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.

• State Versus Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate1997 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-09Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali Versus State1997 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Muhammad Zafar Bukhari1997 SCMR 963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan Versus Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1997 SCMR 853 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus Bashir Ahmad1997 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha Versus State1997 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus State1997 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali Versus Siraj Din1997 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-19
  specific performancesale agreementburden of proofrevenue recordsconsiderationcivil appealcontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment decreeing a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement regarding agricultural land and a residential property. The core legal question was whether the respondent had sufficiently established the sale agreement and the payment of consideration, and whether the burden of proof shifted to the deceased seller to explain the receipt of substantial funds. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the respondent successfully proved the payment of Rs. 2,94,000 towards the sale price. Crucially, the deceased failed to provide a credible explanation for receiving this large sum if it were not part of the sale consideration, nor could he substantiate the claim that the money was adjusted towards lease payments. The Court established that once the receipt of substantial funds is proven in the context of a sale claim, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove an alternative arrangement. Furthermore, revenue records reflecting lease status do not negate a sale agreement where the transaction remains legally incomplete.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of revenue records showing a lease status automatically negate a claim for specific performance of a sale agreement?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to a defendant to explain the receipt of substantial funds in a suit for specific performance?
  • Is a handwriting expert's report conclusive in determining the validity of a sale agreement when other evidence of payment exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Versus State , Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate instructed by M. Yousaf, Advocate-on-­Record1997 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17
  Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinanceabductionsui jurisfree consentcriminal appealconviction set asideessential ingredients of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where the appellant was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment for allegedly abducting a woman for illicit intercourse. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence to establish that the woman was detained or subjected to sexual intercourse against her will, or if the parties had entered into a valid marriage as sui juris adults. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of abduction, detention, or non-consensual sexual activity. The Court noted that the mere fact of the woman being seen in the company of the appellant did not constitute an offence, particularly given her background in a free society. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ruling that the appellant and the woman, being sui juris, had contracted a valid marriage of their own free will. The principle laid down is that in the absence of evidence proving the essential ingredients of an offence, a conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere act of being seen in the company of another person constitute an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide evidence of detention or non-consensual sexual intercourse?
  • Is a marriage contracted by sui juris adults of their own free will a valid defense against charges of abduction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Awan Versus State1997 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24
  narcotics controlpossession of contrabandguilty knowledgebenefit of doubtcriminal appealinvestigative failureHadd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for transporting 80 kilograms of heroin found in a truck they were occupying. The core legal question is whether the mere presence of the accused in a vehicle containing contraband is sufficient to establish criminal possession and guilty knowledge under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, absent evidence linking them to the ownership of the vehicle or the narcotics. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants had exclusive knowledge of the concealed heroin or ownership of the contraband. The Court emphasized that the investigating agency acted with ulterior motives by failing to identify the actual owners of the truck and the drugs, instead focusing solely on the occupants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that in the absence of proof of knowledge or ownership, the possibility that the appellants were unaware of the concealed contraband could not be excluded, thus entitling them to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing contraband sufficient to establish possession and guilty knowledge?
  • Can a conviction for drug trafficking be sustained when the prosecution fails to investigate the ownership of the vehicle or the narcotics?
  • Does the failure of the investigating agency to pursue the actual owners of contraband create a reasonable doubt regarding the culpability of the occupants?
  Read full judgment →
• Behlol Versus Quetta Municpal Corporation , Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan1997 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Versus State1997 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17
  limitationtime-barred appealcondonation of delaydismissal in liminecriminal appealjail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant and three others under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which they were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Federal Shariat Court, which dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds that it was time-barred by 538 days. The appellant subsequently filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred in the absence of any application for condonation of delay or supporting affidavit. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appeal was indeed significantly delayed by approximately one year and nine months, and no valid explanation or supporting affidavit had been provided to justify this delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the Federal Shariat Court, holding that in the absence of a proper application for condonation of delay, the appellate court cannot proceed to examine the merits of a time-barred appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court examine the merits of an appeal that is barred by limitation without an application for condonation of delay?
  • Is an appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal in limine when it is filed significantly beyond the statutory period of limitation without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Versus Pervez1997 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-08
  criminal appealextra-judicial confessionrecovery evidencelast-seen evidencemurderspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondent recorded by the Punjab Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Faisalabad under sections 302, 392, and 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the convictions based on extra-judicial confession, recovery evidence, and last-seen evidence, which were found to be of doubtful validity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the weak extra-judicial confession made to an almost stranger after six weeks, the doubtful recovery evidence, and the unsatisfactory last-seen evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed the High Court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on dubious evidence cannot sustain a conviction, and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made to an almost stranger after a significant delay can form the basis of a conviction?
  • Is recovery evidence reliable when attended by doubtful circumstances?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's acquittal order when prosecution evidence is found unsatisfactory?
  Read full judgment →
• United Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Mehlody Readymade Garments1997 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Javeed Asmi Versus M. Waryam Khan1997 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Versus State1997 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax and Wealth Tax Versus Muhammad Asif1997 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan Versus Arif Hussain1997 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Versus State1997 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17
  post-arrest bailidentification paraderobberyunnamed in FIRrecovery of cashprevious criminal recordgrant of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the dismissal of a criminal bail application by the High Court. The petitioner was an accused in a case involving an armed robbery at an auto service station where cash was allegedly taken. The core legal questions pertained to whether an accused not nominated in the First Information Report (FIR) is entitled to bail when no identification parade was conducted through eyewitnesses, and whether the pendency of multiple criminal cases against the accused or the mere recovery of cash before police mashirs constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner. The Court held that the mere fact that an accused is implicated in multiple cases of robbery is not sufficient ground to deprive him of his liberty. Furthermore, in the absence of an identification parade and other corroborating evidence, the mere recovery of cash before police officers does not justify withholding bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere fact that an accused is implicated in multiple criminal cases sufficient ground to refuse bail?
