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.
- Ali Ahmad Khan vs The Postmaster General, Northern Punjab and AJK, Rawalpindi and another1990 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the seniority assigned to a colleague (respondent No. 2). The core legal question was whether a civil servant, who was promoted to a selection grade but delayed in assuming duties due to the department's failure to relieve him from his previous post, could be granted seniority retrospectively from the date of his original promotion. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent's delay in joining the new cadre was not due to his own fault but rather the department's failure to relieve him. Consequently, the Court held that the competent authority acted correctly in rectifying the situation and restoring the respondent's seniority, as the respondent was legally entitled to the position. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law was raised, as the department's action was a valid administrative rectification of a wrong, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be granted seniority retrospectively if the delay in assuming a promoted post was caused by the department's failure to relieve them?
- Does an administrative rectification of a seniority list based on departmental error raise a substantial question of law?
- Aleemuddin and another vs Muhammad Aslam and others1990 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding an ejectment order. The dispute arose when the respondent, who had been transferred the plot in question by Settlement Authorities, filed an ejectment application against the petitioners. The petitioners, who were in possession of the plot, contested the application by denying the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting they had executed an agreement of sale with the previous occupant and had paid the full amount before the plot was surrendered. Relying on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the petitioners argued that their possession was protected against dispossession. While the Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, ordering the petitioners to vacate. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the protection afforded by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 required further examination, granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does an agreement of sale in favour of a tenant in possession protect them against dispossession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Akram Khan and 2 others vs The State1990 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, convicted under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for transporting a large quantity of Charas in a truck, sought relief from the Supreme Court. In the first petition, the petitioners did not contest their conviction and sentence but requested the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of their imprisonment. The State did not oppose this request, and the Court granted the benefit. In the second petition, the owner of the confiscated truck challenged the confiscation order, arguing he was denied an opportunity to show cause. The Federal Shariat Court had previously rejected his appeal as incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should have been treated as a revision and that the law requires notice and a hearing for the owner before a vehicle can be confiscated. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Federal Shariat Court to be disposed of as a revision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Is it a legal requirement to provide notice and a hearing to the owner of a vehicle before ordering its confiscation?
- Can an incompetent appeal be treated as a revision by the appellate court?
- Akbar Ali vs Malik Navidul Zafar, Additional District Judge, Kasur and others1990 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition against an appellate order setting aside his shop's eviction order. The core legal question concerns whether the appellate court erred in holding that the ground of subletting was not established. The Supreme Court held that where the landlord himself issued rent receipts in the name of the alleged sublessee following the surrender of the original tenancy, the finding that subletting had not been established is unexceptionable and free from infirmity. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by documentary evidence regarding the identity of the tenant will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether the finding of an appellate court regarding subletting can be interfered with when supported by rent receipts issued in the name of the alleged sublessee?
- Does the issuance of rent receipts in the name of a person other than the original tenant negate the ground of subletting?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent factual findings of lower forums regarding tenancy status?
- Akbar Ali and others vs Mst. Rashida Mi and others1990 SCMR 1616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court arises out of a property and land allotment dispute under settlement laws. The core legal question involved whether the High Court rightly declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud and forgery in land allotments. The Supreme Court held that since concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding fraud and forgery in obtaining the disputed land allotment were upheld through previous judicial tiers and no question of law was involved, the High Court correctly refused to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact pertaining to fraud and forgery established by competent settlement authorities cannot be disturbed under the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a party that has procured a land allotment through a forged order possess a preferential right for allotment?
- Akbar Ali and others vs Ghulam Hussain and others1990 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit regarding the ownership of approximately 32 kanals of land in village Bakhianwala, Tehsil Daska. The petitioners claimed ownership based on the assertion that they were original mortgagees of the land and that the mortgage had not been redeemed for over sixty years, thereby extinguishing the mortgagor's rights. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could substantiate their claim of being mortgagees of the specific land in dispute. Both the trial court and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit, finding no evidence to link the disputed land to the alleged mortgage. Before the High Court, the petitioners' counsel conceded that they could not establish the identity of the land as the subject of the mortgage. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners failed to prove the foundational fact of their status as mortgagees, their claim to ownership necessarily failed. Consequently, the Court found the petition meritless and refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Does a claim of ownership based on unredeemed mortgage fail if the identity of the mortgaged land cannot be established?
- Is a concession by counsel regarding the failure to prove the identity of disputed land binding on the petitioners in revision proceedings?
- Ahsanuz Zaman vs Muhammad Saleem and others1990 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning proceedings under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, specifically addressing the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner occupied a shop purchased by respondent No.1 from a previous owner, to whom the petitioner had previously paid rent. Upon receiving a notice of attornment, the petitioner admitted his tenancy under the previous owner but demanded proof of sale, later resisting eviction on the ground that the land belonged to the Central Government while he owned the structure. The Rent Controller, Additional District Judge, and the High Court concurrently found against the petitioner, establishing the tenancy and ordering eviction for default in rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenancy were supported by sufficient evidence, including the petitioner's own admissions and past rent payments. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, leaving the petitioner at liberty to agitate the question of title before a civil court.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties based on the tenant's admission and previous rent payments?
- Does a tenant who admits tenancy under the previous owner can demand proof of sale before accepting the new landlord?
- Can a question of title to the rented property be resolved in rent proceedings or should it be raised before a civil court?
- Ahmad Sher vs Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others1990 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The petitioner claimed ownership of an evacuee property measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marlas, alleging the respondents occupied it as licensees and refused to vacate, prompting a suit. The respondents also filed a separate suit claiming rights and possession over a portion of the land. The lower forums and the High Court rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. The core legal question examined was whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from misreading or non-consideration of evidence to warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence without any misreading or omission, and thus refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a clear case of misreading or ignoring important evidence is established.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading of evidence?
- Can a licensee's refusal to vacate evacuee property give rise to a valid claim for possession?
- Does the misreading of evidence justify granting leave to appeal against concurrent judgments?
- Ahmad Khan vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's acceptance of a constitutional writ petition filed by the respondents, challenging orders re-opening a confirmed consolidation scheme. The petitioner, dissatisfied with a consolidation scheme confirmed under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, approached the Consolidation Minister, who ordered re-opening of the case. Consequently, the Member, Board of Revenue, ordered fresh consolidation pursuant to the Minister's direction. The High Court declared the Minister's order void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction and set aside all subsequent orders. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the Minister for Consolidation is not a statutory functionary under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, and possesses no jurisdiction to interfere with confirmed schemes. The Court ruled that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, and any subsequent order passed by a statutory functionary acting under such void direction or without independent judgment is similarly tainted, void, and incapable of curing the initial defect.
Questions settled- Does a executive Minister have jurisdiction to interfere with or re-open a consolidation scheme confirmed under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
- Can a void ab initio order passed by a non-statutory authority be cured by a subsequent order of a competent statutory functionary?
- Does an order passed by a statutory authority under the directions of a Minister rather than through its own independent judgment render the resulting order a nullity?
- Ahmad Din vs Ghulam Muhammad1990 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding a suit for specific performance of a contract. The petitioner sought the enforcement of an agreement to sell concerning a shop, claiming the respondent had agreed to sell the property and facilitate the transfer of title from other joint owners. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance when the property was held to be joint property and the agreement to sell was found to be unproven. The Supreme Court held that since all three lower courts had reached concurrent findings of fact that the property was jointly owned and that the agreement to sell was not proved, there was no ground for interference. The court reaffirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership status of property and the validity of contractual documents are generally not subject to reappraisal in a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a suit for specific performance be decreed against one co-owner for the sale of property that is jointly owned by multiple parties?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court in a civil revision?
- Is a contract for the sale of property enforceable when the document evidencing the agreement is held not to be proved?
