Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Malik Allah Dad deceased through his legal representatives and others vs Yasin and another1990 SCMR 1638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption where the plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court regarding the payment of court-fee. The core legal question was whether the appellate court correctly rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to non-payment of court-fee, despite the trial court failing to determine the exact deficiency or order the plaintiff to supply the requisite amount. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgments were unsustainable. Relying on the precedent set in Siddique Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289), the Court ruled that the penal provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 cannot be invoked unless the court has first determined the exact amount of court-fee deficiency and provided the plaintiff with a mandatory opportunity to deposit the amount. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits, establishing that a court must explicitly determine the deficiency and grant a mandatory chance for compliance before rejecting a plaint for insufficient court-fee.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for non-payment of court-fee without first determining the exact amount of deficiency?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to a mandatory opportunity to deposit court-fee after the court determines the deficiency?
- Does the failure of a trial court to order the supply of court-fee preclude an appellate court from rejecting the plaint on that ground?
- Malik Abdul Wahid vs Abdul Qayum and others1990 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a rent restriction matter where the appellant-landlord sought the eviction of the respondents (the original lessee and subsequent sub-lessees) on the grounds of subletting and non-payment of rent. The respondents resisted the application, contending that the plot was not 'rented land' under the law, that they had purchased the property, and that they had raised constructions on it. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the plot was not let out for business or trade purposes and thus did not constitute 'rented land'. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan analyzed the purpose of the lease, noting that the land was leased for the business of constructing small tenements to be rented out to sub-tenants. The Court held that such a purpose falls within the definition of 'rented land' used for business. Since the default in rent payment was established, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and ordered the eviction of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether an open plot leased for the purpose of constructing small tenements for subletting qualifies as 'rented land' used for business purposes?
- Can sub-lessees be evicted on the ground of default if the primary tenant fails to pay or tender rent to the landlord?
- Are the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding compromise and admission applicable to rent restriction proceedings in the interest of justice?
- Malik Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad Hussain and others1990 SCMR 1716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, based on personal requirement and default in rent payment. The respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting tenancy under a third party. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge ordered eviction, but the High Court set these orders aside, finding them based on misreading of evidence. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the specific land in the respondent's possession was the land purchased by the appellant. The key principle laid down is that in eviction proceedings, a landlord must establish the identity and possession of the specific property in dispute; without evidence linking the purchased land to the respondent's possession, a decree for eviction cannot be sustained, and concurrent findings of fact based on 'no evidence' are subject to correction by the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a landlord obtain an eviction order without establishing that the specific land in the respondent's possession is the land the landlord purchased?
- Is a High Court empowered to set aside concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if those findings are based on no evidence or misreading of evidence?
- Does the burden of proof shift to a tenant to prove a third party's title when the tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Major Dr. Ghulam Rasul vs Chief Secretary Govt. of Punjab and others1990 SCMR 1478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the petitioner's dismissal from service for willful and unauthorized absence from duty amounting to misconduct. The core legal question concerns the proportionality and appropriateness of the penalty of dismissal awarded to the petitioner following disciplinary proceedings and an inquiry report. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal restricted solely to the question of the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner, directing the appeal to be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may grant leave to examine the proportionality of a departmental punishment inflicted upon a civil servant in appropriate circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the penalty of dismissal from service for unauthorized absence from duty is disproportionate?
- Can leave to appeal be granted solely to consider the question of punishment awarded in service matters?
- Major Altaf Ali Khan vs Mst. Gaiti Ara and others1990 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the allotment of disputed land. The core legal question concerned the validity of an allotment made to the petitioner (based on a Mukhbari application) when the land had already been confirmed in favor of the respondents by the Special (Garden) Allotment Committee in 1968 and affirmed by previous High Court writ proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) acted in complete ignorance and disregard of the prior confirmed allotment and the High Court's earlier decision when allotting the land to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the petitioner's allotment. The key principle laid down is that settlement authorities cannot allot land that has already been validly confirmed and vested in other parties, especially when such status has been affirmed by judicial orders. The petition was dismissed, with the Court observing that the petitioner may be considered for other available land under the amended Section 14(1-a) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
Questions settled- Can settlement authorities allot land that has already been confirmed in favor of another party?
- Does a Mukhbari application grant a right to land that is already subject to a prior confirmed allotment?
- Is an allotment order passed in disregard of a High Court judgment sustainable?
- Major Abdul Latif and anothers vs Land Acquisition Collectoriv, Terbela Dam and 2 others1990 PLD Supreme Court 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court, whereby respondents' appeal in a land acquisition award of compensation case was allowed and the Collector's award was restored. The dispute relates to the compensation for two houses acquired for the Tarbela Dam. The core legal question examined was whether the report of a private Overseer could be treated as evidence regarding the value of the superstructure in the absence of technical evidence from WAPDA. The Supreme Court held that there is nothing in law preventing the examination of a privately engaged Overseer, though the weight of such evidence depends on the circumstances and credibility of the witness, and the absence of the opposing party during the private inspection does not render it inadmissible. However, upon undertaking independent calculations of the covered area and material value based on the appellants' own figures, the Court concluded that the compensation awarded by the Collector was fair and on the higher side. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the report of a privately engaged Overseer be treated as evidence regarding the value of a building's superstructure in land acquisition proceedings?
- Does the absence of the opposing party during a private inspection by an Overseer render their report inadmissible as evidence?
- What factors determine the weight and value attached to the evidence of a privately engaged expert witness?
- Majeeduddin Khan and others vs Sardar Khan and others1990 SCMR 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed their civil revision in a suit for declaration. The respondents/plaintiffs challenged the alleged alienation of suit land by their predecessor-in-interest as fraudulent. All three courts below rendered concurrent findings of fact establishing fraud and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel conceded that the concurrent findings of fact could not be challenged, but argued that the suit was barred by limitation because paragraph 11 of the plaint asserted that the cause of action arose in 1965, whereas the suit was filed in 1976. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that paragraph 11 must be read in conjunction with paragraph 10 of the plaint. The Court held that where a party has been kept in the dark due to fraud, limitation runs from the date of knowledge of the fraud. Consequently, the suit was within time, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the period of limitation for a suit challenging a fraudulent transaction runs from the date of knowledge of the fraud when the plaintiff was kept in the dark?
- Whether specific paragraphs of a plaint can be read in isolation to determine the bar of limitation without considering related explanatory paragraphs in the same pleading?
- Mahmud Ahmad vs Water and Power Development Authority and others1990 SCMR 1479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Meter Reader of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner had been removed from service pursuant to Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's removal from service was tainted by mala fides, as alleged by the petitioner. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that the petitioner had a history of misconduct, including being caught reversing an electric meter. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegation of mala fides, finding that the Federal Service Tribunal had correctly examined the facts and found no substance in the petitioner's claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the validity of the removal action taken by the authorities under the relevant statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on merits despite being time-barred?
- Does the removal of a WAPDA employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act require proof of mala fides to be set aside?
- Is the finding of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the absence of mala fides in a service termination case subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Mahmood vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur and 4 others1990 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding an ejectment application. The core legal question was whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and the respondents concerning a shop, which the petitioner claimed was evacuee property, thereby denying the respondents' ownership. The Supreme Court found that the respondents had established their title through a registered sale deed and supporting judicial decrees, whereas the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of ownership or possession as an evacuee property occupant. The Court held that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is a question of fact. Since the lower courts had concurrently decided this issue in favor of the respondents based on evidence, the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction absent legal error.
Questions settled- Is the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship a question of fact?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a party claiming ownership of evacuee property bear the burden of proving title when a landlord-tenant relationship is contested?
- Mahmood Ullah vs The Administrator (Residual Properties Lahore1990 SCMR 1695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the resumption of a house by the Settlement Department due to the appellant's failure to pay the transfer price. The core legal questions were whether the property could be resumed for non-payment and whether a property previously declared "indivisible" could be partially transferred under Settlement Scheme No. 9. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had failed to pay the required price before the resumption order, rendering the resumption valid. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the previous finding of indivisibility pertained to entitlement under Settlement Scheme No. 1 and did not preclude the Administrator from transferring portions of the house under Settlement Scheme No. 9 once the property became available. The principle established is that property resumption for non-payment is valid when the price is not timely paid, and a property deemed indivisible under one scheme may be treated differently under a subsequent scheme if it becomes available for disposal by the Settlement authorities. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a property previously declared indivisible under Settlement Scheme No. 1 be partially transferred under Settlement Scheme No. 9?
- Does the failure to pay the transfer price justify the resumption of property by the Settlement Department?
- Can a party challenge the transfer of a portion of a property after the property has been legally resumed by the Settlement authorities?
- Mahmood and 9 others vs Ahmad Yar and 5 others1990 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition concerning the allotment of State land. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' writ petition and the respondents' pending writ petition, which arose from the same dispute, should be adjudicated independently or consolidated for a joint disposal. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitions were not strictly counter-petitions in a chronological sense, the subject matter was sufficiently intertwined that their joint disposal would best serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the same, and remanded the case to the High Court with the direction that it be heard afresh alongside the respondents' pending Writ Petition No. 3527 of 1985. The key principle laid down is that where two writ petitions involve the same subject matter and dispute, the interests of justice are best served by their joint disposal to ensure consistent adjudication.
Questions settled- Should two writ petitions involving the same subject matter be disposed of jointly to meet the ends of justice?
- Can the Supreme Court remand a case to the High Court for joint disposal with a pending writ petition?
- Mahboob Khan vs Hassan Khan Durrani1990 PLD Supreme Court 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the limitation period for filing an execution application for a civil court decree following the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which omitted Article 182 of the Limitation Act and amended Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The core legal question was whether the first application for execution is governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act (prescribing three years) or by Section 48 of the C.P.C. (prescribing six years). The Supreme Court held that Section 48, C.P.C. applies only to "fresh" applications—interpreted as subsequent applications filed after the first execution application has been disposed of. Consequently, the first application for execution remains governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from the date the right to apply accrues. The Court affirmed that if the initial execution application is not filed within the three-year period under Article 181, it becomes time-barred, rendering the extended six-year period under Section 48, C.P.C. inapplicable.
Questions settled- Does Section 48 of the C.P.C. apply to the first application for execution of a decree?
- Is the first application for execution of a civil court decree governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act?
- What is the legal effect of the omission of Article 182 of the Limitation Act on the limitation period for execution applications?
- Does the term "fresh application" in Section 48 of the C.P.C. include the initial application for execution?
- M.A. Rafique vs Managing Director (Power), WAPDA and 7 others1990 SCMR 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Director in WAPDA and a non-graduate engineer, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal regarding his supersession and the promotion of his juniors. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant possesses a vested right in future prospects of promotion despite a change in policy favoring graduate engineers, and whether the deferment of promotion by a Selection Board can be challenged before the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no vested right exists with respect to posts not actually held but to which a civil servant aspires to be promoted at a future date, and that the finding of fact regarding the consideration and deferment of the petitioner by the Selection Board could not be challenged before the Tribunal under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that policy changes affecting future promotion criteria do not violate vested rights and that fitness determinations by selection boards are generally not reviewable.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right in future prospects of promotion to a post not currently held?