  • Whether an accused unnamed in the FIR is entitled to bail when no identification test was held through eyewitnesses?
  • Does the mere recovery of alleged stolen cash before police mashirs justify withholding bail in the absence of other connecting evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Sher Versus Sabz Ali1997 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-14
  personal requirementejectmentrestitution of possessionleave to appealrent restrictionstay orderinfructuous petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order against the respondent-tenant and ordered the restitution of possession under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The landlord had sought eviction under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 on the ground of personal requirement. The High Court reversed the finding on personal need, holding that the landlord failed to specify the type of business intended and that the Rent Controller improperly refused official records. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declined to suspend the High Court's restitution order, holding that a landlord cannot retain possession without a subsisting ejectment order and that restitution preserves the status quo until the appeal is decided on merits, distinguishing prior case-law where no regular appeal was pending.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified to reverse the finding of the learned Controller of Rents on the question of personal requirement?
  • Is a landlord entitled to remain in possession of a rented premises in the absence of a subsisting ejectment order by a competent court of law?
  • Whether an appellate court's direction for restitution of possession of a shop to a tenant should be suspended during the pendency of a leave to appeal petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus State1997 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-15
  murderrelated witnessesinterested witnesschance witnessmotivemitigation of sentencedeath penalty to life imprisonmentmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought with leave of the Supreme Court, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his sister-in-law. The prosecution case was supported by three eye-witnesses who were related to the deceased and present inside her residence at the time of occurrence, along with the recovery of a blood-stained knife. The appellant contended that the ocular account was unreliable due to the relationship of the witnesses, that they were chance witnesses, and that the alleged motive was unproven given the medical evidence regarding the severity of the victim's injuries. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that relationship alone does not render eye-witnesses interested or untrustworthy, nor are relatives present inside a family residence chance witnesses. However, accepting that the victim could not have communicated the motive prior to death owing to fatal heart and lung injuries, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove motive, which warranted mitigating the sentence from death to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the victim render their testimony interested or unreliable in the absence of a motive to falsely implicate the accused?
  • Can relatives present inside a private family residence where an offence takes place be categorized as chance witnesses?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive entitle the convict to mitigation of sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh Versus Zulfiqar1997 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Naveed Nawazish Malik Versus Ghulam Rasool Bhatti1997 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-19
  contempt of courtejectment orderwilful disobedienceobstruction of justiceundertaking to courtcollusionexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a contempt of court application arising from the alleged violation of a Supreme Court order. The petitioner, a landlord, obtained an ejectment order against respondent No. 1, who subsequently secured time from the Supreme Court to vacate the premises based on an undertaking. Instead of vacating, respondent No. 1 colluded with respondent No. 2 to fabricate a new tenancy agreement and possession claim, thereby obstructing the execution of the ejectment order. The core legal question was whether the respondents' actions constituted contempt of court. The Court held that the respondents were guilty of contempt for contumaciously violating the court's order and conspiring to frustrate the administration of justice through forged documents and false evidence. The Court emphasized that while a breach of a private compromise might not be contempt, the violation of an order based on an undertaking given to the court constitutes contempt. Furthermore, third parties knowingly obstructing the court's process are also liable. Consequently, the Court convicted both respondents, imposing sentences of imprisonment and fines.

  Questions settled

  • Does the breach of an undertaking given to the court constitute contempt of court?
  • Can a third party who knowingly assists in frustrating a court order be held liable for contempt of court?
  • What is the distinction between an undertaking given to a party versus an undertaking given to the court regarding contempt liability?
  • Does the filing of false documents and creation of fictitious claims to frustrate an execution order amount to contempt of court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mussarat Sultana Versus Muhammad Saeed1997 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-30
  dowry articlesconcurrent findingssecond appealappreciation of evidencerecovery of dowryquestion of factjurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a second appeal regarding a suit for the recovery of dowry articles or their monetary value. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, which was upheld by the first appellate court. However, the High Court in second appeal interfered with the concurrent findings of fact and reduced the decretal amount. The core legal question was whether the High Court could lawfully interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the valuation of dowry articles in second appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in reappraising the evidence and setting aside concurrent findings of fact where the lower courts' findings were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and were not tainted by misreading or illegality. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's judgment, laying down that interference with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal is impermissible unless the evidence is misread or the findings are based on surmises, conjectures, or inadmissible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in second appeal has jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the valuation of dowry articles?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
  • Does the evaluation and weight attached to a witness's statement regarding property valuation relate to the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Versus Collector, Land Acquisition/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar1997 SCMR 1670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-10
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompulsory acquisition chargesinterest on excess compensationpublic purposepotential valuereference to court
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for a WAPDA residential colony. The core legal questions concerned the determination of fair market value, the applicability of interest rates on excess compensation, and the appropriate rate for compulsory acquisition charges. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by restricting compensation based on a misinterpretation of the landowners' pleadings. The Court clarified that while one-year average sales are a relevant factor, they are not the absolute yardstick for market value when other evidence of potentiality exists. Regarding interest, the Court ruled that under the applicable N.W.F.P. amendment, the landowners were entitled only to 6% simple interest from the date of possession, rejecting claims for 8% compound interest. Furthermore, the Court upheld the 15% compulsory acquisition charge, determining the acquisition was for a public purpose rather than for a "Company." The judgment establishes that market value assessment must consider all evidence of potentiality, and statutory interest rates are governed by the law in force at the time of the court's determination.