- Ahmad Bakhsh and others vs The State1990 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. One petitioner, Ahmad Bakhsh, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings, resulting in the abatement of the petition regarding him. For the remaining petitioners, the core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in its summary rejection of the plea of self-defence. The petitioners contended that the High Court failed to provide specific, cogent reasons for rejecting their defence version, merely observing that the story did not ring true. The Supreme Court found that this contention required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider whether the plea of self-defence was properly considered and appreciated by the High Court, establishing that a defence version cannot be rejected summarily without adequate reasoning.
Questions settled- Does the death of a petitioner during the pendency of a petition for leave to appeal result in the abatement of the petition qua that petitioner?
- Can a plea of self-defence be rejected summarily by an appellate court without providing specific and cogent reasons?
- Ahmad Ali vs Inspectorgeneral, Punjab Police and 2 others1990 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed two separate petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking leave to appeal against judgments of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed their service appeals as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing incompetent revision petitions before the Inspector-General of Police could be condoned or excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeals. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that since the petitioners had no legal right to file a revision or second appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, the time consumed in those proceedings could not be legally excluded or condoned for the purpose of extending the limitation period prescribed for filing appeals before the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision and refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that pursuing an incompetent remedy does not toll the limitation period for statutory appeals.
Questions settled- Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent revision petition before a departmental authority be condoned for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the filing of a revision petition, where no such right exists, extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Agha Syed ALl Shah vs Arbab Muhammad Tariq and 3 others1990 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside an Election Tribunal's decision and restored the respondent as the elected Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Peshawar. The election was challenged on the ground that two ballot papers cast in favour of the respondent contained a plus (+) mark instead of the standard multiplication cross (x), leading the Election Tribunal to exclude them and declare the petitioner the winner. The Peshawar High Court reversed this decision, holding that the votes were valid. The core legal question was whether a plus mark on a ballot paper rendered it invalid under the relevant local council election rules and instructions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the instruction regarding a cross mark was illustrative rather than exhaustive, and that a 'cross' includes various forms such as the Latin cross. The court established that disenfranchising voters requires clear language and stronger grounds, and minor variations in marking a ballot do not invalidate the vote unless they compromise secrecy in reality.
Questions settled- Whether a ballot paper marked with a plus (+) sign instead of a multiplication cross (x) is invalid under the North-West Frontier Province Local Councils (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1979?
- Can instructions issued by an Election Authority alter or curtail the well-understood meaning of a statutory term such as a 'cross'?
- Whether the High Court can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to correct an incorrect view of the law taken by an Election Tribunal?
- Afzal Ahmad vs WAPDA1990 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioner, a Meter Reader for WAPDA, from service. The petitioner was removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the removal was unlawful due to the failure to issue a show-cause notice or conduct a formal inquiry prior to the termination order. The petitioner further contended that the absence of such procedural safeguards rendered the removal un-Islamic, relying on the precedent established in Pakistan v. Public-at-large. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dictum laid down in the cited precedent was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice or inquiry under the specific provisions of the WAPDA Act, thereby affirming the validity of the removal order without the requirement of prior procedural formalities.
Questions settled- Does the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act require a prior show-cause notice?
- Is a formal inquiry mandatory before removing an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Does the absence of a show-cause notice in a WAPDA service termination render the action un-Islamic?
- Afsar Khan vs Mir Dad Khan and others1990 SCMR 1710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an election dispute regarding a Union Council seat. The Election Tribunal had initially declared the respondent's election void, citing procedural irregularities concerning a one-hour polling interruption and the non-participation of female voters. The High Court subsequently reversed this decision, upholding the election. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Presiding Officer's resumption of polling violated Rule 26 of the North-West Frontier Province Local Council Election Rules, 1979, and whether the absence of female voters invalidated the result. The Court held that the polling interruption did not invalidate the election as no prejudice was demonstrated, and candidates had actively participated in the resumed polling without objection. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the non-participation of female voters did not invalidate the election absent evidence that they were actively prevented from exercising their franchise. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the election was valid and that the procedural challenges raised by the appellant were without legal merit.
Questions settled- Does a temporary interruption of polling by a Presiding Officer automatically invalidate an election under Rule 26 of the North-West Frontier Province Local Council Election Rules, 1979?
- Does the non-participation of female voters in an election invalidate the result if there is no evidence they were prevented from voting?
- Can an election be declared void on the basis of procedural irregularities where no prejudice to the voters or candidates is demonstrated?
- Accountant General, Balochistan, Quetta vs Abdul Majeed Babar and others1990 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether a dispute regarding the pay and terms and conditions of a civil servant, arising from the refusal of the Accountant-General to issue a pay slip in Basic Pay Scale 21, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondent, originally a federal civil servant belonging to the District Management Group and subsequently appointed as Chairman of the Balochistan Public Service Commission, sought a higher pay scale through provincial notifications, which the Accountant-General objected to on the ground that only the Federal Government was the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the dispute substantially related to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, making the Service Tribunal the exclusive forum under Article 212 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the respondent to seek his remedy before the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding the pay scale and terms and conditions of a civil servant fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition in respect of matters to which the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extends?
- Does the Accountant-General qualify as a departmental authority when refusing to issue a salary slip based on the validity of an order?
- Can a civil servant seek remedies before the Service Tribunal in respect of matters arising during their period of service after superannuation?
- Abdus Salam vs Muhammad Munir and 2 others1990 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant challenging an order of the High Court, which disposed of a writ petition regarding eviction based on a compromise agreement. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having entered into a solemn compromise before the High Court after detailed negotiations to vacate premises by a specific date in exchange for continued possession, could subsequently resile from that agreement on the grounds of improper legal advice or potential irreparable loss. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no justification for the petitioner to back out of a binding agreement. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had already secured the benefit of retaining possession of the suit premises for approximately nine months through this compromise. The key principle laid down is that a party who has entered into a solemn compromise before a court, particularly after detailed negotiations and with the assistance of counsel, cannot unilaterally resile from such an agreement, especially after having already enjoyed the benefits derived from that settlement.
Questions settled- Can a party resile from a compromise agreement reached before the High Court after having already obtained the benefit of continued possession?
- Is a compromise agreement regarding eviction, entered into with the assistance of counsel, binding upon the parties?
- Abdur Rehman vs Abdul Hafeez and another1990 SCMR 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdur Rehman against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the eviction order passed against him by the Additional District Judge on the ground of personal need of the landlord, reversing the Rent Controller's dismissal of the ejectment application. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the eviction order based on personal need and the tenant's entitlement to discretionary relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no case on merits regarding the personal need of the landlord and further noted that the petitioner's conduct in seeking and accepting four months' time from the High Court to vacate the premises disentitled him to any further discretionary indulgence by the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant who avails time granted by the High Court to vacate premises is entitled to seek further indulgence from the Supreme Court?
- Does an eviction order based on the personal need of the landlord warrant interference when examined concurrently by the appellate court and the High Court?
- Abdur Raziq and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose against the judgment of the High Court, which affirmed the trial court's conviction and life imprisonment sentences of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that after an initial scuffle over liquor, the appellants returned armed with shotguns, fatally shooting the deceased and injuring eye-witnesses. The defence completely denied the occurrence, alleging false implication following an altercation involving their sister. The primary legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the ocular evidence supported by forensic ballistic reports was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 ought to be granted. The Supreme Court held that the eye-witness accounts were consistent, trustworthy, and fully corroborated by the Fire-arms Expert report. While maintaining the convictions and sentences, the Court extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellants, directing that their period of pre-trial custody be computed towards their terms of imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether ocular evidence corroborated by a positive firearms expert report is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Whether the Supreme Court may grant the statutory benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where lower courts omitted to do so?
