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine several important questions of law. The core legal questions involve whether two delinquent civil servants could be jointly tried in a departmental inquiry, whether such joint trial materially prejudiced the petitioner by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine a crucial witness whose evidence was used to establish guilt, whether the contradictory stance of that witness vitiated the proceedings, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in holding that the service appeal had become infructuous after the expiration of the one-year period for which the petitioner's reduction in rank was ordered as punishment. The court's decision involves granting leave to examine these procedural and substantive fairness issues in departmental proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether two delinquent civil servants could at all be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry?
  • Whether such a trial has not materially prejudiced the petitioner as he was prevented from cross-examining an important witness whose evidence was utilized for arriving at the guilt of the petitioner?
  • Whether the stand taken by a witness was not itself contradictory?
  • Whether the Chairman of the Service Tribunal was not in error in taking the view that after the lapse of a year, the period for which reduction in rank of the petitioner was ordered as a punishment, the service appeal had become infructuous?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and another vs The State1994 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22
  extra-judicial confessionlast seen evidencerecoverycriminal appealmurder convictioncircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the murder of a young boy, Rasool Bakhsh. The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution's evidence—specifically the last-seen evidence, the extra-judicial confession made to a relative, and the recovery of incriminating items—was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite alleged discrepancies in witness testimony. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was reliable and corroborated. The extra-judicial confession was deemed credible because the witness was a relative of the accused with no apparent motive to falsely implicate them, and his testimony was further supported by the discovery of the body at the location specified in the confession and the recovery of the deceased's personal effects at the appellants' instance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the conviction was well-founded based on the totality of the circumstantial and testimonial evidence presented.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession made to a relative be relied upon if corroborated by the recovery of the body and incriminating items?
  • Does a discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses regarding the procedure of recovery necessarily invalidate the recovery evidence?
  • Is the last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction when supported by other incriminating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 7 others vs Settlement Commissioner/Chief1994 PLD Supreme Court 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-22
  settlement of claimsexcess allotmentbona fide purchasermukhbariland allotmentevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments obtained in excess of entitlement by original allottees. The petitioners, who were subsequent purchasers of the land from the original allottees, challenged a High Court order that permitted them to retain the land only upon payment of its price, after satisfying the claims of the original informant (Mukhbir). The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as bona fide purchasers, were entitled to retain the land without paying additional consideration, despite the original allotment being found to be in excess of the entitlement. The Supreme Court held that since the original allotment was excessive and the subsequent order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelling the allotment had attained finality, the High Court’s direction for the petitioners to pay the price to retain the land was equitable and just. The Court affirmed that while the law protects bona fide purchasers, such protection is subject to the rights of the state and the priority of the original informant, and does not grant an absolute right to retain land obtained through an invalid allotment without compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent purchaser of land obtained through an excessive allotment claim an absolute right to retain the land without payment if the original allotment is cancelled?
  • Does a bona fide purchaser of land have a superior right over a Mukhbir (informant) who successfully identifies excess land allotment?
  • Is a High Court order requiring a subsequent purchaser to pay the price of land to retain it, following the cancellation of an excessive allotment, legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad And 7 Other vs Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement1994 PLD Supreme Court 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-22
  settlement of claimsexcess allotmentbona fide purchasermukhbari applicationland allotment cancellationevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments obtained by the heirs and collaterals of a deceased claimant, Phool Singh, due to excess entitlement. The petitioners, who were subsequent vendees of the land, challenged the High Court's direction requiring them to pay the price of the land to retain it, arguing they should have been allowed to retain the land without further payment based on a previous Settlement Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court observed that the order relied upon by the petitioners had been set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the matter remanded, a decision the petitioners failed to challenge. The Court held that since the original allottees had obtained land in excess of their entitlement, the High Court’s order, which protected the interests of the bona fide purchasers (petitioners) by allowing them to retain the land upon payment of its price after satisfying the claim of the first informant (Mukhbar), was fair, just, and legally sound. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a purchaser of land from an allottee retain the land without payment if the original allotment is found to be in excess of entitlement?
  • Does a first informant (Mukhbar) have a superior right to land cancelled from an allottee due to excess entitlement?