  Questions settled

  • Is the one-year average of sales preceding a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 an absolute yardstick for determining market value?
  • Does the acquisition of land for a WAPDA residential colony constitute a 'public purpose' or an acquisition for a 'Company' for the purposes of compulsory acquisition charges?
  • Under the Land Acquisition (N.-W.F.P. Amendment) Ordinance 1983, is a landowner entitled to simple or compound interest on excess compensation?
  • Can a court award compensation higher than the amount claimed by the landowner in their objection petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazratullah Versus District Council, Haripur1997 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali Versus Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore1997 SCMR 1543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05
  misconductregular inquirydispensing with inquiryembezzlementcivil servantfair hearingdismissal from servicePunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly allowed the appellant's service appeal by substituting his dismissal from service with removal from service. The appellant, a Junior Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department, was dismissed on charges of temporary embezzlement and producing a forged treasury receipt, following a show-cause notice and summary procedure without a regular departmental inquiry, despite his categorical denial of the charges. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the department was justified in dispensing with a regular inquiry on the basis of the available record. The Court held that where charges of serious misconduct are emphatically denied by an accused civil servant involving disputed questions of fact, a regular inquiry involving the recording of evidence and opportunity of cross-examination cannot be dispensed with. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Tribunal and the department, ordering the reinstatement of the appellant with back benefits subject to gainful employment verification, and established that dispensing with a regular inquiry in cases of disputed serious factual allegations violates the principles of natural justice and fair hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the department is justified in dispensing with a regular inquiry when an accused civil servant categorically denies serious charges of misconduct involving disputed questions of fact?
  • Can a major penalty be imposed upon a civil servant without holding an inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • What constitutes a fair hearing in departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ahmad Versus Irshad Bibi1997 SCMR 1503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Versus State1997 SCMR 1492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Versus State1997 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab Versus Muhammad Iqbal1997 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad Versus Wali Muhammad1997 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  civil servantservice of Pakistanjurisdiction of Service TribunalSupreme Court employeesindependence of judiciaryservice rulesArticle 208
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenged a Federal Service Tribunal order that reinstated a former Supreme Court Research and Reference Officer. The core legal question was whether employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whose terms and conditions are governed by rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution, qualify as 'civil servants' amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that such employees are not 'civil servants' as defined by the Civil Servants Act, 1973, because their service conditions are regulated by rules framed under Article 208, distinct from the legislative framework governing civil servants under Article 240. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving Supreme Court employees. The key principle laid down is that the 'service of Pakistan' and 'civil servant' are not synonymous; the latter is a specific category, and employees of the judiciary governed by Article 208 rules fall outside the scope of the Civil Servants Act and the Service Tribunals Act.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 'civil servants' within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes involving employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Is the expression 'service of Pakistan' synonymous with the term 'civil servant' under Pakistani law?
  • Does the rule-making power under Article 208 of the Constitution exclude Supreme Court employees from the scope of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Versus State1997 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-16
  leave to appealocular testimonycorroborationchain of custodyforensic evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Sultan and Allah Bakhsh, were convicted by the trial court for murder and attempted murder, along with other co-accused. The High Court acquitted several co-accused but maintained the petitioners' convictions, relying on ocular testimony corroborated by forensic evidence regarding recovered spent cartridges. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, arguing that the chain of custody for the spent cartridges was broken because the police officer who transported them to the Forensic Laboratory was not examined, rendering the recovery evidence unreliable. The complainant party also sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the other co-accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners, noting that the contention regarding the chain of custody and the reliability of the recovery evidence required examination. Conversely, the Court refused leave to appeal to the complainant party, holding that in the presence of deep-seated enmity and the lack of independent corroboration for the ocular testimony against the acquitted co-accused, the High Court's decision to acquit them was justified.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony that lacks independent corroboration in cases of admitted enmity?
  • Does the failure to examine the police officer who transported forensic evidence to the laboratory create a fatal gap in the chain of custody?
  • Is the High Court justified in acquitting co-accused when the ocular testimony against them lacks corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif Versus State1997 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-14
  original jurisdictionconstitutional petitionbail applicationexhaustion of remediesjudicial appointmentspecial courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three Constitutional petitions filed directly under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking bail. The petitioners contended that their pending bail applications in the Lahore High Court could not be adjudicated because the presiding judges were affected by a prior Supreme Court judgment regarding judicial appointments, rendering them unable to participate. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction to grant bail when ordinary remedies remain available but temporarily stalled. The Court held that direct Constitutional petitions are not maintainable when ordinary forums and remedies are available and must be exhausted first. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its original jurisdiction, treating the petitions as leave to appeal. It directed the Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court to constitute a proper bench, as required by the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984, to resolve the bail applications within three days. The key principle established is that litigants must exhaust ordinary legal remedies before invoking the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3).

  Questions settled

  • Is a direct Constitutional petition under Article 184(3) maintainable when ordinary legal remedies are available?