- Whether a general plea of false implication can displace consistent and corroborated eye-witness testimony?
- Abdur Rashid and 2 others vs The State1990 SCMR 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three petitions for leave to appeal arise from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners for counterfeiting currency notes under sections 489-A, 489-C, and 489-D, P.P.C. The petitioners were tried by the Special Court for Speedy Trials, convicted, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fines, while certain co-accused were acquitted. Their subsequent appeal to the High Court resulted in the acquittal of some co-accused but the dismissal of the petitioners' appeals. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, it was strenuously urged that the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been flagrantly violated, vitiating the trial. The Supreme Court held that the question raised regarding the violation of search and seizure provisions was of general public importance requiring consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine all questions raised.
Questions settled- Does the flagrant violation of the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a criminal trial?
- Whether the conviction for counterfeiting currency notes under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when search and recovery witnesses are not associated in accordance with law?
- Abdul Wahid vs Eid Muhammad and 2 others1990 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from concurrent findings in rent ejectment proceedings and subsequent civil litigation regarding the ownership of a property. The petitioner, having been ordered to vacate the premises by the Rent Controller on the finding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, unsuccessfully challenged this order through an appeal to the District Judge and a subsequent writ petition in the High Court. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner initiated separate civil suits claiming ownership of the same property, which were also dismissed by the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-litigate the issue of property ownership in a civil suit after the Rent Controller had already determined the matter in ejectment proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the ownership issue was finally decided in the rent proceedings. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to reserve the right to agitate a question of title in a civil court during rent proceedings, they are precluded from re-canvassing that same issue through separate civil litigation.
Questions settled- Can a party re-litigate the issue of property ownership in a civil suit after it has been determined in rent ejectment proceedings?
- Does the failure to reserve the right to agitate title in a civil court during rent proceedings preclude subsequent civil litigation on the same issue?
- Abdul Sattar vs Muhammad Akbar Shah1990 PLD Supreme Court 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the High Court, which had accepted the respondent's civil revision and restored the dismissal of the appellant's suit for non-prosecution. The appellant had filed a suit for the cancellation of a deed for the appointment of a Mutawalli. The trial court had dismissed the suit for default of appearance on a date when the matter was merely adjourned for suggesting the name of a receiver, rather than for the actual hearing or progress of the suit. The core legal question was whether the date on which the suit was dismissed was fixed for the "hearing" of the "suit" under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the date was fixed solely for ancillary proceedings relating to the nomination of a receiver and not for the hearing of the main suit, rendering the dismissal illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the suit was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the date fixed is only for ancillary proceedings such as nominating a receiver rather than the hearing of the main suit?
- Does a date fixed merely for suggesting the name of a person for the appointment of a receiver constitute a date fixed for the hearing of the suit?
- Abdul Sajood and another vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and 5 others1990 SCMR 1023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition regarding the transfer of evacuee property consisting of shops. The core legal question concerns whether Muslim mortgagees of evacuee property, whose mortgage was not confirmed by the Custodian, are entitled to the transfer of the property under Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII as against their tenants who also applied for transfer under the same scheme. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal question warranted detailed consideration, relying on precedents establishing that Muslim mortgagees are entitled to transfer against their tenants and retain possession until redemption by the Custodian. The key principle laid down is that unconfirmed mortgagees of evacuee property maintaining possession have a valid claim to transfer under settlement schemes over subsequent tenant applicants.
Questions settled- Whether the non-confirmation of a mortgage by the Custodian of Evacuee Property deprives a mortgagee of the claim to the transfer of property under Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Are Muslim mortgagees of evacuee property entitled to the transfer of property under Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII in preference to their tenants who claim transfer under the same scheme?
- Abdul Rehman vs The State and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the High Court's judgment, which had accepted the criminal appeal of the respondent, setting aside his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder and acquitting him. The prosecution case alleged that the respondent and his co-accused intercepted a tonga and shot the deceased. The prosecution examined the eye-witnesses but gave up the tonga driver as a won-over witness. However, the trial court summoned the tonga driver as a Court-witness, who testified that the attackers had muffled their faces. The petitioner argued that the Court-witness's testimony should not have been preferred over the eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appreciation of evidence and the preference of one witness over another is a factual matter. Even if the Court-witness withheld some truth, the prosecution's case had become fundamentally doubtful. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, or any gross miscarriage of justice, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a Court-witness can be preferred over prosecution eye-witnesses in determining the guilt of an accused?
- What are the grounds upon which the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal in a murder case?
- Does the introduction of a Court-witness who contradicts eye-witnesses regarding the identity of attackers create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Abdul Razzaq vs The State1990 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal involving the petitioner Abdul Razzaq, who was implicated in a narcotics case. The core legal question concerns the identity and integrity of the recovered sample, specifically whether the sample found by the chemical examiner to contain heroin was indeed the same sample taken from the petitioner, given the discrepancy in docket numbers where the recovery was sent through Docket No. 333 while the chemical examiner's report referred to Docket No. 604-E. The Court held that the contention regarding the discrepancy in the sample and docket numbers requires detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave for an early date hearing to examine the matter further.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the docket number of the recovered sample and the docket number mentioned in the chemical examiner report warrant consideration for leave to appeal?
- Whether the safe custody and identity of a recovered narcotic sample is crucial for maintaining a conviction?
- Abdul Razzaq Khokhar vs Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab and others1990 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the same person could act both as the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer' under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, when applied to Local Council Service employees, and whether the non-supply of an inquiry report vitiated disciplinary proceedings. The appellant, a Chief Officer in the Municipal Committee, was reverted in rank following an inquiry initiated and concluded by the Commissioner. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court held that where an officer is competent to award both major and minor punishments, they can validly act as both the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer'. The Court further held that non-supply of an inquiry report does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless it causes actual prejudice to the delinquent officer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the same person could act both as 'Authority' as well as 'Authorised Officer' under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975?
- Whether the proceedings against a civil servant stand vitiated as a result of the omission to supply him with a copy of the inquiry report?
- Do the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 apply to members of the Local Council Service?
- Abdul Rauf vs Lahore High Court, Lahore and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as incompetent on the ground that an earlier order of compulsory retirement meant he had ceased to be a civil servant. The core legal question is whether a person who has been compulsorily retired can maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a subsequent order of dismissal from service passed by the departmental authorities. The Supreme Court held that since the dismissal order was passed on the assumption that the petitioner was still a civil servant, the Tribunal erred in declining to entertain the appeal. The Court ruled that the definition of a civil servant under the relevant statute includes a person who has been a member of a civil service, which is wide enough to cover the petitioner's case, thereby converting the petition into an appeal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an order of dismissal is maintainable before the Service Tribunal after an earlier order of compulsory retirement?
- Does the definition of a civil servant under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 include a person who has previously been a member of a civil service or held a civil post?
- Abdul Rashid vs Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and another1990 SCMR 1429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Meter-reader from the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner challenged his dismissal, primarily arguing that the competent authority failed to conduct a formal inquiry before imposing the major penalty. The core legal question was whether the competent authority was mandatorily required to hold a formal inquiry under the applicable disciplinary rules. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 5(iv) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, the decision to hold a formal inquiry rests within the discretion of the competent authority. Given that the charges against the petitioner were based entirely on official records, the Court found that the authority did not act arbitrarily in dispensing with a formal inquiry. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Federal Service Tribunal's findings on the merits, noting that the charges were fully substantiated by the record. Consequently, the Court found no error of law in the lower proceedings and dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Does the competent authority have the discretion to decide whether a formal inquiry is necessary under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Is a formal inquiry mandatory when disciplinary charges are based entirely on official records?