  • Can a party rely on a previous administrative order that has been set aside by a remand order which was not challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan and anothers vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-15
  compulsory retirementdismissal from servicemisconductdepartmental inquiryshow-cause noticeservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals arose from judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the compulsory retirement of one appellant and the dismissal of another for misconduct involving violation of official channels and use of insolent language against superior officers. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of compulsory retirement or dismissal from service could be lawfully imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, the authorised officer possesses the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry, particularly where the charges are founded on admitted facts and documentary evidence rather than disputed questions of fact requiring oral testimony. The key principle laid down is that while the discretion to dispense with a formal inquiry must be exercised fairly and reasonably without denying the accused a fair defense, no regular inquiry is mandatory where the misconduct is admitted and no controverted facts require the recording of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether major penalties of compulsory retirement or dismissal can be imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Does an authorised officer have the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • When is a regular departmental inquiry not required in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan And Another vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Rawalpindi And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-15
  major punishmentdepartmental inquirydispensing with inquirymisconductviolation of channelcivil servantefficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposes of two civil appeals arising from judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the compulsory retirement of one appellant and substituted the dismissal of another with compulsory retirement following disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether a major punishment of dismissal or compulsory retirement could be legally imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a formal, regular departmental inquiry through an inquiry officer. The Supreme Court held that the appeals lacked merit and dismissed them, ruling that an authorized officer possesses the discretionary power under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the said Rules to dispense with a regular inquiry, particularly where charges are founded on admitted facts or documentary evidence and do not involve disputed questions of fact requiring oral evidence or cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that while the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry is not restricted by rigid preconditions, it must be exercised reasonably and fairly based on the circumstances of each case, and where the misconduct is admitted and documented, failure to hold a formal inquiry does not vitiate the disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major punishment be imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Does an authorized officer have the discretion to dispense with a formal inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • When is a regular departmental inquiry not required in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan And Another vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Rawalpindi And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-15
  compulsory retirementdismissal from servicedepartmental inquiryshow-cause noticemisconductcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals were filed with the leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the major penalties of compulsory retirement and dismissal (the latter substituted with compulsory retirement) imposed on the appellants. The core legal question was whether major punishments could be awarded to civil servants under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Rules, an authorized officer has the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry and adopt a shorter show-cause procedure. The Court laid down the principle that while this discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably, a regular inquiry is not mandatory where the charges are founded on admitted facts or documents. However, if the charges involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved without recording evidence and cross-examination, a regular inquiry cannot be denied.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of compulsory retirement or dismissal be imposed on a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Under what circumstances is an authorized officer justified in dispensing with a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to insist on a particular disciplinary procedure when the charges are based on admitted facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din and another vs Shabbir Hussain and others1994 SCMR 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-21
  Jammu & Kashmir refugeestemporary allotmentcompensation poolChief Settlement Commissionerland settlementjurisdictionMukhbari application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals challenging a High Court judgment that upheld the cancellation of temporary land allotments granted to Jammu & Kashmir refugees. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to cancel or resume such temporary allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court, referencing its findings in connected Civil Appeals Nos. 274 and 275 of 1978, held that temporary allotments of land to Jammu & Kashmir refugees do not constitute an "allotment" within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Consequently, such lands are excluded from the compensation pool, rendering the Chief Settlement Commissioner without jurisdiction to cancel or resume them under sections 10, 11, and 14 of the Act. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the cancellation orders, thereby restoring the original temporary allotments. The key principle established is that temporary allotments to Jammu & Kashmir refugees are outside the scope of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and thus immune to cancellation by settlement authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a temporary allotment of land to Jammu & Kashmir refugees constitute an allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Are temporary allotments of land to Jammu & Kashmir refugees part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to cancel temporary allotments of land held by Jammu & Kashmir refugees?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din and 6 others vs Bagh and 6 others1994 SCMR 1975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14
  registered willconcurrent findingsownership rightscivil revisionmutationlimited ownerappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision petition challenging concurrent findings of the trial court and the District Judge. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of a one-third share in land based on a registered will deed executed by Mst. Fateh Bibi, while simultaneously challenging the legality of subsequent mutations. The core legal question was whether the executant of the will, Mst. Fateh Bibi, possessed the legal capacity to alienate the property and whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding her ownership status and the validity of the will. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which established the executant as the full owner of the property and affirmed the authenticity of the registered will, were based on a proper appraisal of evidence. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor any jurisdictional error, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that factual determinations by lower courts, when supported by evidence, are not subject to interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is an admission made by a witness during trial binding on the parties?