  • Must a petitioner exhaust ordinary forums before invoking the Supreme Court's extraordinary original jurisdiction?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct the High Court to constitute a specific bench to hear a pending bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Versus Faqir Muhammad1997 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Shaukat Ali1997 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-15
  qatl-i-amdta'zirqisaswaiver of qisascompounding of offencescompromisediyatwali
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the High Court had altered a death sentence to life imprisonment and dismissed a revision against co-accused. During the proceedings, the convict filed an application alleging a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the principle of section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding waiver by one of multiple Walis applies to cases where punishment is awarded by way of Ta'zir, and whether a murder case can be compounded under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if not all legal heirs agree to the compromise. The Supreme Court held that where an accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment as Ta'zir rather than death as Qisas, section 309(2) cannot be pressed into service, and compounding under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires the consent of all legal heirs. The key principle laid down is that partial waiver or compromise by some heirs alone is insufficient to compound the offence or alter a sentence of Ta'zir when dissenting legal heirs refuse to join the compromise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle of section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be applied to a case where punishment for murder is awarded by way of Ta'zir?
  • Can a case under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if all legal heirs do not agree to the compromise?
  • Does the waiver of Qisas by some of the Walis compel the enforcement of section 309(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the sentence is imprisonment for life as Ta'zir?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh Versus Nizam-Ud-Din Khan1997 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-27
  pre-emptionpower of attorneymaintainability of appealextension of timepre-emption money
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involved whether a general power of attorney authorized the agent to institute a pre-emption appeal on behalf of the principal, and whether the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money without notice to the opposite party was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that powers of attorney must be strictly construed and that the attorney in this case lacked express or implied authority to file the pre-emption appeal, rendering the first appellate proceedings not maintainable. The Court further noted that extending the time limit for depositing pre-emption money without notice to the defendant, in whom a valuable right had accrued, is legally objectionable and requires sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the pre-emption decree was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a general power of attorney must be strictly construed to ascertain if an agent is authorized to institute a pre-emption suit or appeal?
  • Is an appeal filed by a general attorney maintainable when the power of attorney does not expressly or by necessary implication cover the subject property or proceeding?
  • Whether notice to the opposite party is mandatory when an application for extension of time to deposit pre-emption money is made?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, D. I.-G. Police, Karachi Versus State1997 SCMR 1234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-16
  pre-arrest bailcriminal conspiracypolice encounterinterim challanulterior motivesbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against the Sindh High Court's dismissal of pre-arrest bail applications filed by police officers in connection with the killing of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and his associates. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail, specifically whether their arrest was sought for ulterior motives of humiliation and harassment rather than the furtherance of justice. The Supreme Court held that for pre-arrest bail, a petitioner must demonstrate not only a prima facie case but also that arrest would cause irreparable harm or be motivated by ulterior objectives. Regarding Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, the Court found he was not present at the scene, was not named in the interim challan, and the prosecution lacked material linking him to the alleged conspiracy; thus, bail was granted. Conversely, regarding the other petitioners, the Court observed their presence at the scene of the fatal firing, concluding they failed to make out a case for pre-arrest bail. The Court affirmed that pre-arrest bail is appropriate where arrest is sought for ulterior motives.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential criteria for the grant of pre-arrest bail in Pakistan?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to a public official when the prosecution lacks material evidence linking them to the alleged conspiracy?
  • Does the mere presence of a police officer at the scene of a fatal incident preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the absence of a petitioner's name in the interim challan a relevant factor for the court in considering pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Versus Secretary, Senate Secretariat, Islamabad1997 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Muhammad Gulzar1997 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem Versus Habibullah1997 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Versus State1997 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus Muhammad Ashraf Naeem1997 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  WAPDA employeesStanding Orders Ordinanceworkman definitioncivil servant statusstatutory corporationtermination of serviceprobationer rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenged the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to its employees. The core legal question was whether WAPDA employees are excluded from the protections of the Standing Orders Ordinance by virtue of WAPDA's status as a statutory corporation and the existence of its own service rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Standing Orders Ordinance remains applicable to WAPDA employees. The Court reasoned that WAPDA is a statutory corporation rather than an extension of executive authority, and its internal service rules lack statutory character, failing to satisfy the proviso required to exclude the Standing Orders Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while WAPDA service is deemed 'service of Pakistan,' employees who qualify as 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are excluded from the definition of 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, thereby retaining their entitlement to the protections afforded by the Standing Orders Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority?
  • Are the service rules framed by the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority considered statutory in character?
  • Does an employee of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority who qualifies as a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 fall within the definition of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashiran Bibi Versus Jewni1997 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal Versus Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore1997 SCMR 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31
  constitutional petitionquota systempublic appointmentequal opportunityfundamental rightszonal allocationrecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the Lahore High Court’s decision to re-advertise 14 additional vacancies for Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates on an open merit basis, rather than appointing candidates from an existing merit list created for an earlier recruitment cycle. The core legal question was whether the High Court was bound to fill these vacancies using the previous zonal quota system and whether the recruitment process was governed by the rules in force at the time of the initial advertisement or the time of appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the 20-year constitutional protection for the quota system under Article 27 had expired in August 1993, rendering zonal allocation unconstitutional for these vacancies. The Court affirmed that recruitment rules applicable at the time of appointment govern the process, not those at the time of advertisement. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that public appointments must be transparent and open to all citizens to satisfy the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity under Articles 18 and 27.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiration of the twenty-year period under Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 render the zonal quota system for public appointments unconstitutional?
  • Are the recruitment rules and conditions applicable at the time of appointment or at the time of the initial advertisement?