- Abdul Rashid vs Muhammad Akhtar and another1990 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which altered the respondent's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, and reduced the death sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in re-appraising the evidence, disbelieving the eye-witnesses, and converting the conviction based on a sudden chance encounter and absence of premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's re-appraisal of the evidence, finding discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, discounting the presence of interested eye-witnesses, and accepting the plea of a sudden quarrel without premeditation was unexceptionable and free from legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that where the High Court properly evaluates evidence, highlights conflicts with contemporaneous documents, and concludes that an incident occurred on the spur of the moment in a chance encounter, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the reduction of sentence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and substituting it with section 304, Part I?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's re-appraisal of evidence and assessment of eye-witness credibility when no legal defect is pointed out?
- Whether an incident arising from a sudden quarrel without premeditation attracts the application of section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Abdul Rashid Khan vs Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division1990 SCMR 1441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the determination of his seniority as a civil servant. The petitioner, a Section Officer appointed in 1959 and promoted to Grade 18 in 1976, challenged the Establishment Division's decision to fix his seniority in the Office Management Group (O.M.G.) effective from 9-10-1977, the date of his encadrement. The petitioner contended that his seniority should instead be calculated from his initial date of continuous appointment in 1959, citing specific provisions of the O.M.G. Rules 1975 and the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Rules 1965. The Supreme Court identified several critical legal questions requiring determination, specifically concerning the interpretation of seniority rules under the O.M.G. framework, the applicability of CSS Rules regarding continuous service, and whether the department's fixation of seniority violated the proviso to section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. Finding these issues substantial, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the seniority dispute.
Questions settled- Does Rule 12(b)(i) and (ii) of the O.M.G. Rules 1975 govern the inter se seniority of various categories rather than the starting date of seniority?
- Should a civil servant's seniority be calculated from the date of continuous appointment under Rule 13 of the CSS Rules 1965?
- Does the fixation of seniority by the Establishment Division violate the proviso to section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Abdul Rashid and others vs Abdul Samad and others1990 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Balochistan High Court judgment that set aside a remand order by the Member, Board of Revenue, and ordered the dismissal of the petitioners' suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit, originally filed under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner based on a Tribunal's finding that the plaintiff lacked title due to a will. After multiple rounds of litigation and remand orders, the High Court ultimately declared the Board of Revenue's remand order without lawful authority and restored the dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court, after setting aside the revisional order, should have either treated the revision as pending or recorded determinative findings on the controversial issues itself. The Court held that the High Court erred by upholding the dismissal without addressing critical questions regarding the competency of the suit, the validity of the will under applicable law, and the proof of the mortgage. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for proper resolution of these legal and jurisdictional questions.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, after declaring a revisional order of a lower authority to be without lawful authority, uphold the dismissal of a suit without recording determinative findings on the controversial issues?
- Is a suit for redemption of a mortgage competent under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 if the plaintiff's title is disputed based on a will?
- Does the High Court have the authority to resolve jurisdictional and legal questions itself when remanding a matter back to statutory authorities?
- Abdul Rahim Shah vs The State1990 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and confirmed the death sentence, later commuted to life imprisonment by Presidential Order. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt, based on ocular testimony and recovery evidence, were sustainable despite alleged contradictions and procedural objections. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded and dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments challenging the credibility of the eye-witnesses or the validity of the recoveries. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in testimony do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case when the witnesses are disinterested and their accounts are corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Does the registration of an F.I.R. after preliminary investigation automatically invalidate the testimony of eye-witnesses?
- Can the recovery of a crime weapon at the instance of an accused serve as sufficient corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Are minor contradictions in the evidence of eye-witnesses sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction for murder?
- Abdul Quddus and another vs Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Dargai1990 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's dismissal of writ petitions regarding the recovery of produce share/compensation for land occupied by tenants after their legal ejectment. The core legal question was whether Section 6 or Section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950, applied to the assessment of compensation for the unauthorized occupation of land by former tenants who remained in possession following an eviction decree. The Supreme Court held that the case did not involve 'holding over' but rather unauthorized occupation after a decree for ejectment, thereby correctly attracting the application of Section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950. The Court further affirmed that the compensation rate fixed by the lower courts, based on oral and documentary evidence of rental values, was neither capricious nor perverse. The Court dismissed the petitions, establishing that Section 7 governs compensation for land use by former tenants post-ejection, and that such compensation may be determined based on evidence of rental value rather than strictly adhering to the rent of the preceding agricultural year if evidence supports the calculation.
Questions settled- Does Section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950 apply to tenants who remain in possession of land after a decree for ejectment has been passed?
- Is the compensation for unauthorized occupation of land by a former tenant limited strictly to the rent payable in the preceding agricultural year?
- Can a court determine the rate of compensation for unauthorized land use based on oral and documentary evidence of rental values?
- Abdul Qayyum, Extelephone Operator vs The Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and another1990 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by an ex-telephone operator challenging the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner could overcome the threshold bar of limitation, as the Tribunal had dismissed his appeal on the ground of being time-barred. During the proceedings, the Court directed the petitioner to address the issue of limitation first, emphasizing that the merits of the case could not be examined unless the procedural obstacle of limitation was successfully crossed. The petitioner appeared in person and failed to provide any satisfactory explanation or justification for the delay in filing his appeal. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of a valid explanation for the delay, the petition could not be entertained. The Court affirmed that procedural requirements, specifically those regarding limitation, must be satisfied before a court can adjudicate upon the merits of a service-related grievance. Finding no grounds to condone the delay, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a court adjudicate the merits of a case if the appeal is barred by limitation?
- Is a petitioner required to explain a delay in filing an appeal before the merits are considered?
- Abdul Qadeer vs The State1990 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Qadeer against the judgment of the High Court maintaining his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life, alongside a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a murderous assault. The core legal questions involve determining the true nature of possession over the disputed land in Khasra No. 2152 and whether the petitioner had exceeded his right of private defence and defence of property, or if the offence fell under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Patwari Halqa favored the petitioner's possession, rendering the complainant party trespassers for attempting to take forcible possession. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the case warranted a conversion of the conviction to Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the right of private defence was exceeded, laying down principles regarding land possession disputes and the right of private defence in criminal homicides.
Questions settled- Whether the offence falls under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a dispute arises over land possession?
- Did the accused exceed their right of private defence and defence of property during the occurrence?
- Does the possession of land by the accused party affect the nature of the criminal liability in a sudden fight over property?
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J Muhammad Iqbal and 6 others vs Shamsuddin1990 PLD Supreme Court 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Matloob Khan vs Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab and others1990 SCMR 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 1-1-1981 to 13-7-1981, which described his performance as below average. The reporting officer (Assistant Commissioner) recorded this rating, which was subsequently agreed upon by the second countersigning officer (Commissioner), despite the first countersigning officer (Deputy Commissioner) rating the performance as fair and average. After his representation for expunction was rejected and his appeal to the Service Tribunal was dismissed, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the remarks were inconsistent because his performance was rated as average in Part II of the ACR but below average in Part III. The Supreme Court held that there was no inconsistency, as Part III requires a comparative assessment against other officers, which can result in a lower rating even if the officer is considered average in isolation. Finding no legal error or bias, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can an officer be rated as average in one part of an Annual Confidential Report and below average in another part without creating an inconsistency?
- Does a comparative assessment of an officer's performance against peers justify a lower rating than an individual performance assessment?
- Abdul Manna N vs Abdul Latif and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a High Court order remanding a suit for the redemption of mortgaged property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge a remand order that was partially necessitated by his own request for a preliminary decree, and whether such a petition is maintainable while the remanded proceedings remain pending. The Supreme Court held that the remand order was lawful and justified, noting that the petitioner was estopped from challenging a procedure he had previously advocated for. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition was premature, as the remanded proceedings might ultimately result in a favorable outcome for the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will generally decline to entertain a petition for leave to appeal against a remand order if the final outcome of the remanded proceedings remains uncertain, granting the petitioner liberty to refile only if the final decision in the remanded case is adverse.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a remand order that they themselves requested in the lower court?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a remand order while the remanded proceedings are still pending?