  • Does a registered will deed carry a presumption of authenticity regarding the capacity of the executant to alienate property?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan Henjra, Mst. Akhtar Malik And 2 Other vs GovernmentPLD 1994 ,Supreme Court 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  extraditionfundamental rightsright to remain in Pakistanextradition treatyfugitive offenderhearsay evidenceprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions challenging extradition proceedings initiated against the petitioners for alleged drug smuggling offenses in the United States. The core legal questions were whether the Extradition Act, 1972, violates the fundamental right to remain in Pakistan under Article 15 of the Constitution, and whether the Magistrate’s inquiry procedure complied with the Act. The Court held that the Extradition Act is not unconstitutional, as Article 15 does not grant citizens absolute immunity from extradition for crimes committed abroad, and the Constitution explicitly empowers Parliament to legislate on extradition. Regarding procedure, the Court affirmed that authenticated documents are admissible under Section 9(1) of the Act. However, the Court found the evidence against one petitioner, Nasrullah Khan Henjra, relied on inadmissible hearsay, necessitating a remand for his case, while refusing leave for the others. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional right to reside in Pakistan is not an absolute shield against extradition for serious crimes committed in foreign jurisdictions, provided the extradition process follows statutory requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Extradition Act, 1972 violate the fundamental right to remain in Pakistan guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution?
  • Can a Magistrate rely on authenticated foreign affidavits as evidence in extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1972?
  • Is hearsay evidence admissible to establish a prima facie case for the extradition of a fugitive offender?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan Henjra vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad and 3 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13
  extraditionfundamental rightsright to remain in Pakistanfugitive offenderprima facie casehearsay evidencetreaty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of writ petitions challenging extradition proceedings. The petitioners, Pakistani nationals, were indicted by United States Grand Juries for heroin smuggling. Upon US extradition requests, an Islamabad Magistrate conducted inquiries under the Extradition Act, 1972, and submitted a report finding a prima facie case for surrender. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Extradition Act, 1972, arguing it violated their fundamental right to remain in Pakistan under Article 15 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Article 15 does not shield citizens accused of serious crimes abroad from extradition, as the Federal Legislative List explicitly empowers Parliament to legislate on extradition. The Court affirmed that authenticated foreign affidavits are admissible under Section 9(1) of the Act. While upholding the proceedings for most petitioners, the Court allowed the appeal of one petitioner, Nasrullah Khan Henjra, remanding his case because the evidence against him was inadmissible hearsay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Extradition Act, 1972, is void under Article 8(1) of the Constitution as being in conflict with the fundamental right of a citizen to remain in Pakistan under Article 15?
  • Does Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan afford protection against extradition to Pakistani citizens accused of committing serious crimes in foreign countries?
  • Can authenticated foreign affidavits and depositions be received as valid evidence in extradition inquiry proceedings under Section 9(1) of the Extradition Act, 1972?
  • Whether an extradition report finding a prima facie case can be sustained if it is based solely on hearsay evidence of an official who merely interviewed the actual witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin Khan and others vs Notified Officer/Settlement1994 SCMR 1997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08
  leave to appealsettlement proceedingslegal heirsconstitutional jurisdictionacknowledgement of paternityco-transferee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing their Constitution petition, which challenged the inclusion of the legal heirs of a deceased co-transferee, Salamat Khan, in pending settlement proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether proceedings were pending before the notified authority and whether the determination of legal heirs fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court rather than the Settlement Authority. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings were indeed pending on remand, and the Settlement Authority was fully competent and duty-bound to determine the legal representatives of the deceased party. The Court affirmed findings of fact regarding the status of the legal heirs based on continuous cohabitation, passports, and official identity card forms acknowledging paternity and marriage, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Settlement Authority has the competence to determine legal representatives of a deceased party in pending proceedings?
  • Does continuous cohabitation and acknowledgement of paternity constitute sufficient evidence of a marriage for bringing legal heirs on record?
  • Whether the question of determining legal heirs in a pending settlement matter must necessarily be relegated to a Civil Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasimullah vs Board of Revenue, N: W.F.P. And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12
  civil serviceregularization of servicead hoc appointmentstop-gap arrangementservice tribunalN.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Patwari and Qanungo, sought the regularization of his service as a Naib-Tehsildar, claiming entitlement under Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, on the basis that he held an ad hoc appointment prior to September 20, 1986. The Service Tribunal had previously denied his claim, determining that his appointment was a temporary, stop-gap arrangement rather than an ad hoc appointment, and noting his unsatisfactory service record. The petitioner further argued that his case was analogous to that of another employee, Muhammad Nihar, whose service regularization had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's specific appointment as a Naib-Tehsildar qualified for regularization under the statutory provisions of the 1987 Act. The Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine whether the petitioner's employment status fell within the scope of Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, thereby determining if he was entitled to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment made as a stop-gap arrangement qualify for regularization under Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987?