- Can the deferment or unfitness for promotion determined by a Selection Board be challenged before the Service Tribunal under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Does a change in policy giving preference to graduate engineers over non-graduate engineers violate the service rights of an employee who entered service prior to such policy change?
- M. Shakeel Saigol and others vs The Incometax Officer and others1990 SCMR 1353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of writ petitions by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the imposition and recovery of additional tax under section 45-A of the Income-Tax Act. The core legal question involves the validity of additional tax orders passed against the petitioners under the said Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that these petitions raise substantially the same questions of law as those in earlier petitions where leave had already been granted. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in the instant petitions, ordered them to be made ready on the present record with liberty to file additional documents, and directed that they be heard along with the connected appeals.
Questions settled- Whether additional tax under section 45-A of the Income-Tax Act can be validly recovered?
- Whether writ petitions challenging orders passed under the Income-Tax Act are maintainable?
- M. Shakeel Saigol and others vs The Income-Tax Officer and others1990 PTD 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- M. Noor Muhammad vs Director of Education (Schools) and others1990 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the correction of his date of joining government service. The petitioner was appointed as an officiating/temporary Senior English Teacher via notification dated 15-11-1971 and directed to report to a specific school where no vacancy was available, preventing him from assuming charge on 23-11-1971. He was subsequently posted to another school where he took charge on 27-11-1971, which was recorded as his date of entry into service. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's service could be deemed to have commenced from the date he attempted to report at a school with no sanctioned vacancy, or from the date he actually assumed charge where a vacancy existed. The Supreme Court held that since no post was available at the first school and the appointment notification explicitly conditioned joining on available strength, the petitioner could not be treated as having joined service until he assumed charge at the school with an available vacancy on 27-11-1971. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can claim a date of joining service prior to actually assuming charge of a post where no sanctioned vacancy existed at the initially assigned school?
- Does an appointment notification subject to available sanctioned strength confer a right to join duty where no vacancy is available?
- Liaquat Ali Fani and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Sain Muhammad and sentenced to death. Their appeal was subsequently dismissed by the High Court, which confirmed the death sentences. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had correctly applied the established principles for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases. Upon hearing arguments from counsel, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to adhere to the well-established principles for the appraisal of evidence regarding the accused petitioners. Consequently, the Court held that the cases required further consideration. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions, establishing the principle that a failure to properly apply established evidentiary standards in criminal convictions warrants a re-examination of the case by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Does a failure by the High Court to apply established principles for the appraisal of evidence in a criminal case constitute sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal?
- Is the conviction and sentence of death under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to further consideration if the evidence appraisal is found to be flawed?
- Liaqat Ali alias Doda vs The State1990 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioner's revision against his conviction and sentence. The petitioner was tried and convicted under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for trespassing into a residence and outraging the modesty of a woman, receiving a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question was whether the evidence presented at trial, particularly the testimony of an independent witness, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the testimony of the independent witness, who lacked animus against the petitioner, remained unchallenged and credible. Consequently, the Court determined that the case was not a fit one for leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the lower courts' concurrent findings of guilt.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of an independent witness without animus sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal warrant interference when the prosecution has proven its case beyond any shadow of doubt?
- Lal Muhammad vs The State1990 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 17(4) of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner, accused of murder and robbery, sought bail primarily on the grounds that his name was absent from the First Information Report and that the prosecution's case relied solely on the confessional statements of co-accused persons. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material available during the investigation. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record and investigation papers, held that the High Court had not violated any legal provisions or principles governing bail in such serious offenses. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the lower courts correctly determined that a prima facie case existed against the petitioner, thereby disentitling him to the grant of bail at this stage of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail solely because their name is omitted from the First Information Report?
- Can the confessional statement of a co-accused constitute sufficient material to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of refusing bail?
- Does the existence of a prima facie case disentitle an accused from the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses?
- Lal Din vs Muhammad Arif and others1990 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption claim initiated by a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, following the sale of land. The central dispute involved the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries, which had been altered to reflect the vendee as the tenant, thereby defeating the plaintiff's pre-emption suit. After the Board of Revenue remanded the case for reconsideration, the High Court upheld the Collector's authority to correct revenue entries despite pending litigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the implications of its earlier judgment in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the impugned judgments as the specific ground for appeal was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and was not available during the earlier proceedings. The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the legal questions raised, instead dismissing the appeal and directing the relevant statutory authority to consider the case on remand in light of the principles established in the Sardar Ali precedent.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a pre-emption suit legally prohibit a Collector from exercising statutory powers to correct Khasra Girdawari entries?
- Should the Supreme Court adjudicate on new grounds of appeal not raised before the lower forums or the High Court?
- Is it the appropriate role of the Supreme Court to enforce legal precedents in individual cases without first affording the statutory authorities an opportunity to apply them?
- Lahore Stock Exchange Limited vs Fredrick J. Whyte Group (Pakistan)1990 PLD Supreme Court 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an appeal against the trial court's order directing the filing of an arbitration agreement and referring the dispute to arbitration under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal question was whether disputes concerning the validity, voidability, and existence of a contract induced by alleged misrepresentation or lack of authorization fall within the scope of a broadly worded arbitration clause, or whether such matters must be exclusively decided by a court of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where an arbitration clause is of wide amplitude—covering any dispute concerning the interpretation, rights, liabilities, or duties under the agreement—questions regarding the validity of the contract, misrepresentation, authority of agents, and repudiation fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Court laid down that a voidable contract under section 19 of the Contract Act does not render the arbitration clause inoperative ab initio, and an arbitrator appointed under a broadly worded clause is competent to determine issues relating to the contract's existence, scope, and effect.
Questions settled- Does a broadly worded arbitration clause cover disputes concerning the validity, existence, or voidability of the underlying contract?
- Can questions regarding whether a contract was induced by misrepresentation or lack of authority be determined by an arbitrator?
- Does the repudiation or termination of a contract automatically nullify the arbitration agreement contained within it?
- Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act can be refused on the ground that the dispute involves challenges to the original contract?
- Khurshid Alam, ExSBA vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 2 others1990 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, employed as a Switch Board Attendant, was charge-sheeted for misconduct due to unauthorized absence from duty and was subsequently removed from service after ex parte proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's removal from service and whether any substantial question of law arose regarding the unauthorized absence and the proceedings conducted against him. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate that he had applied for leave or that he was present on duty, and noted that no question of law was involved in the petition. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized absence from duty, coupled with a failure to substantiate leave applications or participate in disciplinary proceedings, justifies removal from service under the relevant disciplinary rules.
Questions settled- Whether unauthorized absence from duty without sanctioned leave constitutes misconduct warranting removal from service?
- Does a service tribunal's dismissal of an appeal raise a question of law when the employee fails to substantiate leave applications?
- Is leave to appeal maintainable against a service tribunal order where no substantial question of law is involved?
- Khudija Khanam and others vs Border Area Committee and others1990 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land in village Nathuki, Lahore, by the Border Area Committee. The respondents were initially allotted the land in 1964, but the Committee subsequently cancelled these allotments in 1970, citing them as fictitious and bogus, and re-allotted the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Brigadier Zafar Ali. The respondents challenged the cancellation through writ petitions. Following a remand by the High Court, the Committee reaffirmed its decision that the respondents' original allotment was illegal and that the allotment to the petitioners' predecessor was valid. A Single Judge of the High Court upheld this decision. However, an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) filed by the respondents was subsequently accepted by the High Court. The petitioners, as successors-in-interest to Brigadier Zafar Ali, sought leave to appeal against the ICA judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the original allotment in favour of the respondents was in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether the original allotment of agricultural land by the Border Area Committee in favour of the respondents was in accordance with the law?
- Khuda Bakhsh and anothers vs Federal Land Commission and others1990 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' writ petition against an order of the Federal Land Commission. The core legal questions involved whether a High Court judgment setting aside a Federal Land Commission order without an explicit remand divests the Commission of jurisdiction to proceed, and whether the Federal Land Commission is competent to examine the legal completeness of a gift despite restrictions on inquiring into its bona fides under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Supreme Court held that setting aside the prior administrative order restored the status quo ante, enabling the Commission to resume proceedings from the stage prior to the vitiated order. Furthermore, while the Commission cannot inquire into the bona fides of certain gifts, it retains jurisdiction to examine whether a transaction is complete in law, including the requirement of delivery of possession for major donees. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Does the setting aside of a Federal Land Commission order by a High Court without an explicit order of remand divest the Commission of its jurisdiction to resume proceedings from the stage of the vitiated order?
- Whether the Federal Land Commission is competent to examine the legal completeness and validity of a gift under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, notwithstanding the bar on inquiring into its bona fides?
- Can a father accept a gift and delivery of possession on behalf of his major sons in respect of undivided agricultural land?
- Khan Muhammad vs The State1990 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khan Muhammad against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the petitioner's conviction based on the testimony of related and allegedly interested eye-witnesses, and whether the corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon was reliable given the acquittal of his co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the case requires a detailed examination to determine if the conviction was founded on a proper appraisal of evidence and legal principles. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the evidentiary value of interested witnesses and weapon recoveries.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and interested eye-witnesses can solely form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused due to doubtful weapon recovery render the recovery of the weapon from the remaining petitioner equally doubtful?
- Whether the lower courts properly appraised the evidence and legal principles governing criminal liability in capital cases?
- Khan Muhammad Niazi vs The Secretary, Cooperation, Government of Punjab1990 SCMR 1416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, challenged the withholding of 50% of his pension following disciplinary proceedings initiated after his retirement. The proceedings were conducted under the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963, regarding allegations of misconduct, including inefficiency, registration of fictitious societies, and misappropriation of crop loans. After the departmental inquiry established five out of six charges, the petitioner's departmental appeal was rejected, and his subsequent appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal was also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the evidence did not support the findings of misconduct. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings leading to the withholding of pension are permissible against a civil servant even after retirement. Regarding the evidentiary challenge, the Court determined that the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges was a question of fact, not law. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the charges were not without foundation.
Questions settled- Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a civil servant after their retirement?
- Does the withholding of pension based on findings of misconduct constitute a substantial question of law if the petitioner disputes the sufficiency of evidence?
- Khan Bahadur vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police Pakistan1990 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a departmental inquiry against an Assistant Sub-Inspector who was reduced in rank for failing to report for mandatory training and unauthorized travel. The core legal question was whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated because the appellant was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report or informed of the specific charges proved against him prior to the issuance of the final show-cause notice. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the failure to supply an inquiry report does not automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings in every instance. The governing principle established is that such proceedings are only vitiated if the procedural omission causes actual prejudice to the civil servant's defense. In this case, given the factual nature of the charges and the opportunity for a personal hearing provided to the appellant, the Court found no prejudice had occurred, thereby affirming the disciplinary action taken by the departmental authorities.
Questions settled- Does the failure to supply a copy of an inquiry report to a civil servant automatically vitiate departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- What is the test for determining whether procedural irregularities in a departmental inquiry warrant the setting aside of a penalty?
- Is a personal hearing sufficient to cure the failure to provide a copy of an inquiry report in a disciplinary case?