- Does the absence of a preliminary decree in a mortgage redemption suit necessitate a remand?
- Abdul Majid vs Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others1990 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the portion of the Service Tribunal's order dated 11-1-1988 that denied him back benefits upon his reinstatement in service. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in denying back benefits when the employee's reinstatement was based on a technical flaw in the inquiry proceedings and the employee had contributed to the disciplinary action by remaining absent without sanctioned leave. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal had the lawful authority to deny back benefits under such circumstances, as the employee's own conduct of unauthorized absence provided a good and sufficient reason. The court laid down the principle that an employee reinstated on technical grounds after being absent without leave may lawfully be denied back benefits based on their own contributory conduct.
Questions settled- Can the Service Tribunal deny back benefits upon reinstating an employee who was absent without sanctioned leave?
- Whether leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution can be granted when the Service Tribunal denies back benefits for valid reasons.
- Is an employee reinstated on technical grounds automatically entitled to back benefits?
- Abdul Majid and another vs Muhammad Shaft and others1990 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing civil revisions filed by the petitioners, which challenged judgments of the Additional District Judge decreeing suits for the partition of a house and a shop. The core legal question concerned the validity and genuineness of a gift deed (Tamleeknama) executed by the original owner in favour of the petitioners, and whether the document suffered from interpolations and suspicious features. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the suspicious nature of the gift deed—specifically targeted interpolations, signature discrepancies, and artificial aging of the document—were unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming that findings of fact by lower appellate and revisional courts regarding tainted documents will not be disturbed where no illegality is shown.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity and execution of a gift deed can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Does an interpolated and artificially aged gift deed create a valid transfer of property?
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing civil revisions where the lower appellate court properly scrutinized the authenticity of a disputed document?
- Abdul Majeed and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding a murder and attempted murder case. The core legal question concerned whether the ocular testimony, which attributed specific firing roles to the appellants, could be relied upon despite inconsistencies with the medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution established the occurrence, the specific roles attributed to the appellants—Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Yaqub—were doubtful. The medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses suggested a strong possibility that they were caused by stray pellets from a single shot, rather than individual shots fired by each appellant as alleged. Consequently, the Court applied the principle of the benefit of the doubt, setting aside the convictions of the appellants and acquitting them. The judgment emphasizes that where ocular testimony conflicts with medical evidence regarding the mechanism of injury, the court must exercise caution and extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court acquit an accused if medical evidence creates a reasonable doubt regarding the specific role attributed to them by ocular witnesses?
- Does the possibility of injuries being caused by stray pellets entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial?
- Is ocular testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction when it conflicts with medical evidence regarding the nature and cause of injuries?
- Abdul Majeed and 10 others vs Province of Punjab and another1990 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a second appeal concerning a land dispute under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioners, claiming title through an allotment to their predecessor, contested a prior sale of the same land to the respondents by the Custodian. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court failed to apply an independent mind in a second appeal involving judgments of variance, and whether the Custodian's sale was legally valid given the acquisition notifications. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly addressed the arguments raised by counsel and that the petitioners could not re-open factual questions, such as the lack of Central Government approval, which were not pressed in the High Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the sale to the respondents predated the petitioners' allotment, defeating their claim. The judgment reinforces the principle that factual findings regarding title cannot be re-agitated in the Supreme Court and that statutory bars, such as Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, preclude such challenges.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court in a second appeal is required to formally compare judgments of variance if the counsel does not raise specific infirmities?
- Does Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to suits challenging orders passed by government officers in their official capacity?
- Can a party raise a question of fact in the Supreme Court that was not pressed before the High Court?
- Does Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 bar disputes regarding the title of land allotted to displaced persons?
- Abdul Latif and 4 others vs Muhammad Khan and 15 others1990 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal in a suit for declaration concerning a dispute over property alleged by the plaintiffs to be Waqf property constituting a mosque, and claimed by the petitioners to be in private ownership. The core legal question involves whether concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below regarding the nature of the property warrant interference in a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be reopened on merits in the absence of any shown error of law or principle, and technical objections raised by the petitioners do not suffice to grant leave. The ratio decidendi is that concurrent factual findings by lower courts regarding property disputes are binding and unassailable in second appeal unless a substantial error of law or principle is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower courts can be interfered with in a second appeal without demonstrating an error of law or principle?
- Can technical objections substitute for a failure to show an error of law when challenging concurrent findings of fact?
- Is leave to appeal granted against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal when the petitioners have no case on merits?
- Abdul Khaliq Khaleeque, Senior Research Officer, Council of Islamic1990 SCMR 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the appointment of a Chief Research Officer (BPS-19) within the Council of Islamic Ideology. The petitioner, a Senior Research Officer, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2, arguing that the respondent lacked the requisite research experience prescribed by the service rules. The core legal question was whether the respondent's experience as a translator qualified as research experience under the applicable rules and whether the court should interfere with the departmental selection process. The Federal Service Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal, noting that both candidates suffered from similar deficiencies and that the respondent was senior in service. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that in the absence of a specific definition of 'research experience' in the rules, the department's interpretation equating translation with research was permissible. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it is the prerogative of the Departmental Promotion Committee to determine the relative suitability of candidates, and courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the competent authority, especially when both candidates are considered.
Questions settled- Can a court substitute its judgment for that of a Departmental Promotion Committee regarding the relative suitability of candidates?
- When service rules do not define a term like 'research experience', is the departmental construction of that term permissible?
- Does an allegation of mala fide based on hearsay and internal comments by a subordinate against colleagues constitute a valid ground for judicial interference?
- Abdul Karim vs The State1990 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the conviction of the appellant, Abdul Karim, which was based solely on the retracted confession of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be sustained against an accused relying exclusively on the implication by a co-accused in a confession, in the absence of any other independent corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court observed that the trial court and the High Court erroneously used circumstantial evidence relevant only to the co-accused to implicate the appellant, despite the absence of a conspiracy charge. Furthermore, the Court rejected the lower courts' assumptions—that the crime required multiple participants or that the co-accused had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant—as artificial and insufficient for corroboration. The key principle laid down is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a co-accused's confession without independent evidence connecting the accused to the offense. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a co-accused's confession in the absence of other evidence?
- Are assumptions regarding the necessity of multiple participants in a crime sufficient to corroborate the involvement of an accused?
- Is it permissible to use circumstantial evidence relevant to one accused to sustain the conviction of another accused in the absence of a conspiracy charge?
- Abdul Kabir vs The State1990 PLD Supreme Court 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's rejection of the petitioner's bail application. The petitioner, accused of murder and bodily injuries, sought statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of statutory delay, having been detained for over two years. The prosecution opposed the application under the fourth proviso, arguing that the petitioner was a previously convicted offender, having been convicted and sentenced to death on four counts in another murder case. The petitioner contended that because his sentence in the other case was suspended by the High Court pending appeal, he could not be treated as a previous convict. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that a conviction remains operative until it is set aside by a higher appellate court. The suspension of a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely suspends the execution of the punishment as a concession, but does not erase or suspend the conviction itself. Consequently, the petitioner remained a previously convicted offender, rendering the statutory bail provisions inapplicable.
Questions settled- Does the suspension of a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 also suspend or erase the conviction of the accused?
- Can an accused whose sentence has been suspended pending appeal be considered a previously convicted offender under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the pendency of an appeal against conviction keep the conviction in abeyance for the purpose of granting statutory bail?