  • Is a civil servant holding a temporary promotion entitled to regularization under the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, if they have a patchy service record?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasimullah vs Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. and 2 others1994 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12
  ad hoc appointmentregularisation of servicecivil servantleave to appealstop-gap arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the refusal to regularize the petitioner's ad hoc appointment as a Naib-Tehsildar. The petitioner, who joined service as a Patwari in 1961, became a Qanungo in 1971, and was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on an ad hoc basis in 1978, sought regularisation of his service under section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987. The Service Tribunal had previously ruled against the petitioner, holding that he was promoted on a temporary stop-gap arrangement rather than as an ad hoc appointee, and that his promotion was denied due to a patchy record. The petitioner contended his case was analogous to another employee whose service was regularised. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the petitioner's case is covered by section 3 of the said Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant appointed on an ad hoc basis before 20th September, 1986 is entitled to regularisation of service under section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987?
  • Does a temporary promotion as a stop-gap arrangement constitute an ad hoc appointment eligible for regularisation?
  • Can an employee claim regularisation of service on the basis of parity with a co-employee whose service was ordered to be regularised?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Hussain vs Nawaz and others1994 SCMR 1504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15
  confessional statementgrave and sudden provocationenhancement of sentenceacceptance in totorevision applicationculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court enhancing the appellant's sentence. The appellant was originally tried under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, but the trial court rejected the prosecution's evidence and convicted him solely on his confessional statement under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment on the ground of grave and sudden provocation. In a revision application filed by the complainant, the High Court enhanced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, accepting the inculpatory part of the confession while rejecting the exculpatory plea of provocation. The Supreme Court held that where a conviction rests solely on the accused's confessional statement, the court must accept or reject the statement in toto and cannot dissect it by accepting the inculpatory portion while disregarding the exculpatory explanation. Consequently, the High Court's enhancement was set aside, and the sentence was reduced.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court base a conviction solely on an accused person's confessional statement while rejecting the exculpatory portion of that same statement?
  • Must a confessional statement forming the sole basis of conviction be accepted or rejected in toto?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in enhancing a sentence by disregarding the plea of grave and sudden provocation when the conviction is founded entirely on the accused's admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Communication and Works Department and another1994 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18
  review petitionadministrative inquiryevidence-based findingsjudicial observationsinquiry officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition concerns the scope of an inquiry conducted by the Provincial Government following previous litigation. The core legal question addressed was whether the inquiry officer is bound by observations made by the Supreme Court in a prior related civil appeal (Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1989) when determining the findings of the current inquiry. The Court held that the inquiry officer must act independently of the previous observations made in the earlier appeal. The ratio of the decision is that an inquiry officer must base their findings exclusively on the evidence presented before them during the specific inquiry proceedings, rather than relying on or being constrained by judicial observations from separate, albeit related, appellate proceedings. This principle ensures the integrity and impartiality of the administrative inquiry process by requiring findings to be grounded solely in the evidentiary record of the matter at hand.

  Questions settled

  • Is an inquiry officer bound by observations made by the Supreme Court in a previous civil appeal when conducting a new inquiry?
  • Must an inquiry officer base their findings exclusively on the evidence presented during the inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad alias Phup vs The State1994 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-11
  criminal appealdelayed FIRbenefit of the doubtmaterial improvementsmedical evidenceconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction under section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for setting fire to the complainant. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, material improvements in the complainant's testimony, and contradictions with the medical evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the unexplained delay created a strong possibility of deliberation and false implication based on suspicion, and that material improvements and unreliable witness testimonies failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that delayed reporting, coupled with material improvements at trial that contradict medical evidence, undermines the credibility of the prosecution case and entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when material improvements made at the trial contradict the medical evidence?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Nargis Shaheen vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad and 5 others1994 SCMR 1706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  extraditionprima facie casehearsay evidencedefence evidencefugitive criminalsmugglingenquiry proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with an extradition enquiry report. The enquiry officer had determined that a prima facie case existed for the extradition of Mian Muhammad Azam to the United States on charges of heroin smuggling. The petitioner contended that the enquiry officer improperly relied on hearsay evidence contained in affidavits and failed to provide the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to produce a defence witness. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found that the affidavits in question contained both hearsay and direct, personal knowledge, rendering them admissible for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court examined the record and concluded that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities to produce defence evidence but failed to do so, with the request to summon a specific witness being correctly denied as a dilatory tactic. Consequently, the Court held that the enquiry proceedings were fair and legally sound. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an enquiry officer rely on affidavits containing both hearsay and direct knowledge to establish a prima facie case for extradition?