- Khalilurrehman vs Town Committee, Rabwah through Chairman1990 PLD Supreme Court 792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant challenging his compulsory retirement by the Town Committee, Rabwah. The suit was instituted before the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Chiniot, and was decreed in the appellant's favor. However, on revision, the High Court set aside the decree as null and void, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, because the Town Committee was sued through its Administrator, who was a public officer. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 could cure this jurisdictional defect. The Court held that the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 is a special law based on public policy, containing peremptory and prohibitive provisions that displace the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked to validate proceedings conducted in violation of Section 24 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, as a special law, override the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding territorial jurisdiction?
- Can Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cure a defect of jurisdiction arising from non-compliance with the peremptory provisions of Section 24 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962?
- Does a suit against a Town Committee through its Administrator, who is a public officer, attract the jurisdictional bar under Section 24 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962?
- Khalid Nazir alias Khalid Aziz and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged the convictions of the appellants under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, as upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The primary legal questions were whether a Chemical Examiner's report is legally insufficient if it lacks detailed procedural explanations, and whether the absence of public witnesses to a recovery vitiates a conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a Chemical Examiner is not required to provide exhaustive procedural details in the report itself; such details are only necessary if the examiner is summoned and examined by the court upon request. The Court clarified that a brief report containing a definite opinion is sufficient unless challenged through proper application. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument regarding the necessity of public witnesses for recovery, noting that established jurisprudence does not mandate public witnesses for such recoveries. The judgment affirms the sufficiency of concise expert reports and reiterates that the absence of public witnesses does not automatically invalidate a recovery.
Questions settled- Is a Chemical Examiner's report legally defective merely because it lacks detailed procedural explanations?
- Under what circumstances must a Chemical Examiner provide details of the procedures used for analysis?
- Does the absence of public witnesses to a recovery automatically invalidate a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Khalid Agencies vs Collector Of Customs And AnotherPTCL 1990 CL. 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing to stay the suspension of a private bonded warehouse license for alcoholic liquor. The Collector of Customs had suspended the license, citing the prohibition of alcoholic liquor under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner challenged the suspension, arguing it was issued without a show-cause notice and lacked statutory authority under the Customs Act, 1969, as the goods were intended for privileged consignees like foreign diplomats. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the underlying Constitutional petition or fully stay the suspension, as doing so would allow the continued business in potentially prohibited goods. However, the Court held that to prevent irreparable financial loss and injury, the suspension should not apply to stocks already imported and in-bonded for release to foreign diplomats and privileged persons. The Court modified the High Court's order to allow the release of these existing stocks, subject to standard legal compliance, while maintaining the suspension for future operations.
Questions settled- Can a court grant interim relief in a constitutional petition to allow the release of already imported goods from a suspended bonded warehouse?
- Does the suspension of a bonded warehouse license for alcoholic liquor apply to goods already in-bonded for privileged consignees?
- Khalid Agencies vs Collector of Customs and another1990 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Sind High Court refusing to stay the suspension of the petitioner's private bonded warehouse licence for liquor. The Collector of Customs suspended the licence relying on a judgment regarding the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which prohibits Muslims from dealing in alcoholic liquor. The High Court admitted the petitioner's constitutional petition for regular hearing but declined interim relief, prompting the present appeal. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it. The Court held that while interim suspension of the entire business should not be interfered with to prevent offending trade, relief ought to be granted regarding goods already imported and in-bonded for foreign diplomats to prevent irreparable loss and demurrage. The appeal was disposed of by modifying the High Court's order so that the suspension would not operate against the release of already in-bonded stocks subject to legal requirements.
Questions settled- Whether interim relief staying the suspension of a bonded warehouse licence should be granted when the underlying constitutional petition challenges the authority of the Customs Collector?
- Can a licence for a private bonded warehouse for liquor be suspended on the ground that the licensee is a partnership of Muslims in view of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Whether relief can be granted regarding already imported and in-bonded stocks of alcoholic liquor to prevent irreparable loss while main proceedings are pending?
- Khair Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Aslam and 5 others1990 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10-3-1986. The first petition, filed by the first informant, challenges the High Court's decision to commute the death sentences of four respondents to imprisonment for life and to acquit a fifth respondent. The second petition, filed by the convicts, seeks their acquittal. The underlying case involves a violent incident resulting in the deaths of three individuals from the complainant's side and one individual from the accused's side. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the arguments from both sides, determined that the case warrants a re-appraisal of the evidence to ascertain whether the High Court's reasoning aligns with established principles governing the administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions. Additionally, the Court issued non-bailable warrants for the respondent who had been acquitted and directed that the remaining respondents must not be released upon the expiry of their sentences pending the final disposal of the appeals.
Questions settled- Does a case involving cross-versions of a murder incident where multiple deaths occurred warrant a re-appraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court issue non-bailable warrants for an acquitted respondent while granting leave to appeal against that acquittal?
- Khadim Hussain and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1990 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning a service dispute where the respondents conceded to the stand taken by the petitioners in a written application. Acting upon this concession, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order. Subsequently, third parties filed civil miscellaneous petitions seeking to be impleaded as parties, asserting that their rights would be adversely affected by the respondents' concession. The Court held that since these applicants were not parties in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal, they lacked the requisite locus standi to challenge the concession at this appellate stage. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions for impleadment were rejected, establishing the principle that third parties not involved in the original tribunal proceedings cannot intervene to challenge a concession made between the primary litigants before the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether third parties who were not litigants before the Service Tribunal have the locus standi to challenge a concession made by respondents in the Supreme Court?
- Can a petition be converted into an appeal upon hearing the petitioner?
- Are parties who lack locus standi entitled to be impleaded in a main petition or appeal?
- Khadim Hussain and anothers vs The Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the procedural question of whether appeals arising from judgments or orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court—specifically those outside appellate or revisional jurisdiction, such as writ jurisdiction—must be heard by a Bench of three Judges or if a Bench of two Judges suffices under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Court examined the first proviso to Order XI, which lists categories of cases for a two-judge bench, connected by the conjunction 'and'. The Court held that the conjunction 'and' in this context must be construed disjunctively as 'or' to effectuate the legislative intent and maintain consistency with the Court's long-standing practice. The Court reasoned that if appeals from appellate or revisional orders of a Single Judge are heard by two judges, there is no logical basis to exclude other jurisdictions, such as writ jurisdiction, from this same procedural treatment. Consequently, the Court affirmed that appeals arising from orders or judgments passed by a Single Judge in any jurisdiction may be heard by a Bench of two Judges.
Questions settled- Can the word 'and' in a statute or rule be construed as 'or' to effectuate legislative intent?
- Is a Bench of two Judges competent to hear appeals arising from orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Does the long-standing practice of a Court regarding bench composition constitute a valid basis for interpreting procedural rules?
- Kausar Ali and 3 others vs Muhammad Sabir and 6 others1990 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-2-1988, which altered the convictions of the accused to Section 302/34 and Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, confirming one death sentence and altering others to imprisonment for life, while also maintaining certain acquittals. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and proper legal standard of corroboration required for sustaining convictions where prosecution witnesses are deemed inimical and unreliable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convicts to examine whether required corroboration qua each individual accused was properly forthcoming, but dismissed the complainant's petition seeking enhancement of sentences—noting that beneficiaries of a general amnesty now undergoing life imprisonment made the reimposition of death sentences incongruous—and declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding the acquittals. The key principle laid down is that the sufficiency of corroborative factors and individual culpability require rigorous examination in cases where prosecution witnesses are found to be inimical and unreliable.
Questions settled- Whether corroboration of testimony qua each individual accused is necessary when prosecution witnesses are considered inimical and unreliable?
- Does the number of injuries alone serve as a sufficient criterion for determining the aggressor and the victim in a criminal cross-version case?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the acquittal of respondents when the High Court has exercised its discretion on grounds recognized as proper and plausible?
- Kassim and another vs S. Rahim Shah1990 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against concurrent orders of the High Court and Rent Controller directing the ejectment of tenants for non-payment of rent. The petitioners contested the ejectment, arguing that the respondent’s title was disputed due to pending civil litigation and a prior unregistered agreement to sell in their favor. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller should stay ejectment proceedings when the landlord's title is challenged by the tenant. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller correctly ordered eviction, as the respondent held a registered sale deed, which established prima facie title and the right to collect rent. The Court affirmed that a registered sale deed takes precedence over a prior unregistered agreement to sell under Section 50 of the Registration Act. Consequently, until a competent Civil Court decrees the cancellation of the registered deed, the Rent Controller is entitled to recognize the registered owner as the landlord for the purpose of rent recovery. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a pending civil suit regarding property title automatically oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller to order ejectment?
- Does a registered sale deed take precedence over a prior unregistered agreement to sell for the purpose of establishing a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Can a Rent Controller proceed with an eviction application when the ownership of the property is contested in a separate civil suit?
- Kamran Co. and others vs Messrs Modern Motors and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ex parte decree passed against the appellants after the Presiding Officer of the trial court was on leave and the Reader adjourned the case without complying with Order XVII, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by failing to hand over a date slip. The appellants had already filed their written statement denying liability, and issues had been framed. The trial court decreed the suit ex parte without recording any evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that when a defendant has filed a written statement and issues are framed, the court must decide the case on the merits. The court ruled that the discretion to pass an ex parte decree without recording evidence under the CPC must be exercised judicially and is not mandatory. Since the plaintiff produced no evidence and the procedural requirements of Order XVII, Rule 5 of the CPC were violated, the ex parte decree was unsustainable. Ultimately, the respondent withdrew the suit against the appellants, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can pass an ex parte decree without recording evidence when the defendant has already filed a written statement and issues have been framed?
- Is the provision of handing over a date slip by the Reader under Order XVII, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code mandatory when the Presiding Officer is on leave?
- Does the word 'may' in the context of passing an ex parte decree without recording evidence import absolute discretion or must it be exercised judicially?
- Kakku alias Sheeda vs The State1990 SCMR 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Kakku alias Sheeda against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained his conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order for possessing opium, while setting aside his conviction under Article 3. The core legal question involves the propriety of convictions based solely on the testimony of police witnesses without independent corroboration from public witnesses, a matter under examination by the Supreme Court in other cases. The Supreme Court did not finally decide the merits of the case but ordered that the sentence of the petitioner be suspended and he be released on bail pending the hearing of similar matters.
Questions settled- Are convictions based solely on the testimony of police witnesses proper in criminal cases?
- Can the sentence of a convict be suspended pending the examination of related legal questions by the Supreme Court?
- K.E.S.C. Ltd. Mazdoor Union vs N.I.R.C. and others1990 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) for the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited. The core legal question was identifying the relevant date for calculating whether a trade union has secured the support of at least one-third of the total workmen employed, as required by Section 22(9)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The National Industrial Relations Commission and the High Court had held that the relevant date was the date of the poll. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the relevant date is the date on which the voters' list is finalized under Section 22(5) of the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that tying the threshold to the date of the poll would allow employers to manipulate the workforce size by hiring or firing employees immediately before the election, thereby subverting the will of the voters. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower orders, restored the certificate issued to the appellant union, and established that the statutory scheme relies on the finalized voters' list for determining the one-third threshold.
Questions settled- What is the relevant date for determining whether a trade union has secured the support of one-third of the total workmen under Section 22(9)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the date of the poll constitute the relevant date for calculating the one-third membership threshold required for certification as a Collective Bargaining Agent?