  • Does the failure to publicly advertise vacancies for public appointments violate the fundamental right to equal opportunity under Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a candidate claim a vested right in the recruitment criteria or zonal allocation policy in force at the time of the initial advertisement?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore Versus Khushi Muhammad1997 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-26
  service lawpromotion eligibilityWAPDA employeesstatutory interpretationseniority-cum-fitnessdiploma requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which directed the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to consider the respondent, a Sub-Engineer, for promotion to B-17. The core legal question was whether the respondent, holding a Diploma in Drafting and Designing, was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) under the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules, 1968, despite lacking a specific diploma in those technologies. The Supreme Court held that the relevant rule, which requires a 'Diploma or a Certificate of Overseer,' does not distinguish between specific technologies. The Court reasoned that since the respondent met the criteria of being in BPS-16, having ten years of service, and passing the professional examination, he was eligible for promotion. The principle laid down is that where statutory rules for promotion prescribe a general qualification (such as a 'Diploma'), administrative authorities cannot impose additional, unstated requirements regarding the specific technology of that diploma to disqualify an otherwise eligible candidate, particularly when the candidate has previously been integrated into the relevant seniority list without objection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of a 'Diploma' for promotion under the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules 1968 necessitate a diploma in a specific technology?
  • Can administrative authorities impose additional eligibility criteria for promotion not explicitly stated in the governing service rules?
  • Is a Sub-Engineer holding a Diploma in Drafting and Designing eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer under the 20% quota rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Gul Versus State1996 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus State1996 SCMR 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-09
  criminal petitionbailage and infirmitywithdrawal of petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning criminal proceedings. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the petition for bail before this Court when alternative grounds relating to age and infirmity remain unexhausted before the Trial Court. The Court decided to dismiss the petition as not pressed upon the petitioner's request, while granting liberty to approach the Trial Court afresh for bail specifically on the grounds of age and infirmity. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner may withdraw a bail petition before the apex court to seek appropriate remedies on unexhausted factual grounds directly from the Trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner withdraw a petition for leave to appeal to seek bail before the Trial Court on new grounds?
  • Is it permissible to approach the Trial Court for bail on the ground of age and infirmity after withdrawing a petition before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Ghulam Nabi Khan1996 SCMR 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Rasta Mal Khan Versus Nabi Sarwar Khan1996 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Kaila Khan Versus Yasin1996 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
• Macdonald Layton & Company Pakistan Ltd. Versus Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. , M. Jamil Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Ali Khan1996 SCMR 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-17
  judgment on admissionOrder XII Rule 6civil procedurediscretionary powersuit maintainabilityunequivocal admissionsummary remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside a decree granted under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a court should exercise its discretion to pass a judgment on admission when the defendant disputes the liability and raises significant legal objections regarding the suit's maintainability. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly set aside the decree, finding that the discretion to grant a summary judgment on admission was improperly exercised. The Court affirmed that for an admission to justify a decree under Order XII, Rule 6, it must be unequivocal, clear, unconditional, and unambiguous regarding both the amount and the liability. Furthermore, the Court established that where a factual admission is accompanied by qualifications or legal challenges to the suit's maintainability, the court must not exercise its discretion to pass a decree on admission. Such legal defenses must be adjudicated through a full trial rather than a summary proceeding. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court pass a decree under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the defendant raises legal objections to the maintainability of the suit?
  • What are the essential requirements for an admission to form the basis of a decree under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the power to pass a decree on admission under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a matter of right or judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirbaland Versus Allah Loke1996 SCMR 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-28
  specific performanceagreement to sellsecond appealscope of interferencehandwriting comparisonstamp duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had restored a trial court decree granting specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, thereby setting aside the first appellate court's dismissal of the suit. The core legal questions involved whether an unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell was admissible and enforceable, whether the second appellate court properly interfered with findings of fact, and whether the trial court was justified in comparing handwriting despite expert evidence. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the second appellate court erred in re-assessing and interfering with findings of fact properly rendered by the first appellate court, and that the first appellate court's appreciation of the evidence was legally sustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal by majority, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the dismissal of the suit by the first appellate court. The key principle laid down is that a second appellate court's scope for reassessing evidence is strictly limited unless there is clear non-reading or misreading of evidence by the first appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second appellate court interfere with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court in the absence of non-reading or misreading of evidence?
  • Is a trial court justified in comparing disputed signatures with specimen handwriting when a handwriting expert has already testified?
  • Whether an agreement to sell requires registration at the stage of its execution?
  • What are the consequences of admitting an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document into evidence under the Stamp Act 1899?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq Versus Secretary Interior, Narcotics, Islamabad1996 SCMR 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ud-Din Versus Harnida Bano , M. Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhmmad Khan1996 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Government of N.-W.F.P. Versus Wahab Gul1996 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Versus State1996 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad Versus Muhammad Hazar Khan1996 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Fazale Wahid Versus Additional Home Secretary N.-W.F.P.1996 SCMR 1974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Muhammad Tahir Abid1996 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-01
  Special Court jurisdictionSuppression of Terrorist Activitiescriminal trial competencestatutory jurisdictiontrespassTelegraph Act offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the trial of the respondent before a Special Court to be without lawful authority. The respondent was accused of offences under section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 25-D of the Telegraph Act 1885, involving alleged trespass into the residence of a police officer and making harassing telephone calls. The core legal question was whether the Special Court, established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, possessed the requisite jurisdiction to try the respondent for these specific offences. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of Special Courts is strictly confined to the offences enumerated in the Schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975. Since the offences charged were not included in said Schedule, the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the trial was coram non judice, and dismissed the State's petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 have jurisdiction to try offences not listed in the Schedule to that Act?