- Abdul Haque vs The Director General, T & T and others1990 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside a departmental decision declaring the petitioner senior to respondent No. 5. The petitioner, a Steno-typist confirmed in 1956, had been on deputation to another directorate before reverting to his parent department in 1980. Respondent No. 5, confirmed in 1962, remained in the parent department and was promoted to Stenographer in 1975, later receiving a selection grade. The petitioner claimed seniority based on his earlier confirmation as a Steno-typist and argued that his lien on his permanent post in the parent department was maintained during his deputation, meaning his seniority should have been preserved despite his absence. The Federal Service Tribunal had ruled against the petitioner, overturning an earlier departmental order that favored him. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the retention of his lien and seniority while on deputation required further judicial examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner's seniority was correctly assessed.
Questions settled- Does an employee retain seniority in their parent department while serving on deputation in another directorate?
- Does a permanent employee maintain a lien on their post while serving in a different department on loan?
- Can a departmental authority's decision regarding seniority be set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal if the issue of lien retention was not adequately considered?
- Abdul Haque Shah vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar1990 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Patwari dismissed from service after inquiry on three separate charges of misconduct and corruption, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgments of the Service Tribunal dismissing his appeals. The core legal questions involved whether the Assistant Commissioner possessed the competency as the appointing authority to order the dismissal, and whether a civil servant already dismissed in one inquiry could be subjected to subsequent dismissal orders while his appeals were pending. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that pursuant to the amended West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Subordinate Service Rules of 1963 via the notification dated 15th July 1972, the Assistant Commissioner was indeed designated as the appointing authority and competent to order dismissal. Furthermore, a person dismissed from service is treated as remaining in service for the purpose of pending proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that the Assistant Commissioner is the competent appointing and dismissing authority under the amended service rules.
Questions settled- Whether the Assistant Commissioner is competent to pass an order of dismissal against a Patwari as the appointing authority under the West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Subordinate Service Rules of 1963?
- Does a person dismissed from service cease to be a civil servant for the purpose of multiple parallel inquiries while an appeal is pending?
- Whether multiple dismissal orders can be sustained against a civil servant facing separate disciplinary inquiries?
- Abdul Hamid Khan and 10 others vs Mst. Rajo Bibi and 9 others1990 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two petitions directed against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioners' First Appeals challenging the grant of temporary injunctions by the trial Court in suits for declaration filed by the respondents. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's treatment of First Appeals as Civil Revisions and whether observations made during interlocutory proceedings prejudice the main trial. The Supreme Court held that discretionary orders regarding temporary injunctions must not influence the course of the trial, and consequently refused leave to appeal while issuing clarifying observations to protect the petitioners' interests in the main case. The key principle laid down is that observations made in interlocutory orders pertaining to temporary injunctions shall not prejudice or influence the merits of the main suit during trial.
Questions settled- Whether observations made in temporary injunction orders can influence the course of the main trial?
- Can the High Court treat First Appeals against temporary injunctions as Civil Revisions?
- Are discretionary orders passed on temporary injunction questions binding on the merits of the main case?
- Abdul Hamid Dogar vs Abdul Wahid and another1990 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two connected petitions directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revisions by the High Court, arising out of cross-suits involving monetary claims and an alleged arrangement to send the petitioner's sons abroad for employment. The core legal question revolves around whether the lower courts erred in non-suiting the petitioner based on technical considerations and through the non-reading and misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea possessed a prima facie ring of truth corroborated by the circumstances, noting that such cases of first impression involving the defrauding of poor persons under the lure of foreign employment require authoritative pronouncement. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted in both petitions to be heard along with a similar connected matter, and the effect of the impugned decree in one of the related petitions was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the civil revisions based on technical considerations?
- Does a claim involving fraudulent promises of foreign employment warrant leave to appeal for authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the lower courts committed non-reading and misreading of evidence in appreciating the claims of the parties?
- Abdul Hameed vs Deputy Commissioner, Vehari and others1990 SCMR 1435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the removal of the petitioner, a Head Clerk, from service. The petitioner was dismissed following allegations that he endorsed a false office note regarding an auction sale, falsely claiming that a de-confirmation order by the Board of Revenue had been set aside by the High Court and that full payment had been made, when in fact neither was true. The core legal question was whether the dispensing of a regular inquiry by the authority was procedurally incompetent under the applicable disciplinary rules and whether such an inquiry was necessary to establish the facts. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry was properly dispensed with by the authorized officer, as the facts regarding the absence of a High Court order and the status of the auction money were verifiable without a formal inquiry. Finding no substantial legal question of public importance and no illegality in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that a regular inquiry is not mandatory when the misconduct is demonstrable from the record.
Questions settled- Can an authorized officer dispense with a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory when the facts of misconduct are verifiable from the record?
- Does the endorsement of a false office note by a civil servant constitute sufficient grounds for removal from service?
- Abdul Ghani vs Shafiq Ahmad and another1990 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent's conviction under section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code was set aside and he was acquitted of the murder charge, while the petitioner's revision petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the respondent acted within the legitimate exercise of his right of private defence of person when he intervened to protect his elderly father who was being strangulated by the deceased during a sudden quarrel over water usage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly concluded the respondent acted in self-defence, as the father's perilous condition created a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The court laid down the principle that a person is justified in using necessary force to rescue a parent from a situation presenting a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
Questions settled- Whether the right of private defence extends to causing fatal injuries to protect a parent from strangulation?
- When does an agricultural implement qualify as a weapon of offence in the context of self-defence?
- Does a sudden quarrel over property rights justify intervention by a family member to save a co-accused from death or grievous hurt?
- Abdul Ghani vs Manzoor Ahmad Butt1990 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had maintained the decree for possession of a disputed shop in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction by ignoring alleged misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding the nature of the suit property as a plot versus a built-up shop. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact on the matter, duly examined by the High Court with valid reasoning, did not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower forums. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact affirmed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction without any established error of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact affirmed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a revisional court require strong grounds of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence to interfere with factual determinations?
- Can a plea regarding the nature of the suit property as a plot or built-up shop be entertained when concurrently resolved against the petitioner?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Haji Abdul Salam and others1990 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a constitutional petition filed by Haji Abdul Salam, which was adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on October 8, 1986. The High Court, after examining the merits and legal propositions, determined that the interests of justice necessitated a remand of the case to the Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement Wing-revenue). The High Court specifically declined to adjudicate on disputed factual issues, such as the alleged failure to pay the transfer price or the validity of a compensation book, noting that such inquiries were unsuitable for constitutional proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed this decision upon appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, reasoning that the remand was appropriate as it allowed for a comprehensive examination of the merits in accordance with the law, without debarring the petitioner from participating in the proceedings. The Court affirmed that remanding a case for a proper inquiry into disputed facts is a valid exercise of judicial discretion when the record is insufficient for a final determination.
Questions settled- Is a remand order appropriate when the record is insufficient to determine disputed factual issues?
- Does a remand order in a constitutional petition violate the rights of the petitioner if they are permitted to participate in the subsequent proceedings?
- Can a High Court decline to decide factual disputes in a constitutional petition and instead remand the matter for inquiry?
- Abdul Ghaffar vs WAPDA through its Chairman and another1990 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service by WAPDA. The core legal question was whether Rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of WAPDA, which allowed the competent authority to dispense with a formal inquiry and proceed via a show-cause notice, was arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of WAPDA are non-statutory and do not constitute 'law' under Article 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court determined that the procedure providing multiple options for disciplinary action, including dispensing with a formal inquiry while still requiring a show-cause notice, is based on a rational classification and is not inherently discriminatory. The Court also noted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in a statement, rendering the challenge to the procedure moot. The key principle established is that non-statutory service rules are not subject to the same constitutional scrutiny as statutory laws regarding fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Are the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of WAPDA considered 'law' under Article 8 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a disciplinary procedure that offers multiple options for inquiry, including dispensing with a formal inquiry, be challenged as discriminatory?