- Can the list of voters prepared under Section 22(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, be used to determine the total number of workmen for the purpose of the one-third threshold?
- Javed Iqbal Awan vs The State and another1990 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, facing criminal prosecution under sections 406, 409, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for operating an unauthorized investment company, defaulting on repayments exceeding Rs. 1.57 crores, and failing to repay private investors, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his post-arrest bail petition and a constitutional petition challenging his prosecution. During the Supreme Court hearing, the challenge to the prosecution was withdrawn, leaving only the question of bail for consideration. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's continued detention was justified merely to effect the recovery of defaulted money. The Supreme Court held that continued detention solely for the purpose of recovering money is not justified, and that expeditious trial combined with securing the petitioner's availability and safeguarding liabilities through strict conditions is more appropriate. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted post-arrest bail subject to the petitioner pledging his disclosed assets, furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000, and providing ten substantial sureties, thereby laying down the principle that pre-trial detention cannot be used merely as a coercive tool for financial recovery.
Questions settled- Whether continued detention of an accused is justified solely for the purpose of effecting the recovery of money in criminal proceedings?
- Can bail be granted to an accused facing prosecution for financial default and fraud upon imposing stringent conditions to secure liabilities and trial attendance?
- Javaid Iqbal vs Muhammad Din and another1990 SCMR 1309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal by the High Court of an application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the maintainability and propriety of invoking inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A after a matter has already been concluded by a Sessions Court in its revisional jurisdiction, particularly regarding factual disputes and the pre-existence of a likelihood of a breach of the peace. The Supreme Court held that where a matter stands concluded by criminal revisional jurisdiction at the Sessions Court level, it is very difficult to make out a case for interference under section 561-A unless strict conditions are met. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the High Court rightly found the factual determinations of the Sessions Court unexceptionable, noted that the real dispute was the subject-matter of pending civil litigation, and observed that the necessary pre-condition of a likelihood of a breach of the peace was absent. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a matter stands concluded by the exercise of criminal revisional jurisdiction at the Sessions Court level?
- Is interference under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranted where the underlying dispute is already the subject-matter of pending civil litigation?
- What is the effect of the absence of a pre-existing likelihood of a breach of the peace on proceedings initiated regarding dispossession?
- Javaid Iqbal vs Maosoodan Bibi and 4 others1990 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision in a suit for declaration regarding the inheritance of the estate of the deceased, Muhammad Din. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the principle of estoppel and the factual findings regarding possession of the land and the genuineness of a will executed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiff, Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi. The petitioner, a vendee from the deceased's nephews, challenged the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel, as discussed in the cited precedent, was not applicable to the facts of the present case. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the findings of fact made by the appellate court regarding the validity of the will, noting that it was not unusual for the deceased to bequeath property to his wife's daughter, who was also his brother's daughter. Consequently, the Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the principle of estoppel apply to a claim of title based on a will where the claimant is the step-daughter of the deceased?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a will that have been concluded by the appellate court?
- Javaid Ahmad Bhatti vs The Directorgeneral, Federal Investigation1990 SCMR 1548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an earlier order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had dismissed the petitioner's challenge to his removal from service by the Federal Investigation Agency. The petitioner, a former employee, had been removed from service in 1983 following allegations of misconduct involving misbehavior at a government office. The core legal question in the review proceedings was whether the disciplinary action, which was ostensibly taken under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules but allegedly based on an ex parte inquiry without the petitioner's association, warranted judicial intervention. Upon review, the Court observed that the penalty of removal from service was excessive given the circumstances. Consequently, the respondent authority, in deference to the Court's observations, agreed to recall the removal order and substitute it with a formal warning. The Court allowed the review petition, set aside the removal order, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement into service, albeit without entitlement to consequential benefits, emphasizing proportionality in disciplinary sanctions for public servants.
Questions settled- Can a court review a previous order if a material aspect regarding the procedure of a disciplinary inquiry was overlooked?
- Is the penalty of removal from service disproportionate for a misconduct involving a single incident of misbehavior by a trainee employee?
- Can a disciplinary authority substitute an order of removal from service with a warning upon judicial review?
- Janat Bibi vs Sikandar Ali and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by an illiterate pardahnashin lady challenging a purported mortgage deed-cum-agreement to sell and a subsequent registered sale-deed in favour of the respondents, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the respondents had discharged the burden of proving that the documents were duly executed, understood, and supported by valid consideration. Setting aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court and restoring the trial court's decree, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the genuine execution of a document by a pardahnashin or illiterate woman lies squarely on the party relying on it. The beneficiary must affirmatively prove that the transaction was fully explained to and understood by her, free from undue influence or deception, which the respondents failed to establish.
Questions settled- On whom does the burden of proof lie when a transaction or document is executed by an illiterate or pardahnashin lady?
- What standard of proof must a beneficiary establish to prove the valid execution of a document by an illiterate or pardahnashin woman?
- Does the legal protection and burden of proof applicable to pardahnashin ladies extend to illiterate and ignorant women generally?
- Is mere admission of a thumb-impression by an illiterate person sufficient to prove conscious and valid execution of a document?
- Jan Muhammad vs The State1990 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 498 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was accused of enticing away the complainant's wife. The trial magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment, a decision subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge. A revision petition filed before the High Court was dismissed ex parte due to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel. Upon grant of leave to appeal, the Supreme Court considered the legality of the ex parte dismissal and the merits of the case. Noting that the appeal had been pending for approximately twelve years and that the appellant had suffered a prolonged pendency, the Supreme Court, with the consent of the Advocate-General, Punjab, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that while maintaining a conviction, appellate courts may suitably reduce sentences to the period already undergone in view of protracted delay and the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition can be dismissed ex parte when the appellant's counsel fails to appear at the hearing?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in view of protracted delay in the disposal of the appeal?
- Jan Muhammad alias Ramzan vs A.C.D.S.C.(L), Vehari and others1990 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a Constitution Petition challenging the cancellation and subsequent reallocation of land allotments by the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The core legal question concerns the validity of the appellant's 1951 land allotment following the Rehabilitation Commissioner's 1956 order, which cancelled allotments in the area, and whether the subsequent reallocation to respondents was legally flawed due to a lack of notice to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the 1956 revisional order, which quashed previous allotments, was valid and had been upheld in Abdul Hafeez v. Rehabilitation Commissioner. Consequently, the appellant possessed no vested right in the original allotment once it was legally cancelled. The Court further observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate that any portion of his own temporary allotment was improperly resumed or transferred to the respondents. The key principle established is that an allotment cancelled by a valid revisional order of a Rehabilitation Commissioner ceases to confer a vested right, and subsequent reallocations made in accordance with policy guidelines and judicial precedents are lawful, provided the claimant's own temporary allotment remains intact.
Questions settled- Does an allotment cancelled by a valid revisional order of a Rehabilitation Commissioner continue to confer a vested right upon the allottee?
- Can an allottee challenge the reallocation of land to others if their own temporary allotment remains intact?
- Is a general notice and hearing by a Rehabilitation Commissioner sufficient to validate the quashment of multiple allotments?
- Jamshed Azam vs The State1990 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, convicted under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine, challenged the Lahore High Court's order dismissing his application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to suspend the sentence when the arguments raised pertained to the merits of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that contentions relating to the reappraisal of evidence cannot be thoroughly examined at the bail or sentence-suspension stage and are properly reserved for the final hearing of the main appeal. Finding no prima facie legal error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that sentence suspension should not be granted based on a premature evaluation of evidence.
Questions settled- Can a sentence be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when contentions raised require a reappraisal of evidence?
- At what stage is it appropriate to examine arguments relating to the merits of a conviction in a criminal case?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against an interlocutory order refusing to suspend a sentence where no prima facie legal error exists?
- Jamroz Khan vs The State1990 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Jamroz Khan sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing his criminal revision against the forfeiture of his surety bond. The petitioner had stood surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 for one Mushtaq Ahmad, accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who subsequently disappeared and failed to surrender. Consequently, notice under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was issued, resulting in the forfeiture of the surety bond. The core legal question was whether leniency should be shown in reducing the forfeiture of the bail bond when the surety claimed no gain and lack of connivance in the accused's disappearance. The Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the surety to procure the attendance of the accused charged with murder, and no ground appeared to show leniency in reducing the forfeiture of the full bond amount. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle regarding the strict liability of a surety to produce the accused.
Questions settled- Is a surety liable for the full forfeiture of a bail bond when the accused absconds?
- Whether lack of connivance in the disappearance of an accused is sufficient ground to reduce the forfeiture amount of a surety bond?
- Does a surety standing bail without personal gain absolve them from the duty to procure the attendance of the accused?
- Jamil Ahmad and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal petitions arise out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-12-1987, involving an appeal for the enhancement of a sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to Jamil Ahmad, and a cross-petition by the convict challenging his conviction and sentence for the murder of Hamad Raza, committed on 13-11-1983 due to a motive of suspicion regarding illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted interference for either enhancing the sentence or setting aside the conviction. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for enhancement, noting mitigating factors such as the accused's youth and the motive, and declined to re-appraise the evidence as it was properly evaluated by the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court will not normally re-appraise evidence concurrent findings of guilt are properly arrived at by the High Court, and that youth and motive of suspicion can constitute mitigating circumstances against the death penalty.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence concurrent findings of guilt have been properly recorded by the High Court?
- Can youth of the accused and suspicion serving as motive operate as mitigating circumstances to warrant withholding the death penalty?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent sentences of imprisonment for life?
- Jamalur Rehman Durrani vs Secretary to Government, Establishment1990 PLD Supreme Court 719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution examines whether a civil servant was entitled to count his contract employment period towards pension and join it with preceding and succeeding periods of ad-hoc appointments, and whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant such relief directly. The Supreme Court held that contract employment cannot automatically earn pension rights or be combined with other service periods unless specified by the contract or regularized by the competent authority, and that tribunals or courts cannot usurp the plenary and residual dispensing powers reserved for the executive under statutory provisions. The key principle laid down is that while strict legal entitlement may be lacking for the tacking of contract service to ad-hoc periods without specific rules or contract terms, the executive authority may exercise its equitable powers under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 to prevent hardship where the employee is not entirely at fault.
Questions settled- Whether a period of contract employment can be counted towards pension and combined with surrounding ad-hoc appointments without specific terms or regularization?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to exercise plenary and residual dispensing powers reserved for the President under the civil servants law?
- Can contract employment earn a right to pension or be merged with service rendered in another capacity in the absence of enabling conditions?
- Jamala and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The judgment provided is an order of the bench without accompanying reasoning or factual background. As the text consists solely of the phrase 'ORDER OF THE BENCH' without any discussion of the nature of the matter, the legal questions involved, or the court's holding, it is impossible to provide a substantive summary of the proceedings, the ratio decidendi, or the principles laid down by the Court.