  • Is the trial of an accused for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Telegraph Act 1885 by a Special Court valid if those offences are not included in the Schedule of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Versus Settlement Commissioner1996 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Speaker Balochistan Provincial Assembly Versus Muhammad Azam Davi1996 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06
  judicial reviewSpeaker of Provincial Assemblyconstitutional immunitycontractual appointmentrecruitment ruleswrit jurisdictionpublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declared a notification appointing a former Secretary to the Balochistan Provincial Assembly on a contract basis to be of no legal effect. The core legal questions involve the extent of judicial review over administrative actions taken by the Speaker of a Provincial Assembly, specifically whether such actions enjoy immunity under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to review appointments made by the Speaker. The High Court held that acts performed by the Speaker outside the proceedings of the House are amenable to judicial review and that such actions are not immune if they violate existing rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions raised regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions and recruitment rules—specifically Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules, 1975—are of general public importance, particularly concerning the Speaker's authority to re-employ retired personnel and the applicability of constitutional bars on jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Are acts performed by the Speaker of a Provincial Assembly, other than proceedings inside the House, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the immunity provided under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 extend to administrative appointments made by the Speaker?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to review an appointment made by the Speaker in violation of recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyab Versus Muhammad Sharif Malik1996 SCMR 1967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11
  leave to appealmalicious prosecutioncross-examinationabuse of processadjournmentcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision petition and upholding the trial court's order. The petitioner had instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecution in August 1987. During the proceedings, the trial court closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine a defense witness under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to repeated adjournments and deliberate delays by the plaintiff's counsel, which the courts construed as an abuse of the process of the court. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in invoking Order 17, Rule 3 to close the right of cross-examination upon repeated defaults. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and exercise of discretion by the lower courts were lawful and warranted, as the plaintiff was attempting to employ delaying tactics. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that courts are not obligated to countenance dilatory tactics or abuse of judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can close the right to cross-examine witnesses under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to repeated delays by a party?
  • Does failure to cross-examine witnesses despite multiple opportunities amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent orders of lower courts refusing to countenance dilatory tactics in civil proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Versus Zubaida Bibi1996 SCMR 1965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Nannah Khan Versus Barkhurdar1996 SCMR 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Nannah Khan Versus Bashir Ahmed1996 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner M. Zainul Abidin, Raja Dilshad A. Khan, S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Hamid Ali Mirza, Ehsanullah Khan , Ch. Qadir Bux, Rana M.A. Qadri, Nemo , Malik Saeed Hasan, Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Sh. Salahuddin,1996 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-25
  evacuee propertyallotment of landrepeal of lawsprovincial governmentdisposal of propertyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of allotments of evacuee lands made to the petitioners in the year 1992. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether such allotments were legally permissible following the repeal of the Evacuee Laws. The Court noted that with the enforcement of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975), all evacuee laws stood repealed effective from 1st July 1974. Under Section 3 of the Act, all available evacuee properties, both urban and rural, were transferred to the Provincial Government for disposal according to specific schemes prepared by the relevant authorities. The Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the legality of the 1992 allotments in light of this statutory transfer of property and the subsequent repeal of the governing evacuee legislation. The holding establishes that the legal framework for disposing of evacuee property shifted entirely to the Provincial Government post-1974, necessitating a review of whether subsequent allotments adhered to these statutory requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether allotments of evacuee lands made in 1992 are valid in law following the repeal of Evacuee Laws?
  • Did evacuee properties stand transferred to the Provincial Government after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws on 1st July 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad Versus Jawahir1996 SCMR 1959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Versus Hajran Bibi1996 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Ghulam Muhammad1996 SCMR 1955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Province of the Punjab1996 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Muhammad Haleem1996 SCMR 1950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-09
  leave to appealcompromise decreeminorguardianfraud and misrepresentationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. The core legal question concerns the effect of non-compliance with mandatory procedural provisions when a compromise decree is entered into involving minors without the express leave of the court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a next friend or guardian cannot enter into a compromise on behalf of a minor without the express leave of the court recorded in the proceedings, and any compromise without such leave is voidable against all parties other than the minor. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7, C.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and failure to comply with them renders the compromise agreement voidable.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of entering into a compromise on behalf of a minor without obtaining the express leave of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requiring leave of the court for a compromise involving a minor are mandatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Warrayam Versus Settlement Commissioner (Land)1996 SCMR 1949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11
  land settlementmukhbari applicationallotment cancellationrepeal of statuteremandsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court in a land settlement dispute. The petitioners purchased litigated property originally allotted to respondent No. 4 against claim forms. Subsequently, respondents 2 and 3 filed a Mukhbari application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land), who cancelled the allotment on the ground that the claim forms lacked a valid transfer order to the district. The Lahore High Court declared the cancellation without lawful authority and remanded the matter to determine the original allottee's entitlement and any excess area for re-allotment to the informant. The core legal question concerned the maintainability and validity of the Mukhbari proceedings and the subsequent remand. The Supreme Court held that the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed in July 1974, leaving no provision for moving a Mukhbari application thereafter, and noted that persons named in the application were already dead. Finding no cause to interfere with the remand order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Mukhbari application is maintainable after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Can an allotment be cancelled on the basis of a Mukhbari application filed after July 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Seed Corporation Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1996 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Chief Secretary Government of Punjab Versus Mumtaz Ahmed Superintendent of Police1996 SCMR 1945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Rashid Versus Hameed Akhtar Niazi1996 SCMR 1942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  compromise decreeSection 12(2) CPCallotment of government housemisrepresentationfraudconsent orderresiling from compromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court order regarding the allotment of a government house. The dispute arose between the appellant and respondent No. 1, both claiming entitlement to the property. During Intra-Court Appeal proceedings, the parties reached a compromise, recorded by the Court, requiring the appellant to vacate the premises and the government to provide alternative accommodation. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside the compromise order on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, alleging that respondent No. 1 had concealed his retirement status. The Supreme Court held that the application under Section 12(2) was unsustainable because the retirement notification was a matter of public record and did not constitute fraud or misrepresentation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the government, having participated in and partially complied with the compromise, could not resile from it. The Court affirmed that a consent decree cannot be challenged on such grounds when the alleged 'concealed' fact was publicly available and did not invalidate the underlying agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a consent decree be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of non-disclosure of a publicly gazetted retirement notification?