- Does the failure to raise a constitutional ground before the Service Tribunal preclude a party from raising it in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Abdul Aziz vs Saleh Muhammad and another1990 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Baluchistan High Court, which had declined to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner standing trial alongside a co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in refusing bail when a prosecution witness had directly implicated the petitioner in the murder charge, despite arguments concerning the delay in recording the witness's statement. The Supreme Court held that in view of the weight of evidence from at least one eye-witness directly implicating the accused, the High Court rightly refused bail, as deeper evaluation of evidence and assessment of delay cannot be undertaken at the bail stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that tentative assessment of a direct ocular account is sufficient to decline bail without entering into a detailed comparative analysis of witness statements or procedural delays at this preliminary stage.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused when an eye-witness directly implicates the accused in a murder case?
- Can the effect of delay in recording a witness statement be determined at the bail stage?
- Is a detailed evaluation of statements of witnesses justified at the juncture of considering a bail petition?
- Abdul Aziz and others vs Malik Shahab Din and others1990 SCMR 1610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court in constitutional proceedings to interfere with findings of fraud made by Settlement authorities. The core legal question examined was whether the notified officer possessed the legal authority to reopen long-settled land allotments, determine the validity of past review orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and treat subsequent transactions as fraudulent under instructions issued pursuant to the repealing of evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that the notified authority acted without jurisdiction in sitting in judgment over the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's historical orders and in interfering with allotments and sales that had stood unchallenged for two decades, particularly when no matters were validly pending or remanded. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that notified officers under repealing evacuee legislation cannot exercise roving review powers over closed, historical transactions and settled orders without explicit statutory backing or pending/remanded proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can upset findings of fraud arrived at by Settlement authorities?
- Does a notified officer under the repealing evacuee laws have the jurisdiction to determine the validity and effect of past orders passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner?
- Can a notified authority interfere with land allotments and subsequent sales that have remained in effect and unchallenged for a long duration without pending cases or remand orders?
- Abdul Aziz and 3 others vs Abdul Rahim and 46 others1990 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning water rights, specifically the allocation of 'Nikkal' water by the Deputy Canal Officer. The petitioners challenged an order of the Deputy Canal Officer, which reallocated water rights from the petitioners to the respondents, arguing that the allocation failed to prioritize filling village ponds in specific squares and that proper notice was not served to all villagers. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the petitioners, but the District Judge reversed this decision, upholding the Deputy Canal Officer's order, a judgment subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The Supreme Court examined the merits and found that the water allocation was based on a correct assessment of sufficiency for the village ponds, deeming additional water a misuse. Furthermore, the Court held that public announcements via mosque loudspeakers and beat of drums constituted sufficient notice to the villagers. Finding no error in the lower courts' factual determinations, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Questions settled- Does an announcement via mosque loudspeaker and beat of drum constitute sufficient notice to villagers in a dispute over water rights?
- Can a High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding water allocation?
- Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Muhammad Zarif and 3 others1990 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a constitutional petition dismissed by the High Court concerning a suit for pre-emption based on tenancy. The appellants, who were the original defendants/vendees, challenged the remand of the case to the Collector. During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the appellants' locus standi, arguing that the appellants had sold the suit land to a third party, Mst. Jannat, who possessed a superior title. Furthermore, the respondents contended that Mst. Jannat was a necessary party to the litigation. The appellants countered that the land had been re-sold to them, though this assertion remained contested. The Supreme Court held that regardless of the alleged re-sale, Mst. Jannat was an essential party to the proceedings, as she was entitled to challenge the appellants' claims regarding the transfer of title. Consequently, the Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, ruling that the absence of a necessary party rendered the appeal unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellants failed to implead a necessary party whose interests were directly affected by the litigation.
Questions settled- Is a subsequent purchaser of suit land a necessary party in a pre-emption appeal?
- Does an appellant have locus standi to pursue an appeal if they have transferred the subject property to a third party?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for failure to implead a necessary party?
- Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (East), Karachi1990 PTD 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals regarding the interpretation of the Sales-tax Act, 1951, specifically whether raw materials consumed in the manufacture of exported goods are liable to sales tax. The core legal questions were whether cotton used in yarn production and yarn used in cloth production, or components like glass shells used in bulbs, are taxable when the final products are exempt from sales tax, and whether such consumption constitutes a "sale" under Section 3(6)(d) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were without merit. The Court affirmed that "partly manufactured goods" are subject to sales tax if the end-product is exempt, ensuring the tax is collected at some stage of the manufacturing process. It further ruled that the "keeping of goods" by a manufacturer for their own use is deemed a "sale" under the Act, regardless of whether those goods are assimilated into the final product. The principle established is that the integrated nature of a manufacturing process does not exempt component materials from taxation when the final output is otherwise exempt from sales tax.
Questions settled- Does the 'keeping of goods' by a manufacturer for their own use constitute a 'sale' under Section 3(6)(d) of the Sales-tax Act, 1951?
- Are 'partly manufactured goods' liable to sales tax when the final end-product is exempt from such tax?
- Does the integrated nature of a manufacturing process exempt raw materials from sales tax if the final product is exempt?
- Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (East), Karachi (Copy)1990 PLD Supreme Court 422 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from appeals challenging the levy of sales tax on raw materials and partly manufactured goods consumed in the production of exported items. The appellants argued that the manufacturing process was integrated and could not be bifurcated, meaning that raw cotton, rather than yarn, was the raw material for cloth, and that intermediate goods assimilated into finished products did not constitute 'use' under the Sales-tax Act, 1951. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that where an end-product is exempt from sales tax, the partly manufactured goods incorporated into it are liable to sales tax. The Court clarified that under Section 3(6)(d) of the Act, a manufacturer keeping partly manufactured goods for its own use is deemed to have sold them, making them taxable. The Court established that the assimilation of intermediate goods into a finished product does not escape the definition of 'use' or the levy of sales tax if the final product is exempt, thereby preventing total tax avoidance.
Questions settled- Whether yarn or raw cotton constitutes the 'partly manufactured goods' in respect of cloth manufactured and exported under the Sales-tax Act 1951?
- Does the keeping of partly manufactured goods by a manufacturer for its own use in producing an exempt end-product constitute a 'sale' under Section 3(6)(d) of the Sales-tax Act 1951?
- Can intermediate goods assimilated into a finished product escape the levy of sales tax if the final end-product is exempt from tax?
- A.D.Malik vs Abdul Hameed and others1990 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a long-standing dispute between the parties regarding the occupation of a shop. The core legal question concerns the settlement of the tenancy dispute through a voluntary compromise agreement between the petitioner-tenant and the contesting respondent-landlord. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recorded the statements of the learned counsel for both parties, wherein the petitioner agreed to vacate the shop voluntarily by a specified date, and the respondent agreed to let the petitioner remain in possession until that date upon the continued payment of monthly rent, without the need for execution proceedings. The court held that the petition should be disposed of in terms of the voluntary compromise and undertaking given by the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that parties can amicably resolve tenancy disputes before the court through binding undertakings to vacate premises by a date certain without requiring execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Can parties settle a tenancy dispute before the Supreme Court through a compromise regarding the vacation of premises?
- Whether a tenant can be bound by an undertaking given to the court to voluntarily vacate a shop by a specific date?