- Jamadar Khan Bahadur and others vs Saeed Ahmad and others1990 SCMR 201(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners had filed a Mukhbari application under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, alleging that the deceased respondent, Siraj Din, had obtained an allotment of land in excess of his verified claim through fraud. The Additional Settlement Commissioner had partially cancelled the allotment. However, the High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition, holding that the Mukhbari application was incompetent because it was initiated against a deceased person, and that this fundamental defect could not be cured by impleading his son. Furthermore, the High Court found that the petitioners failed to establish any fraud or misrepresentation by the deceased, rendering the cancellation order arbitrary. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that proceedings initiated against a dead person are coram non judice and void ab initio. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, confirming the lack of authority of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to proceed in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Are proceedings initiated against a deceased person considered coram non judice?
- Can an application filed against a deceased person be cured by impleading their legal representative?
- Does the lack of evidence of fraud or misrepresentation render an order of land cancellation arbitrary?
- Jahangir Mirza, Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore and anothers vs Government of Pakistan, through Secretary, Establishment Division and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged a Service Tribunal judgment concerning the seniority of Armed Forces personnel inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP). The appellants, regular PSP officers, contended that the induction of Army officers without Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) consultation was illegal and that these inductees should not be granted seniority from their initial induction dates. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the induction of Armed Forces personnel was within the competence of the appointing authority. The Court ruled that the FPSC Act, 1973, did not prohibit such appointments, and any potential procedural irregularities were cured by the validation provided under Ordinance No. LI of 1980. Crucially, the Court determined that seniority is not a vested right under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, permitting the competent authority to establish seniority rules. Furthermore, the subsequent promulgation of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985, conclusively settled the seniority list in question, thereby precluding the appellants' grievances.
Questions settled- Can the appointing authority make appointments to the Police Service of Pakistan without consulting the Federal Public Service Commission?
- Is seniority a vested right for civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does the failure to frame specific rules render a statutory power to make appointments nugatory?
- Can the competent authority retrospectively validate appointments of Armed Forces personnel to civil posts?
- Jahana and others vs Sadiq and others1990 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab. The core legal question concerned the validity of the Board of Revenue's order regarding the cancellation of tenancy rights under the Grow More Food Scheme, specifically whether it violated statutory provisions governing the colonization of government lands. The High Court had held that the Board's order was violative of Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and was therefore without lawful authority. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. Regarding the first petitioner, the Court upheld the dismissal of the Intra-Court Appeal due to the expiration of the limitation period and lack of sufficient cause for condonation. Regarding the second petitioner, the Board of Revenue, the Court dismissed the petition on the procedural ground that the Board failed to file an Intra-Court Appeal against the single Judge's order. The Court affirmed that no question of law of public importance existed to warrant further examination.
Questions settled- Can an Intra-Court Appeal be entertained if filed after the expiration of the limitation period without sufficient cause?
- Is an order by the Board of Revenue that violates Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, legally maintainable?
- Does a government authority have standing to file a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment if it failed to file an Intra-Court Appeal against the underlying single-judge order?
- Israr Muhammad Khan and others vs Senior Civil Judge, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a long-standing property dispute concerning a house on G.T. Road, Lahore, originally subject to a compromise agreement in 1966 where both parties agreed to own the property in equal shares and dispose of it. Following failed attempts to partition the property through civil litigation, the Senior Civil Judge ordered a public auction of the property, with proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the property should have been partitioned rather than auctioned. The core legal question was whether the court was justified in ordering a public auction of the disputed property when the parties could not agree on a partition arrangement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the property was effectively indivisible and no feasible agreement could be reached between the parties, the order for public auction was appropriate. The court affirmed that allowing the petitioners to participate in the auction to purchase the respondents' share provided a fair mechanism for resolution.
Questions settled- Can a court order a public auction of a property when the parties fail to agree on a partition arrangement?
- Is a court justified in ordering a public auction when a property is deemed indivisible?
- Does the right of a party to participate in a public auction satisfy the requirements of equitable distribution in a partition suit?
- Israr Ahmad Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1990 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his annual performance report. After his initial representation was rejected, he filed a second representation (review), which the government entertained and subsequently rejected on merits. The Service Tribunal later dismissed his appeal, holding that the second representation was incompetent and did not provide a fresh cause of action, thus rendering the appeal time-barred. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that where a litigant acts under a bona fide mistaken view of the law—a mistake shared by the government itself in entertaining the review petition—the delay should be condoned. The Court established the principle that when both the government and the aggrieved party share a bona fide, albeit mistaken, understanding regarding the competency of a review petition, it constitutes a fit case for the condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an incompetent second representation against adverse remarks provide a fresh cause of action for a service appeal?
- Should a delay in filing an appeal be condoned when the appellant acted under a bona fide mistake of law shared by the government?
- Is a Service Tribunal required to decide an appeal on its merits if the delay in filing was caused by a bona fide misunderstanding of the law?
- Ismail through Legal Heirs and others vs Registrar, Cooperative1990 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These five appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of plots among members of a co-operative housing society. The dispute was referred to a Board of Arbitrators, which dismissed the claim of respondent No. 2. The respondent's subsequent appeal under Section 56 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 was dismissed as incompetent by the Deputy Registrar. The respondent then filed an application under Section 54-A of the Act, which the Deputy Registrar also dismissed solely on the ground that the previous appeal had been rejected. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, subsequently set aside the Deputy Registrar's order and remanded the case. The appellants challenged the Registrar's order in the High Court via a constitutional petition, arguing it was passed without jurisdiction. The High Court declined to interfere under its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, finding that doing so would perpetuate the Deputy Registrar's illegal refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised to perpetuate an illegality.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if doing so would perpetuate an illegal order?
- Can a statutory authority refuse to entertain a competent revision petition under Section 54-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 solely because a previous appeal under an inapplicable provision was dismissed as incompetent?
- Does the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have the jurisdiction under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 to revise or set aside an order passed by a Deputy Registrar acting as a delegatee?
- Ismail and anothers vs Ghulam Qadir and others1990 SCMR 1667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an inheritance dispute directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellants' regular second appeal. The core legal questions involved whether Muslim Personal Law or Customary Law governed the matter, whether the plaintiffs' suit was within time, and whether an adoption affected the inheritance rights. The Supreme Court held that following the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) and Section 2-A thereof, interpreted with strong retrospective effect, the property devolved under Muslim Personal Law rather than custom. The Court ruled that the widow held the property as a limited owner and could not validly gift excess area, making the plaintiffs entitled to their shares as residuaries. Furthermore, the Court held that the property devolved instantaneously on the heirs, rendering the suit within limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing principles regarding the retrospective application of Shariat succession laws, limitation in co-sharer inheritance claims, and the elimination of customary law limitations on inheritance.
Questions settled- Whether Muslim Personal Law or Customary Law governs succession matters in light of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)?
- Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) have a strong retrospective effect?
- Whether a suit challenging an alienation by a limited female owner under custom is within limitation when property devolves instantaneously under Muslim Personal Law?
- Does adoption under customary law affect an heir's right to seek a share from the inheritance of another collateral under Muslim Personal Law?
- Ismail and another vs Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement1990 SCMR 947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition, which had challenged the cancellation of their land allotment and its subsequent transfer to respondent No. 2. The petitioners originally obtained 29 kanals of land against 'zaira-maufi' land abandoned in India, which was subsequently cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, following a mukhbari application. The core legal question involved whether the resumed land could be allotted to an informant under section 14(1A) of the Act when the initial allotment was allegedly not bogus or fraudulent, and whether the information came to light through the informant or the department's own inspection. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the submissions raised by the petitioners regarding the applicability of the statutory provisions concerning informants and fraudulent allotments.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of resumed land can be made to an informant under section 14(1A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, if the original allotment was not obtained fraudulently or bogusly?
- Does the retention of land known to be in excess constitute fraud for the purposes of attracting section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Is an informant entitled to the allotment of resumed land when the irregular allotment was already within the knowledge of the department through an inspection team rather than the informant's disclosure?
- Khalid Mehmood and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners for an offence under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were originally tried by a Magistrate for firing shots at the complainant and dragging him from his premises. While the trial court convicted all accused, the High Court acquitted one co-accused, Tariq, granting him the benefit of doubt, while maintaining the convictions of the petitioners but reducing the sentence of one petitioner, Muhammad Saleem. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the primary petitioner, Khalid Mahmood, was armed and fired at the complainant, justifying his conviction. However, regarding petitioner Muhammad Saleem, the Court observed that his attributed role—dragging the complainant while empty-handed—was identical to that of the acquitted co-accused, Tariq. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to Muhammad Saleem to further examine the consistency of his conviction, while simultaneously granting him interim bail pending the final disposal of his appeal.
Questions settled- Does the principle of consistency require the acquittal of a co-accused if their role is identical to that of an already acquitted co-accused?
- Can leave to appeal be granted to a petitioner whose role is indistinguishable from an acquitted co-accused?
- Islam Din vs Allah Nawaz and others1990 SCMR 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner, a defendant vendee, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his civil revision. The central legal issue concerned whether the delay in filing an appeal in the wrong forum—which was initially condoned by the District Judge—could be legally excused under the Limitation Act, 1908. The High Court had reversed the District Judge’s condonation, ruling that filing an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's mistake did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the remedy for a lawyer's negligence lies against the counsel, not in the condonation of time-barred appeals. The Court reiterated that for Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 to apply, an appellant must demonstrate good faith, defined as acting with due care and attention. Since the relevant law regarding the appellate forum was unambiguous, the filing in the wrong court was deemed gross negligence rather than a bona fide mistake, thus precluding the condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing an appeal caused by a lawyer's mistake in choosing the wrong forum be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the filing of an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's error constitute 'good faith' under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is a finding of gross negligence in selecting the appellate forum sufficient to deny the condonation of delay?
- Iqbal Masih vs The Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and 2 others1990 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal for non-prosecution and the subsequent dismissal of his restoration application by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The dismissal occurred due to the petitioner's failure to deposit the requisite security in accordance with the rules and practice of the Tribunal, coupled with a lack of appearance. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was legally bound to exercise its discretion in favor of granting time for depositing security or restoring the appeal, and whether the impugned orders violated any governing rules. The Supreme Court held that the decision to dismiss for non-prosecution and the refusal to grant an extension of time fall within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and no rule was shown to support the petitioner's claim of entitlement. Furthermore, upon examining the merits of the petitioner's dismissal for misconduct, the Court found no force therein. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is bound to exercise its discretion in favor of restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does a failure to deposit security in accordance with the rules justify the dismissal of a service appeal?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary orders of the Service Tribunal regarding the grant of extension of time for depositing security?
- Iqbal Hussain vs Abdul Sattar and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the High Court's grant of bail to the respondent in a murder case. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the grounds that the case required 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. due to the existence of two versions and the presence of injuries on the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied the law, noting that the mere possibility of further inquiry does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must form a prima facie opinion on the merits. The Supreme Court further found that the injuries sustained by the accused were insignificant and consistent with a scuffle during the incident, rather than supporting a plea of self-defence. The Court emphasized that even if a 'sudden fight' or 'free fight' were established, the offence could still fall under Section 302 P.P.C., punishable by death or life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court misread the record and erred in law, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's bail.
Questions settled- Does the mere possibility of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can bail be granted solely on the ground that the prosecution has not explained injuries on the accused if those injuries are consistent with a scuffle described in the F.I.R.?
- Is the existence of two versions of an incident sufficient to grant bail in a murder case without a prima facie assessment of the merits?