  • Does an enquiry officer have the discretion to refuse a request to summon a defence witness if the request is deemed a dilatory tactic?
  • Is a finding of a prima facie case for extradition subject to interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction when the enquiry procedure was fair?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iqbal alias Nawab Sahib vs The State1994 MLD 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19
  child witnessabductionattempted Zina-bil-JabrHudood lawsmedical evidencecredibility of witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Lahore, convicting the appellant under sections 11 and 18 read with section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for abduction and attempted Zina-bil-Jabr with a seven-year-old child. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the child witness, the consistency of the ocular and medical evidence, and whether the ingredients of abduction and attempted Zina-bil-Jabr were proven. The court held that the testimony of the child witness was reliable, corroborated by medical evidence and independent witnesses, and that the defence plea was baseless. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the convictions while modifying the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not impair the intrinsic value of credible testimony, and the distance of removal is immaterial to constitute the offence of abduction under the relevant law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a seven-year-old child witness can form the basis of a conviction in a sexual assault case without corroboration?
  • Is distance of removal a material requirement to establish the offence of abduction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of ocular witnesses materially affect the prosecution's case?
  • Whether medical evidence sufficiently corroborates the ocular version in cases of attempted Zina-bil-Jabr?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sethi Straw Board Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan through the Secretary to1994 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-29
  excise dutyexcisable goodspaper boardglazed chip boardmanufactureconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing in part the constitutional petitions filed by the appellant manufacturer against the levy of central excise duty on its products, namely Glazed Paper Board and Glazed Chip Board. The core legal question was whether glazed paper board and glazed chip board fall within the definition of 'excisable goods' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and specifically under Item No. 37 of Section IX of the First Schedule ('Paper and Paper Board, all sorts'). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'all sorts' has the widest possible connotation, covering all kinds and descriptions of paper boards including glazed paper board and glazed chip board, and that the manufacturing processes applied fall within the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(f) of the Act. The key principle laid down is that the phrase 'all sorts' in a taxing statute expands the scope of an item to include every variety, kind, and description of the specified goods.

  Questions settled

  • Whether glazed paper board and glazed chip board fall within the scope of 'Paper and Paper Board, all sorts' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • What is the legal connotation and scope of the expression 'all sorts' when used in a statutory taxing schedule?
  • Do the processes of remaking or reconditioning paper products fall within the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Matri Publications And Other vs Implementation Tribunal for1994 PLC 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16
  leave to appealnewspaper employeeswage awardimplementation tribunalfitment formulajurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arise from a common order of the High Court of Sindh setting aside an order of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees. The private respondents, employees of M/s. Matri Publications Limited, approached the Tribunal complaining of the non-implementation of the Fourth Wage Award regarding their fitment formula and pay fixation. The Tribunal held that the management failed to fix their pay at the next higher stage and grant entitled increments. The High Court, interpreting section 13 of Act LVIII of 1973, concluded that the Tribunal's direction amounted to adjudicating an individual dispute outside its jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that section 12-A of the Act empowers the Tribunal to implement Wage Board decisions and its order was valid. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal's order fell within its implementation jurisdiction and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees has jurisdiction to adjudicate individual disputes regarding pay fixation under a Wage Award?
  • Does section 12-A of Act LVIII of 1973 empower the Tribunal to secure the implementation of decisions of the Wage Board?
  • Whether directions issued by the Tribunal for pay fixation amount to an individual dispute outside its scope of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Matri Publications and anothers vs Implementation Tribunal for1994 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16
  Implementation TribunalWage Board AwardNewspaper EmployeesJurisdiction of TribunalFitment FormulaLeave to AppealIndividual Dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order that declared a decision by the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerns the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the relevant statutory framework, specifically whether the Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate individual disputes regarding the implementation of the Fourth Wage Award or if such matters fall outside its authority. The High Court had previously determined that the Tribunal's directions constituted an adjudication of individual disputes, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal was established specifically to ensure the implementation of Wage Board decisions, and that its actions were consistent with its mandate to enforce the Fourth Wage Board Award's fitment formula. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the Tribunal's scope of authority requires deeper examination, granted leave to appeal and suspended the operation of the High Court's judgment pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees have the jurisdiction to adjudicate individual disputes regarding the implementation of Wage Board Awards?