  • Is a party who has accepted and acted upon a compromise order permitted to subsequently resile from it?
  • Does the failure to disclose a retirement notification that is already published in the official Gazette constitute fraud or misrepresentation sufficient to invalidate a compromise decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasarullah Versus The State1996 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sain Versus Muhammad Din1996 SCMR 1918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Fauji Foundation Versus Bakhtiar Ahmed Syed1996 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-30
  bail cancellationjurisdiction of special courtsscheduled offencesoffences in respect of bankscriminal procedureinvestigating officer report
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that refused to cancel the bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of financial fraud involving the Fauji Foundation. The core legal questions were whether the Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Central) possessed the jurisdiction to grant bail for offences triable exclusively by the Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks), and whether the bail order was sustainable on merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the prosecution (FIA) had explicitly stated there was no incriminating material against the respondent and had placed his name in column No. 2 of the challan, the refusal to cancel bail was justified on merits. Regarding the jurisdictional challenge, the Court declined to interfere, noting that the complainant had not raised this objection before the trial court or relevant administrative authorities. The Court clarified that the petitioner could still raise the issue of jurisdiction before the trial court, which would be required to decide the matter in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline to interfere with a bail order on jurisdictional grounds if the objection was not raised before the trial court or administrative authorities?
  • Is a bail order sustainable when the prosecution explicitly states there is no incriminating material against the accused?
  • Does the placement of an accused in column No. 2 of the challan by the Investigating Officer provide a valid basis for maintaining bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Jawad Sarwar Versus Zenia1996 SCMR 1907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-09
  minor custodyhabeas corpussection 491 Cr.P.C.delay in filing petitionremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the respondent-mother under section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery and custody of her minor son from the appellant-father. The High Court allowed the petition and handed over the custody of the child to the mother. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was rightly invoked in the absence of material indicating illegal deprivation, and in light of the significant delay in approaching the court and conflicting pleas of the parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the palpable delay in filing the petition and omitted to examine the correctness of the conflicting stands regarding whether the mother was illegally deprived of custody. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision, while making an interim arrangement for visitation rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked without examining conflicting pleas regarding the alleged illegal deprivation of a minor's custody?
  • Does a significant delay in filing a petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require specific consideration by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ullah Versus The State1996 SCMR 1894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-16
  heroin recoverycontraband transportationProhibition Ordercriminal appealrejection of plea of alibiquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from concurrent findings of guilt under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, where the appellants were convicted for the possession and transportation of 180 bags of heroin concealed in a jeep. The trial court convicted and sentenced them to life imprisonment, whipping, and fine, which was upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the defence of planting and the plea of tender age warranted interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the large quantity of narcotics recovered from the vehicle—which belonged to one of the appellants—sufficiently connected the accused to the crime, that the defence plea of planting was an afterthought, and that no credible evidence supported the claim of minority. The Court laid down that recovery of massive contraband from a vehicle occupied jointly by the accused warrants conviction absent credible rebuttal, and that unsubstantiated pleas of young age do not merit leniency in heinous drug offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of contraband drugs from the vehicle beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does a huge quantity of recovered heroin negate the defence plea of false implication and planting?
  • Can an unverified plea of tender age serve as a ground for reduction of sentence in heinous narcotics offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Choudhary Versus Saeed Ahmed1996 SCMR 1784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-24Read full judgment →
• Amina Begum Versus Muhammad Siddique1996 SCMR 1773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sohara Versus Muhammad Nawaz1996 SCMR 1719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-30
  special leave to appealadverse possessionrevenue recordcivil revisionprescriptionpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute over a parcel of land. The plaintiff, Sohara, filed a suit for possession alleging forcible occupation by the defendants, while the defendants claimed ownership through adverse possession exceeding twelve years. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the District Judge accepted the defendants' appeal and dismissed the suit. A subsequent civil revision before the Lahore High Court was also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that revenue records designated the respondents as tenants, precluding a claim of ownership by prescription. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the revenue entries showed no rent was paid and indicated occupation by force for decades, contradicting the plaintiff's claim of recent forcible dispossession and establishing continuous possession since 1939. The Court held that the mere mention of the word 'tenant' in the revenue record, devoid of rent payment and coupled with long-standing hostile possession, did not negate the defendants' acquisition of title through prescription. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the entry of the word 'tenant' in the revenue record precludes a claim of ownership through adverse possession when no rent is paid?
  • Does long-standing possession reflected in revenue records since 1939 substantiate a claim of ownership by prescription?
  • Can a party claim forcible occupation within one year of filing the suit when revenue records establish continuous possession by the opposing party for decades?
  Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad Versus Additional District Judge-11996 SCMR 1688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-07
  revisional jurisdictionomission of statuterepealpending proceedingswithdrawal of suitGeneral Clauses ActCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the withdrawal of a civil suit and the revisional jurisdiction of the District Court. The core legal questions were whether the "omission" of subsections (2), (3), and (4) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by Ordinance XXXIII of 1993 constituted a repeal, and whether the acceptance of costs by one defendant precludes other defendants from objecting to the filing of a fresh suit. The Court held that the "omission" of a statutory provision by an amending statute is legally equivalent to a repeal. Consequently, pursuant to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, pending proceedings are not abated but must be decided by the court where they were originally pending. The Court affirmed the District Judge's jurisdiction to decide the revision application. Additionally, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to determine whether the acceptance of costs by one defendant, upon the withdrawal of a suit, entitles other defendants to object to the filing of a fresh suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a statutory provision by an amending statute amount to a repeal?