- Does the presence of minor injuries on an accused person necessarily establish a prima facie case of self-defence at the bail stage?
- Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore vs Muhammad Ameer1990 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, against a Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated police officers whose out-of-turn confirmation orders were unilaterally rescinded by a successor Inspector-General. The core legal question was whether a successor authority could rescind a predecessor's order of confirmation on grounds of propriety and fairness without providing notice or a hearing to the affected officers. The Supreme Court held that where rights have vested, an order passed by a competent authority cannot be unilaterally rescinded on grounds of propriety or fairness alone. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the rescission of such orders without notice violated the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. The key principle laid down is that once an order is passed by a competent authority and rights have vested, it cannot be rescinded unilaterally by a successor authority based solely on administrative propriety or fairness without adhering to due process.
Questions settled- Can a successor authority unilaterally rescind a predecessor's order of confirmation on grounds of propriety and fairness without notice to the affected party?
- Does the rescission of a regular appointment order, which also affects probation status, require adherence to due process?
- Is an order passed by a competent authority that creates vested rights subject to unilateral cancellation by a subsequent administrative authority?
- Inspectorgeneral of Police vs Muhammad Akbar and another1990 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service appeal regarding the determination of a civil servant's date of birth and subsequent retirement upon reaching the age of superannuation. The core legal question is whether a civil servant can rely on a school-leaving certificate to alter their recorded date of birth after the fact, particularly when such documentation was not submitted at the time of induction into service. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal erred in treating a school-leaving certificate as a Matriculation Certificate and failing to recognize that the respondent did not provide the relevant birth date documentation at the time of his appointment. The Court held that it is the primary duty of a civil servant to volunteer and produce documentary evidence of their date of birth at the time of induction. Failure to do so, or the late production of such documents, raises concerns regarding the authenticity of the records or potential fraud. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the Tribunal's judgment, emphasizing the obligation of the employee to provide accurate records upon entry into service.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant required to volunteer documentary evidence of their date of birth at the time of induction into service?
- Can a civil servant rely on a school-leaving certificate to alter their date of birth record after the commencement of their retirement proceedings?
- Does the failure to disclose a date of birth certificate at the time of induction into service constitute a ground for denying relief in a service appeal?
- Inspectorgeneral of Police and anothers vs Ahmed Mustafa1990 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court whereby a writ petition filed by the respondent challenging his reversion and show-cause notice was accepted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a constitutional petition before the High Court was competent in a matter involving the terms and conditions of a civil servant, or whether jurisdiction was barred in favour of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the matter pertained strictly to the terms and conditions of service and, pursuant to Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the exclusive remedy lay before the Provincial Service Tribunal. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition before the High Court is competent in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters?
- Whether an order of reversion and issuance of a show-cause notice to a civil servant can be challenged before the High Court instead of the Service Tribunal?
- Indriyas Gill vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education1990 SCMR 1461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal where the petitioner's application for the condonation of delay was not considered. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal is required to consider and decide an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 before disposing of the main matter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and noting the concession of the Advocate-General that the application ought to have been considered, converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same. The Court held that the Service Tribunal must explicitly consider and dispose of an application for condonation of delay in accordance with the law. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a proper determination of the limitation issue.
Questions settled- Is the Service Tribunal required to consider and decide an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can an order of the Service Tribunal be sustained if it fails to address a pending application for condonation of delay?
- In re: Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoofri vs Not1990 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Abdul Ghafoor, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which confirmed his conviction and sentence for murder. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, allegedly motivated by a prior theft case. The core legal question was whether the conviction, based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, was sustainable despite discrepancies regarding the recovery of weapons and the specific nature of injuries. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings, noting that the High Court had already acquitted a co-accused due to lack of blunt weapon injuries and adjusted the sentence of another co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the petitioner was based on credible eyewitness evidence, which remained reliable despite the background of the prior theft case. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the conviction and the sentence, which had been commuted to life imprisonment due to a general amnesty.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained based on eyewitness testimony when the recovery of the alleged weapon is disbelieved?
- Does the existence of a prior litigation between the accused and the deceased automatically render eyewitness testimony unreliable?
- Can a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained if the medical evidence contradicts the specific nature of injuries attributed to one of the co-accused?
- Imam Bakhsh Malik vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Labour, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the fixation of his seniority. The petitioner, initially appointed as an Assistant and later promoted to Manpower Survey Officer, sought seniority against specific vacancies filled by other officers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority against the posts occupied by respondents Nos. 3 and 4, given the established recruitment formula. The Supreme Court examined the recruitment rules, which mandated that 75% of Manager vacancies be filled by initial recruitment, 20% by Manpower Survey Officers, and 5% by Superintendents. The Court found that the vacancy in question was filled by initial recruitment, as per the prescribed formula, and that the Public Service Commission had correctly determined the petitioner was not entitled to the promotion he sought. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal’s decision was correct and found no grounds for interference. The principle affirmed is that seniority claims must strictly adhere to the statutory recruitment and promotion formulas established for the service.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to claim seniority against a post filled by initial recruitment when the recruitment rules mandate a specific quota for departmental promotion?
- Does the Supreme Court have grounds to interfere with a Service Tribunal decision that correctly applies the recruitment formula to a seniority dispute?
- Imam Bakhsh and another vs The State1990 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction and sentence of the first petitioner, Imam Bakhsh, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering the conviction of the second petitioner, Hussain Bakhsh, from section 302 to section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reducing his sentence. The core legal question involved whether the petitioners acted in the exercise of the right of self-defence and whether the evidence warranted reappraisal or interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for interference was made out as the accused sustained no injuries, no right of self-defence was established, and the evidence could not be reappraised at the leave stage. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal, and the plea of self-defence cannot be sustained without supporting evidence of injury or imminent threat on the side of the accused during a sudden fight.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can reappraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the lower courts?
- Does a sudden fight involving a trivial matter automatically establish a right of private defence for an accused who caused a fatal firearm injury without sustaining any injury themselves?
- Whether section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is applicable in a case of a sudden fight where the element of common intention is missing?
- Ilam Din vs Mst. Hussain Bib! and 3 others1990 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The underlying suit involved a claim to enforce an agreement of sale and to seek the annulment of a subsequent sale by the same vendors to a third party, which the plaintiffs alleged was collusive and without consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit primarily on procedural grounds, specifically that it was presented in the wrong form. This dismissal was upheld by the appellate court and subsequently by the High Court, which additionally cited the non-joinder of necessary parties as a ground for dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the petition raised significant questions of law warranting further examination. Specifically, the Court identified the need to determine whether principles of Islamic Law regarding the duties of a vendor are applicable to such disputes and, if so, the legal effect of those principles. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues, ordering that the appeal be heard alongside another related case.
Questions settled- Whether the principles of Islamic Law regarding the duties of a vendor are applicable to suits involving the enforcement of an agreement of sale and the challenge of a subsequent sale?
- What is the legal effect of applying Islamic Law principles to a dispute concerning the duties of a vendor in a sale agreement?
- Ilam Din and others vs Muhammad Sharif and others1990 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding an exchange of land between the parties in 1959, which was subsequently challenged during consolidation proceedings due to violations of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The core legal question concerned the validity of revenue authorities' orders that cancelled one mutation of the exchange while leaving another intact, resulting in an anomalous situation where one party retained land without fulfilling the reciprocal exchange. The Supreme Court addressed the inconsistency where the Board of Revenue failed to treat the exchange as a single, indivisible transaction. The Court held that the revenue authorities erred by maintaining the legality of one mutation while undoing the other, as the exchange was a singular agreement. The principle laid down is that where an exchange transaction is indivisible, it cannot be examined or partially invalidated in segments; if the transaction is found illegal, the parties must be restored to their original positions to prevent one party from unjustly retaining land while avoiding the reciprocal obligation. The appeal was disposed of based on the respondent's undertaking to surrender the land they had obtained in exchange.
Questions settled- Can an exchange transaction involving multiple mutations be partially invalidated by revenue authorities?
- Does the cancellation of one part of an exchange transaction necessitate the restoration of parties to their original positions?
- Is it legally permissible for a party to retain land obtained through an exchange while simultaneously avoiding the reciprocal obligation of the same transaction?
- Ijaz Ahmad and others vs Mst. Deeba Nawaz and others1990 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, vendees of agricultural land purchased from an allottee in 1967, challenged an order cancelling the underlying allotment on the ground of fraud, passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, holding that a vendee deriving title from a fraudulent allottee is not entitled to notice. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the rule denying notice to a vendee of a fraudulent allottee is not universally applicable and admits of exceptions. The Court noted that under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, persons in continuous occupation for four harvests preceding Kharif 1973 have a preferential right to purchase, which potentially conflicts with the rights of informants under section 14 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that a pre-1973 occupant-vendee was entitled to notice to determine priority between competing statutory claims. The petition was accordingly converted into an appeal and the matter remanded.
Questions settled- Whether a bona fide vendee from a fraudulent allottee is invariably not entitled to notice before the cancellation of an allotment?
- Does a person in continuous occupation of agricultural land prior to Kharif 1973 have a preferential right under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 over an informant obtaining cancellation for a fraudulent allotment?
- Whether failure to afford a hearing to an occupant-vendee of resumed land vitiates cancellation proceedings where competing statutory priority rights are involved?
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1990 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is charged with murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether an accused person can claim the concession of bail on the ground of prolonged statutory delay in the commencement of the trial when such delay is caused by the abscondance of co-accused who are closely related to the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while an accused should not be penalized for the conduct of co-accused, indefinite incarceration without prospects of an early trial constitutes hardship. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed, but the Court directed that the case of the absconding co-accused be separated from the arrested accused and that the trial against the arrested accused commence without further delay. The key principle laid down is that to prevent undue pre-trial detention where co-accused are absconding, the trial court should separate the trials rather than keeping the arrested accused indefinitely imprisoned.
Questions settled- Whether an accused can be granted bail on the ground of delay in trial when the delay is caused by absconding co-accused who are close relatives?
- Can the trial court separate the case of an absconding co-accused from the arrested accused to expedite the commencement of the trial?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the prospects of an early trial constitute sufficient hardship to warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Iftikhar Ahmad alias Gulla and another vs The State and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a murder case. The convict challenged his conviction and life imprisonment under Section 302 P.P.C., while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death, challenging the High Court's decision to reduce the sentence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence by finding the origin of the occurrence 'shrouded in mystery' despite rejecting the plea of sudden fight or self-defense. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reduction of the sentence was justified. The Court established that even if a plea of sudden fight or self-defense is rejected, a court may still find mitigating circumstances for sentence reduction if the origin of the attack remains unknown or 'shrouded in mystery.' This principle applies when attending circumstances suggest that unknown factors or ancillary causes might have influenced the occurrence, provided such a supposition is real and has a nexus with established facts rather than being purely imaginary.
Questions settled- Can a court reduce a sentence based on the origin of an occurrence being 'shrouded in mystery' even if a plea of sudden fight or self-defense is rejected?
- What criteria must be met for the principle of the origin of an occurrence being 'shrouded in mystery' to be applied in a criminal case?
- Is the absence of eyewitness testimony regarding the start of an attack sufficient to justify a finding that the origin of the occurrence is 'shrouded in mystery'?