  • What is the scope of the Implementation Tribunal's authority under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager vs Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Finance), Islamabad and 5 others1994 SCMR 2123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15
  customs dutysales taxtax exemptionindustrial estatepromissory estoppellegitimate expectationsmoney billleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of various constitutional petitions by the Peshawar High Court, which challenged the notification withdrawing tax and customs duty exemptions previously granted to industries established in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate, District Swabi. The core legal questions concern whether vested rights accrued to the petitioners under the doctrines of promissory estoppel and locus paenitentiae, the scope of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969 regarding legitimate expectations, the application of customs law through the Sales Tax Act, and the constitutional validity of fiscal amendments made via Money Bills. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, holding that arguable questions of law regarding fiscal statutes, vested rights, and legislative competence warranted detailed consideration, while continuing the interim relief previously granted to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the scope of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969 is confined to cases of contracts, agreements, or letters of credit, or whether it covers cases where the doctrine of legitimate expectations can be invoked?
  • Whether vested rights accrued to industrial investors on the principles of locus paenitentiae and promissory estoppel following the withdrawal of tax exemption notifications?
  • Whether by using the words 'charged and paid' in section 6 of the Sales Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1990, the whole customs law becomes applicable?
  • Can amendments be made in fiscal laws by a Money Bill which does not go to the Senate, and what is the proper scope of a Money Bill under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Khalil Jute Mills Ltd. through Manager vs United Bank Limited and 51994 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21
  leave to defendbanking courtrecovery of loanmortgaged propertyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of its Constitution Petition, which had challenged a Banking Court's conditional order granting leave to appear and defend a recovery suit subject to depositing the entire suit amount of Rs. 20,35,897. The High Court had upheld the Banking Court's discretion because the petitioner failed to furnish the list and value of the mortgaged property. The core legal question was whether the condition imposed by the Banking Court for granting leave to defend by requiring the deposit of the entire disputed sum was justified when mortgaged property existed. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and modified the Banking Court's order, reducing the cash deposit condition to Rs. 16,00,000 in light of the available valuation of the mortgaged property. The key principle laid down is that while courts have discretion to impose conditions for granting leave to defend in banking suits, such conditions should reasonably account for existing securities and mortgaged properties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Banking Court can condition the grant of leave to appear and defend on the deposit of the entire suit amount?
  • Does the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with the discretionary orders of the Banking Court regarding deposit conditions?
  • How should the value of mortgaged property affect the condition for depositing cash to defend a banking suit?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Gulzar Enterprises through its Managing Partner and 3 others vs1994 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08
  banking companyrecovery of loansappealdeposit of decretal amountdiscretionsecurity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order of the High Court, acting as an appellate forum under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which directed them to deposit the decretal sum in cash as a precondition for admitting their appeal to hearing. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion improperly under section 12(5) of the Ordinance by requiring a cash deposit instead of accepting the offered properties as security. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor based on insufficient grounds, given that one offered property was subject to ongoing litigation and the petitioners' interest in the other was valued far below the decretal amount. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court's discretion under section 12(5) to demand a cash deposit or security is a judicial discretion that will not be interfered with where the offered security is inadequate or encumbered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 can be admitted without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security?
  • Did the High Court exercise its discretion arbitrarily in requiring a cash deposit instead of security under section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali Mirza vs Federation of Pakistan Through Additional1994 PLC (C.S.) 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16
  temporary appointmentprobation periodservice terminationconditional appointmentFederal Service Tribunalperformance standards
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the petitioner's services as a Stenographer. The petitioner, appointed on a temporary and conditional basis, challenged his termination on the grounds that he had completed his probation period and that his initial appointment letter lacked the condition requiring him to pass a shorthand and typing speed test. The core legal question was whether the termination of a temporary employee, who failed to meet the specific performance conditions stipulated in his appointment terms—despite receiving multiple extensions—was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the termination was lawful, finding that the petitioner was fully aware of the conditional nature of his appointment, as evidenced by his repeated requests for extensions to prepare for the requisite test. The Court affirmed that an employee who fails to satisfy mandatory performance conditions, despite being granted ample opportunity and extensions, cannot challenge the subsequent termination of their services on the basis of completed probation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary employee challenge the termination of their services if they failed to meet the specific performance conditions stipulated in their appointment letter?
  • Does the completion of a probation period prevent the termination of a temporary employee who has failed to satisfy mandatory skill-based conditions of employment?
  • Is an employee bound by the conditions of their appointment if they have actively sought extensions to fulfill those conditions?
  Read full judgment →