  • Are pending legal proceedings saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 when the statute governing jurisdiction is amended by omission?
  • Is the District Court competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction following the enactment of the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act 1994?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus State1996 SCMR 1663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
• Suba Versus Fatima Bibi1996 SCMR 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-05Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Ahmed Versus State1996 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Versus State1996 SCMR 1541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24
  narcotics controlreasonable doubtbenefit of doubtevidentiary discrepancychemical analysiscriminal appealdrug trafficking
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged transportation of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, considering significant evidentiary discrepancies. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that while 34 packets of heroin were allegedly recovered, only 17 were produced in court. Furthermore, the court identified unexplained discrepancies between the weight of samples taken and those analyzed, alongside an unexplained three-day delay in transmitting samples to the chemical examiner, raising the possibility of tampering. The Court emphasized that the appellant was a mere taxi driver, and the prosecution’s failure to reconcile these material contradictions rendered the case doubtful. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the established legal principle that any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the entire quantity of recovered contraband in court create reasonable doubt?
  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of samples taken at the scene and the weight reported by the chemical examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Salah-Ud-Din Versus Zia Farhat1996 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited Versus Shabbir Ahmad1996 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Versus Bashir Ahmad1996 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Maryam Bibi Versus Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, Lahore1996 SCMR 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-25
  evacuee propertyres judicatanon-evacuee declarationarbitration awardinheritancemisreading of evidencecustodian of evacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Pakistani citizen who embraced Islam in 1942, sought a declaration that certain properties, including a bungalow at 10-Montgomery Road, Lahore, were non-evacuee properties. These properties were inherited by the appellant through a will from her mother, who had received them from the appellant's father prior to the 1947 partition. The Custodian of Evacuee Property had previously declared the entire 10-Montgomery Road property as evacuee property, relying on a prior decision involving a third party, and dismissed the appellant's application on the grounds of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian's previous order was based on a misreading of an arbitration award and evidence, as the specific property in question had been excluded from the settlement between the appellant's father and his brothers. The Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply where the prior decision is fundamentally flawed, illegal, or based on a misreading of the record, especially when the cause of justice demands a decision on merits. Consequently, the Court declared the specific property to be non-evacuee, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can the doctrine of res judicata be invoked to bar a claim if the prior decision relied upon is based on a clear misreading of the record or is otherwise illegal?
  • Does an order passed by a Custodian of Evacuee Property that exceeds the scope of the original application operate as a binding determination for all subsequent proceedings?
  • Is a property inherited by a Pakistani citizen prior to the partition of 1947, which was never treated as evacuee property, subject to the jurisdiction of the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
  Read full judgment →
• Central Board of Revenue Versus Champion Clock Company1996 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal Abbasi & Company Versus Province of Punjab1996 SCMR 1433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-09Read full judgment →
• Sughran Bibi Versus Aziz Begum1996 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-05
  specific performancesecond appealconcurrent findings of factadverse inferenceoccupancy rightsagreement to sellburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell occupancy rights in land. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit, finding that the initial agreement (Exh. P-1) was executed by all five co-owners, and a subsequent agreement (Exh. P-2) for additional payment was executed by one co-owner (Nazar Hussain) who managed the ladies' affairs. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed these findings and dismissed the suit, holding that the transaction was doubtful and the plaintiff's husband being a patwari suggested bad faith. The Supreme Court of Pakistan analyzed the scope of second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, reiterating that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless there is a substantial procedural error, misreading, or perverse appreciation of evidence. The Court held that the High Court erred by relying on extraneous factors and ignoring the adverse inference arising from Nazar Hussain's failure to testify. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the decree for specific performance subject to the appellant paying the remaining co-owners their proportionate shares of the disputed payments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in a second appeal disturb concurrent findings of fact solely because it disagrees with the lower courts' view of the evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a defendant's failure to testify to deny the execution of an agreement and receipt of consideration when the onus is on them?
  • Can the equitable relief of specific performance be denied based on extraneous factors, such as the plaintiff's spouse being a local revenue official, without proof of undue advantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Maroof Gilani Versus Prime Minister of Pakistan1996 SCMR 1353 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate Versus State1996 SCMR 1342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-17
  post-arrest bailprinciple of consistencywithdrawal of prosecutionjudicial discretionriotingconspiracycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing the bail applications of the petitioners, who were charged with rioting, conspiracy, and other offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. The core legal questions were whether bail could be granted based solely on the State's non-opposition and whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidence and the principle of consistency. The Supreme Court held that bail cannot be granted merely on the State's concession without judicial examination of the merits. Furthermore, the Court determined that the prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed the non-bailable offenses, as no specific role or evidence of firing was attributed to them, unlike other co-accused who had already been granted bail. The principle laid down is that while the State may seek to withdraw or not oppose prosecution, the Court must independently verify the existence of reasonable grounds for detention, ensuring consistency in the treatment of similarly situated accused persons.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant bail merely on the basis of a concession made by the State counsel?
  • What are the requirements for a court to grant consent for the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when determining bail for co-accused persons facing similar allegations?
  • Is a court required to independently examine the merits of a bail application even when the State does not oppose it?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimar Khan Versus Fazal Rabi1996 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Jan Versus Rastabaz Khan1996 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-16Read full judgment →