- Iftekhar Ali and others vs Assistant Commissioner and others1990 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' writ petition in limine. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed Mukhbari applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act), 1958, alleging that the respondents' predecessor had secured excess land allotment through fraud. The Additional Settlement Commissioner initially cancelled the excess land and allotted it to the appellants, but on remand, held that the allottee acted bona fide and the mistake originated in the Central Record Office, dismissing the applications while withdrawing the excess land. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition, distinguishing prior case law. The core legal question was whether retaining excess land allotted due to an official mistake, while knowing one's actual entitlement, constitutes acting fraudulently under the Act. The Supreme Court held that taking unfair advantage of an inadvertent mistake of the Central Record Office amounts to acting fraudulently. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the High Court and Settlement Commissioner orders were set aside, and the original allotment in favour of the appellants was restored.
Questions settled- Does taking unfair advantage of an inadvertent mistake by the Central Record Office in land allotment amount to acting fraudulently under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Can a finding of fact by a competent authority be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when the allottee acts in a bona fide manner?
- Are informers entitled to relief under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 when the allottee is not shown to have acted fraudulently?
- Ibrar Hussain and another vs The State1990 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the convictions of Ibrar Hussain and Muhammad Ayub for murder and attempted murder, while commuting the death sentence of Ibrar Hussain to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence by the High Court, specifically regarding the reliability of interested eye-witnesses and the validity of weapon recovery, as well as the complainant's challenge to the acquittal of a co-accused and the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence, duly considering the possibility of false implication and the relationship of the witnesses to the complainant. Finding no error of law or fact in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for leave to appeal, affirming that the sentence awarded was legal and proper. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's factual appreciation of evidence where no legal error is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence where no legal error is demonstrated?
- Can the testimony of interested witnesses be accepted if the High Court has properly scrutinized it for false implication?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal when the sentence awarded by the High Court is found to be legal and proper?
- Hussaini vs The State1990 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Hussaini, for the triple murder of Hafiz Abaidullah, Mst. Zainab, and the appellant’s wife, Mst. Bashiran. The appellant challenged the sentence, arguing that conflicting versions of the motive—one alleging illicit relations and the other alleging a conspiracy—warranted a lesser penalty than death. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the trial court and High Court had correctly preferred the complaint version of the motive over the FIR version, which was registered by an unconnected person who later disowned it. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and death sentence were appropriate. Crucially, the Court established that even if the motive version suggesting illicit relations were accepted, the appellant’s brutal murder of his own wife, Mst. Bashiran, provided sufficient justification for the imposition of the death penalty. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it, thereby maintaining the sentence of death confirmed by the High Court.
Questions settled- Does the brutal murder of a spouse justify the death penalty even if the motive is disputed?
- Can a court prefer the motive version presented in a private complaint over the version in the initial FIR?
- Is a death sentence appropriate when the accused kills multiple victims including their own spouse?
- Hussain Bux vs Haji Yakoob and another1990 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents concerning a shop-cum-godown premises. A tentative rent order was passed directing the respondents to pay rent by the 10th of every calendar month. The petitioner filed an application to strike off the respondents' defence due to an alleged default in depositing rent for the month of May, 1987, which was deposited on 7-7-1987. The Rent Controller struck off the defence and ordered eviction. On appeal, the High Court reversed the order, accepting the respondents' explanation regarding the court closure in June, 1987, and condoned the delay. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the minor delay in depositing rent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion based on sufficient cause shown for a one-month default was proper. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that minor defaults coupled with reasonable explanations regarding court closures can be condoned under judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Whether the defence of a tenant can be struck off for a minor delay in depositing rent when sufficient cause is shown?
- Can the High Court condone a default in the payment of rent under rent laws?
- Whether the exercise of discretion by the High Court in accepting an explanation for delayed rent deposit warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Humayun Saifullah Khan vs .Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 2 others1990 PLD Supreme Court 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had issued a writ of prohibition and declared a reference under section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962, invalid and incompetent, restraining the Election Commission from proceeding with it. The core legal question was whether the High Court could properly exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 to pre-empt and decide controverted questions of fact and law exclusively entrusted by statute to the Election Commission, without determining the constitutional vires of the provision. The Supreme Court held that where a statute creates a right and provides a comprehensive machinery and exclusive forum with a right of appeal, a party must exhaust that remedy, and the High Court erred in usurping the jurisdiction of the Election Commission on factual matters not relating to any jurisdictional defect. The Court laid down the principle that High Courts should not circumvent normal statutory processes or interfere with specialized tribunals through summary writ jurisdiction where no jurisdictional excess is shown, and remanded the matter to the High Court for decision on the remaining constitutional issues.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court could issue a writ of prohibition to the Election Commission when a specific provision of appeal is provided to the Supreme Court?
- Whether the High Court could declare a reference made before the Election Commission as incompetent without evidence of fact regarding the leadership of the parliamentary party?
- Whether the High Court could restrain the Election Commission from deciding a reference duly referred to it under section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962?
- Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy bars the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Hasan Din vs Muhammad Jamil and others1990 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the convictions and sentences of Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Rashid for the murder of Muhammad Akram. The petitioner, Hasan Din, challenged the High Court's rejection of the ocular testimony of three prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether the High Court's findings, which discredited the eye-witnesses based on inconsistencies regarding their presence at the scene, the timing of their police statements, and the implausibility of the search for the deceased, were perverse or erroneous enough to warrant Supreme Court interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning for disbelieving the eye-witnesses was neither perverse nor highly erroneous. The Court affirmed that while a different conclusion might have been possible on the same evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with factual findings unless the lower court's reasoning is fundamentally flawed or perverse. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a High Court regarding the credibility of ocular testimony?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to mention specific details in their initial police statements constitute a valid ground for a High Court to doubt their testimony?
- Is a High Court's finding that eye-witnesses were 'set up' based on the timing of their police statements considered perverse?
- Haroon Kassam and anothers vs Azam Suleman Madha1990 PLD Supreme Court 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from rent proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord seeking the eviction of the appellant tenant on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide personal requirement. While the Rent Controller dismissed the application, the High Court reversed the decision, ordering eviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the statutory shift from Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that under the 1979 Ordinance, the landlord is no longer required to prove that he does not occupy another suitable residential building or has not vacated one without sufficient cause. The Court affirmed that where a landlord owns multiple properties, the choice of which premises to reside in remains the landlord's prerogative and discretion. Neither the tenant nor the Rent Controller can dictate where the landlord must reside. Consequently, the High Court's finding of bona fide requirement was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- How does the landlord's burden of proof for personal requirement under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 differ from Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a landlord's failure to occupy other vacant flats owned by him in a different building defeat his claim of bona fide personal requirement for a specific premises?
- Does the tenant or the Rent Controller have the authority to determine which of his properties a landlord must reside in when multiple properties are owned?
- Haq Nawaz and 10 others vs Muhammad Yasin and others1990 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioners, represented by counsel, sought leave to appeal by drawing a parallel to a previously granted leave to appeal in a separate case (C.P. No. 81-P of 1989), arguing that the legal points involved in the present petitions were similar, if not identical, to those in the cited case. Upon consideration of the submissions, the Court found sufficient grounds to align the treatment of these petitions with the earlier matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the present petitions. Furthermore, the Court directed that the interim orders previously issued in C.P.-221-R of 1989 and other related petitions shall remain in operation across all these cases pending the final adjudication of the appeals. The decision establishes the procedural approach of consolidating matters involving similar legal questions to ensure consistency in judicial outcomes and the preservation of interim relief pending appeal.
Questions settled- Can leave to appeal be granted based on the similarity of legal points with a previously admitted case?
- Do interim orders in related petitions continue in operation when leave to appeal is granted in subsequent similar petitions?
- Hamid Ali Qureshi vs Directorgeneral, Audit and Accounts, Works, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his claim for seniority from an earlier date. The petitioner, originally a pre-integration employee in N.-W.F.P., had requested and was granted allocation to Punjab following the disintegration of West Pakistan. Upon his transfer, his previous service was not reckoned for seniority purposes, with the authorities counting his seniority only from the date he opted for the new office rather than his initial confirmation date. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who voluntarily opts for allocation to a different province upon the disintegration of West Pakistan is entitled to retain seniority from their original service period. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having opted for the transfer at his own request, was subject to the conditions of such relaxation, which required the surrender of previous seniority. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's decision, ruling that the denial of seniority was in accordance with the applicable law regarding civil servants at the time of provincial disintegration. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant who voluntarily opts for transfer to another province upon the disintegration of West Pakistan retain their previous seniority?
- Is the surrender of previous seniority a valid condition for a civil servant seeking relaxation of rules upon provincial disintegration?
- Hameed Ahmad Tarar vs Water and Power Development Authority1990 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a former employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) who had been serving as a Line Superintendent. The petitioner was removed from service by the Authority pursuant to its powers under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Federal Service Tribunal had examined the petitioner's record along with the material presented by the Authority, arriving at a finding of fact that sufficient basis existed for the Authority to take action under Section 17(1-A). The Court held that the petitioner sought to challenge a pure finding of fact, which did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a challenge to a finding of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal raises a substantial question of law for granting leave to appeal?
- Whether leave to appeal will be granted by the Supreme Court where the removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is supported by sufficient factual material?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding regarding the existence of sufficient basis for removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act in the absence of a substantial question of law?
- Hakim Syed Ahmad Hussain vs Province of Punjab1990 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion. The petitioner, formerly an officiating Principal of Government Tibbia College, Bahawalpur, sought promotion to the post of Principal effective from 10-7-1980, rather than the actual date of 17-7-1986, along with associated salary and benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a vested right to be promoted on an earlier date despite the absence of promulgated service rules at that time. The Supreme Court held that the government retains the discretion to promote civil servants at the appropriate time. Crucially, the Court observed that the relevant Service Rules governing the posts of Hakims, Lecturers, and Principals of Tibbia Colleges were not promulgated by the Government of the Punjab until 23-9-1984. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim promotion prior to that date. In the absence of any allegation of malice, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it in limine.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim retrospective promotion to a post before the relevant service rules governing that post were promulgated?
- Does the government have the discretion to determine the timing of a civil servant's promotion in the absence of specific service rules?
- Is an allegation of malice required to challenge the government's timing of a promotion decision?
- Hakim Muhammad Bashir vs Member, Board of Revenue and another1990 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the appointment of a Lambardar, where the petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2. The petitioner's writ petition before the High Court had been dismissed, leading to the current proceedings before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court should have interfered with the administrative discretion exercised in appointing the respondent, given that the respondent had previously been convicted and sentenced by a Civil Court for contempt of court, though he was subsequently released after offering an unqualified apology. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was valid, noting that the petitioner failed to cite any legal provision prohibiting the appointment of an individual under these specific circumstances. The Court further reasoned that since the respondent had purged himself of contempt through an unqualified apology, there was no legal or principled bar to his appointment as a Lambardar. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the administrative discretion in such appointments remains undisturbed absent a clear legal violation.
Questions settled- Does a prior conviction for contempt of court, where an unqualified apology was accepted, legally disqualify an individual from being appointed as a Lambardar?
- Should the High Court interfere in the exercise of administrative discretion regarding the appointment of a Lambardar when no specific law has been violated?
- Hakim Khan and others vs The State and others1990 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a triple murder case. The primary legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the conviction of the five convicts was based on well-settled principles of criminal justice, specifically regarding the reliance on interested testimony without independent corroboration, and whether the reduction of sentences for two specific convicts by the High Court was legally justified. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the convicts' petition to examine the validity of their convictions in light of established evidentiary standards. Regarding the complainant's petition, the Court granted leave to examine the justification for the reduction of sentences for two convicts but dismissed the challenge concerning the acquittal of another respondent. The judgment reinforces the necessity of strictly scrutinizing convictions based on interested testimony to ensure they meet established criminal justice standards and affirms that appellate courts must provide valid legal grounds for modifying sentences, thereby ensuring that judicial discretion in sentencing and evidentiary assessment remains consistent with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Does interested testimony in a criminal trial require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Can a High Court reduce sentences of convicts without valid legal grounds?
- Is the acquittal of an accused person subject to reversal if the prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence?
- Hakim Ghulam Hussain vs Karamat Ali and others1990 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The petitioner, claiming superior rights as a co-sharer, successfully obtained a decree for pre-emption against the respondents (vendees). During the trial, the original vendor filed a separate declaratory suit claiming the initial sale to the respondents violated Martial Law Regulation 64, resulting in a consent decree declaring the sale void. The respondents' appeal against the pre-emption decree was dismissed by the District Court, but the High Court subsequently allowed their Regular Second Appeal and remanded the matter. The petitioner contends that because the sale was declared void by consent, the respondents lost their interest in the land and consequently lacked the locus standi to file an appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner argues the appeal was improperly constituted for failing to implead the vendor as a necessary party. The Supreme Court found these contentions arguable, raising significant questions regarding the standing of a vendee in a pre-emption suit after the sale is declared void and the necessity of impleading the vendor in appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a vendee retain the right to appeal a pre-emption decree if the underlying sale has been declared void by a consent decree?
- Is a vendor a necessary party in an appeal filed against a decree passed in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the failure to implead a necessary party render an appeal improperly constituted?
- Hakam Ali and another vs Iftikhar Ahmed Khan1990 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the failure of the decree-holder to deposit the pre-emption amount within the timeframe originally stipulated by the trial court, due to pending applications and court orders, nullified the decree passed in their favour. The Supreme Court held that the decree-holder could not be penalized for the delay, as the delay was attributable to the court's own orders and the pendency of applications that deferred the decision on the deposit requirement. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, noting that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in treating the deposit as made without default. The key principle laid down is that a party should not suffer harm or be penalized due to an act of the court, and courts possess the discretion to condone delays in depositing decretal amounts when such delays arise from the court's own procedural handling of the case.
Questions settled- Does the late deposit of a pre-emption amount necessarily nullify a decree passed in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a party be penalized for failing to deposit a decretal amount when the delay is caused by the court's own orders or pending applications?
- Does the court have the discretion to treat a late deposit of a decretal amount as being made without default?
- Haji Taj Din vs Sh. Taj Din and others1990 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a rent matter wherein the petitioner landlord sought eviction of the respondent tenant from a bungalow on the ground of personal and children's use. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and the District Judge dismissed the appeals of both parties. The Lahore High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, accepted the tenant's writ petition and set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's possession of other urban accommodation. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court could lawfully interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction could have interfered in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower rent tribunals be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Haji Rab Nawaz vs Sikandar Zulqarnain and 8 others1990 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges relating to murder and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner challenged the acquittal as well as the dismissal of his criminal revision for enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence concerning a criminal conspiracy, the reliability of uncorroborated evidence, business rivalry as motive, and the plea of alibi raised by absconding accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly acquitted most of the respondents due to lack of independent corroboration and the possibility of false implication stemming from business rivalry. However, regarding two respondents who remained absconding and raised a plea of alibi, the Court found that their case required further consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal solely against those two respondents while dismissing the petition as against the remaining respondents.
Questions settled- Whether independent corroboration is necessary to sustain a conviction based on a criminal conspiracy where the prosecution evidence is open to doubt?
- Does a plea of alibi raised by an absconding accused require detailed consideration by the appellate court?
- Whether business rivalry is a sufficient motive to rule out the possibility of false implication and exaggerated number of accused?
- Haji Murad Ali and 12 others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue and 9 others1990 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court in a consolidation dispute. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against the dismissal of a writ petition in circumstances where the Board of Revenue has exercised its suo motu jurisdiction to pass an order against a party who possesses no further statutory remedy of appeal or revision. The petitioner argued that this issue is a matter of first impression with no existing precedent. Finding the question significant and requiring authoritative examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, subject to the issue of limitation regarding the initial dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition. The Court directed the parties to prepare the appeal on the existing record while allowing for the submission of additional necessary documents, and referred the stay application for consideration by a Judge in Chambers.
Questions settled- Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against the dismissal of a writ petition where the Board of Revenue has passed an order in suo motu jurisdiction against a party having no further remedy of appeal or revision?
- Haji Muhammad Yaqoob vs Ch. Muhammad Nawaz and others1990 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a tenant against his eviction from a commercial property under the Rent Restriction law and the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the tenant's resistance to eviction and his request for minor adjustments regarding the shifting of an electric connection during the proposed reconstruction by the landlord. The Supreme Court held that since the question of the petitioner's eviction had been affirmed and concluded, and considering the petitioner's failure to vacate the premises despite the lapse of time and previous clarifications, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, and the prior interim order relating to the re-location of the electric connection was vacated in its entirety. The key principle laid down is that where an eviction order is final and the tenant delays vacating despite opportunities, leave to appeal will be refused and pending interim concessions withdrawn.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an eviction order when the tenant fails to vacate the premises and prolongs the proceedings?
- Can interim orders regarding adjustments and electric connections be vacated when the main petition for leave to appeal against eviction is dismissed?
- Haji Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Bakhsh1990 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and the bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction for personal use. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the claims regarding default and subletting but ruled in favour of the landlord regarding the requirement for reconstruction, finding the landlord's plans approved and financially viable. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed the findings against the landlord on the first two issues and reversed the Rent Controller's decision on the third issue, concluding that the demolition of the demised premises (a 'Khokha') was not necessary for the proposed reconstruction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner's submissions regarding the necessity of removing the demised premises for reconstruction, the alleged default in rent payment, and the unauthorized subletting raised substantial questions of law and fact requiring further consideration. The Court admitted the petition for regular hearing on the existing record.
Questions settled- Does the landlord's requirement for reconstruction constitute a bona fide ground for eviction if the demised premises must be demolished to facilitate the construction?
- Can a High Court reverse a Rent Controller's finding on the necessity of demolition for reconstruction based on an interpretation of an approved building plan?
- Does the deposit of rent for a period of several years in a single instance constitute a default in payment of rent under the relevant Rent Ordinance?
- Haji Muhammad Siddique vs District Judge, Peshawar and others1990 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose from an eviction application filed by a landlord against a tenant on the grounds of default and personal requirement of the landlord and his son. The Rent Controller accepted the application on the ground of personal requirement, which was upheld by the District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in a constitutional petition. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner contended that the cause of action extinguished upon the death of the original landlord, and that the son's failure to testify was fatal to the case. The Supreme Court held that where a premises is required for the personal use of the landlord's son, the requirement does not extinguish upon the death of the father. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it is not mandatory for the son to testify if the father had already supported the claim as a witness. The Court affirmed that a landlord occupying a rented premises is legally entitled to seek possession of his own property, thereby establishing bona fide requirement, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's cause of action for personal requirement of his son extinguish upon the death of the landlord during the pendency of proceedings?
- Is it mandatory for the son of a landlord to testify in support of an eviction application if the landlord has already testified to establish the son's personal requirement?
- Does the fact that a landlord's son is currently operating a business in rented premises negate the bona fide requirement for possession of the landlord's own property?
- Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against the Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1988 regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly. In the original judgment, although the Court held that the dissolution of the National Assembly on May 29, 1988, under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution was illegal, it consciously declined to order its restoration and instead upheld the holding of fresh general elections in the collective good. The petitioner sought review, contending that the Court erred regarding its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution by failing to restore the assembly, and challenged the legality of the subsequent 1988 elections and the newly elected Assembly. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that a deliberate and conscious decision on the nature of relief granted does not constitute a ground for review merely because an alternative view is presented. The Court further held that new grounds challenging the legality of subsequent ordinances or the newly elected Assembly that were not raised or decided in the original appeal cannot be entertained in review proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a conscious and deliberate decision regarding the relief granted under Article 199 of the Constitution constitute a valid ground for review if an alternative legal view is presented?
- Can questions and grounds that were neither raised nor decided in the main appeal be entertained for the first time in a review petition?
- Does the Court's refusal to restore an illegally dissolved assembly in favor of fresh general elections justify review of the judgment?
- Haji Muhammad Nawaz vs Hussain Shah1990 SCMR 1621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court which had set aside concurrent judgments of the lower courts in favor of the pre-emptor appellant. The core legal question was whether the appellant's pre-emption suit could be sustained on alternative grounds of contiguity and easement after the right based on co-ownership was extinguished pursuant to the rule in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287), which barred pre-emption decrees based on co-sharership after 31-7-1986. The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit because the alternative grounds of contiguity and easement were not raised in the memorandum of appeal or considered in the lower forums, and mere assertion in the plaint without proof did not justify a remand. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. The key principle laid down is that an appellant cannot raise new factual grounds for pre-emption at the apex court stage if those grounds were not urged in the memorandum of appeal or substantiated by evidence below.
Questions settled- Whether delay can be condoned when a petition for leave to appeal is treated as a direct appeal and becomes barred by time?
- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained on alternative grounds of contiguity and easement if they were not raised in the memorandum of appeal?
- Does the failure to prove alternative grounds of pre-emption at the appropriate stage justify the remand of the case?
- Haji Muhammad Latif vs Farman Ali and another1990 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case initiated by the petitioner against his nephew, the respondent, under Sections 379, 406, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of financial misappropriation and unauthorized removal of earth. Following the trial court's rejection of the respondent's application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the subsequent dismissal of his revision petition by the Sessions Judge, the Lahore High Court allowed the respondent's application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, quashing the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings warranted interference. Upon noting that a parallel civil suit concerning the alleged loan was already pending and had been referred to arbitration, the Supreme Court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle disputes that are fundamentally civil in character.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
- Is it appropriate to maintain criminal proceedings for financial disputes that are already subject to pending civil litigation and arbitration?
- Does the High Court have the authority under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings if the matter is purely civil?
- Haji Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Muhammad Aslam and another1990 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court quashing criminal proceedings initiated against respondent No. 1 under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The criminal proceedings arose from an FIR lodged by the petitioner claiming that respondent No. 1 made false allegations against him regarding the illegal detention and criminal assault of his wife. The core questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings in Hudood matters, and whether Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 barred such inherent powers. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings of fact that the allegations involved physical torture rather than Zina. The Court held that Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confers revisional powers on the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood cases but does not bar the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending in a criminal court. Leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in criminal proceedings?
- Can the High Court exercise its jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings initiated in relation to offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?