- 1. Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. 2. Philips Electrical Industries Of Pakistan Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Salestax (East), Karachi. Commissioner Of Sales Tax (East), Karachi_PTCL 1990 CL. 576 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves tax appeals concerning the liability of raw materials to sales tax when consumed in the manufacture of end-products that are themselves exempt from sales tax. The core legal question is whether intermediate goods, such as yarn used for cloth or glass shells used for bulbs, qualify as "partly manufactured goods" under the Sales-tax Act, 1951, and are thus taxable when the final products are exempt. The Supreme Court held that the appeals must be dismissed, affirming that such raw materials are subject to sales tax. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the Act is to ensure that sales tax is paid at at least one stage of production. Where the end-product is exempt, the "partly manufactured goods" incorporated into it lose their exemption status. The court established the principle that the keeping of goods by a manufacturer for their own use constitutes a "sale" under Section 3(6)(d) of the Act, thereby ensuring that the tax burden is not entirely avoided when the final product is not taxable.
Questions settled- Are raw materials consumed in the manufacture of exported goods liable to sales tax if the end-products are exempt from such tax?
- Does the keeping of manufactured goods by a manufacturer for their own use constitute a "sale" under the Sales-tax Act, 1951?
- Can the process of manufacturing cloth from yarn be considered an integrated process that exempts the intermediate yarn from sales tax?
- Zulfiqar and 12 others vs Gulzar Ahmad alias Lala and 2 others1989 SCMR 1484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The underlying suit was for a declaration. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed the authority and discretion to permit the conversion of a Regular Second Appeal into a Civil Revision. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in the case of Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others (PLD 1987 SC 319), held that the High Court erred in its approach regarding this conversion. The Court found that the legal position favored the petitioners, thereby determining that the High Court should have allowed such conversion under the circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directing that the appeal proceed on the existing record while allowing parties to submit necessary additional documents for the final disposal of the matter. This judgment reinforces the procedural flexibility available to appellate courts in managing the classification of appeals and revisions.
Questions settled- Can a High Court permit the conversion of a Regular Second Appeal into a Civil Revision?
- Does the precedent in Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others support the conversion of a Regular Second Appeal into a Civil Revision?
- Zulfiqar Ali and others vs Administrator (RP), Settlement1989 SCMR 2025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against the deprivation of property No. BXII-3 S-56/58, constructed on evacuee property. The core legal question concerned whether the transfer of the property in favor of respondent No. 3 was obtained through misrepresentation regarding construction eligibility, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice against the petitioner who was legally eligible. The court held that the contentions raised regarding the deprivation of property on technical grounds and the alleged hoodwinking of the department by respondent No. 3 required detailed examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of the property transfer and the eligibility criteria under the applicable settlement scheme.
Questions settled- Whether an applicant who has not raised the required construction is eligible for the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when a party is deprived of property on technical grounds resulting in a miscarriage of justice?
- Whether a transfer obtained by misrepresentation to the department creates a valid right in favor of the transferee?
- Zubair Ahmad and another vs Ch. Muhammad Abaid Ullah and another1989 SCMR 1252(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the scope, duties, and functions of a referee or an arbitrator. The core legal question involves determining the exact legal parameters governing referees and arbitrators, particularly in light of previous judicial precedents such as Ch. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Akram and others and Muhammad Hanif Khan and another v. Ghulam Farid Khan and others. The Court held that the case is a fit one for granting leave to appeal to examine these issues thoroughly. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will review and define the precise legal framework and functions applicable to referees and arbitrators when conflicting or significant interpretations are raised.
Questions settled- What is the scope, duties, and functions of a referee or an arbitrator?
- When is a case considered fit for granting leave to appeal regarding the functions of an arbitrator?
- Ziaulislam vs The State1989 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against an order of the Sind High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioner's application for the grant of bail pending trial. The petitioner was facing charges under Section 2(a) and Clause 8 of Section 156(1) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was legally sustainable given the facts and circumstances of the case. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, finding no grounds to interfere with the denial of bail. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the lower court's exercise of discretion regarding bail in the context of the Customs Act, 1969, was correct and did not warrant appellate intervention.
Questions settled- Is the refusal of bail by the High Court in a case involving the Customs Act 1969 subject to interference by the Supreme Court where no legal or factual error is demonstrated?
- Does the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court warrant the grant of leave to appeal when the record supports the lower court's decision?
- Zargul vs The State1989 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and a sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant fatally shot the deceased over a motive involving illicit intimacy. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the effect of prolonged abscondence, and the correct quantum of sentence applicable given intervening statutory amendments altering transportation for life to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on reliable eyewitness testimony and unexplained long abscondence, but modified the sentence from imprisonment for life back to transportation for life, noting that the offense was committed when transportation for life was the prescribed penalty carrying a duration of twenty years before the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 came into force. The key principle laid down is that substantive penal enhancements regarding sentence duration cannot be applied retrospectively to offenses committed prior to the statutory change.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can prolonged abscondence without a plausible explanation be used as corroborative evidence against an accused in a murder trial?
- Whether the substitution of 'transportation for life' with 'imprisonment for life' by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 applies retrospectively to an offense committed prior to its promulgation?
- Zareen Bibi and others vs Inayat Begum and others1989 SCMR 1425(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged concurrent findings of fact by the trial court, the appellate court, and the Lahore High Court, which had rejected the petitioners' claim regarding the marital status and parentage of the respondents. The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Nur Muhammad, argued that the respondent Inayat Begum was not his wife and that the other respondents were not his children, relying on an alleged admission made by Inayat Begum before a Magistrate. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged statement had never been duly proved as a document in the proceedings. Furthermore, the respondent Inayat Begum was never summoned to the witness box to clarify or prove the alleged statement. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence to substantiate the petitioners' claim, the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts were sound. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with such concurrent findings and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts when the evidence relied upon by the petitioner was never duly proved?
- Is an unproved statement allegedly made before a Magistrate sufficient to overturn concurrent findings of fact regarding marital status?
- Does the failure to summon a party to the witness box to prove an alleged admission undermine a claim based on that admission?
- Zakaullah and others vs Member, Federal Land Commission, Pakistan1989 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order concerning land commission proceedings. The core legal question addressed by the Court pertains to the procedural consolidation of the instant petition with other pending civil appeals that share identical facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court, noting that the issues in the present case are similar to those in Civil Petitions Nos. 240/R of 1976 and 246/R of 1976, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the petition should be converted into an appeal to ensure it is heard alongside Civil Appeals Nos. 292 and 293 of 1976. The key principle established is that where multiple petitions arise from similar facts and circumstances, judicial efficiency and consistency are best served by consolidating them for a joint hearing, provided the record is adequately prepared with necessary documentation. The Court further directed that the existing stay order remain in effect pending the final adjudication of the consolidated appeals.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal for the purpose of consolidation with similar pending matters?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to direct the consolidation of cases sharing identical facts and circumstances?
- Zaitoon Begum and others vs Agha Qasim Ali and others1989 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over a house originally owned by Jeewan Khan, which was sold to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in 1933, with the vendor and later his widow remaining in possession as tenants. The respondents subsequently filed a suit for a declaration that they had become owners through adverse possession since 1933. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it, and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' revision petition. The core legal question is whether persons whose predecessor entered possession as a tenant and against whom an ejectment order was passed can subsequently claim title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding the tenant status and the bar against claiming adverse possession requires examination. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal, laying down that a tenant or their successors cannot easily set up a plea of adverse possession without establishing a clear termination or change of permissive character of possession.
Questions settled- Can a tenant or their successors-in-interest claim ownership through adverse possession against the landlord?
- Does the continuation of possession following an unexecuted ejectment order affect the possessor's legal status?
- Whether the failure to execute an ejectment order transforms permissive possession into adverse possession?
- Zahoor Ahmad vs Abdul Ghafoor and others1989 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought the ejectment of respondent No. 1 from a shop on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, but the Additional District Judge set aside the order on appeal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition, declining to interfere with a finding based on the appreciation of evidence. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly refused to interfere with the appellate court's finding of fact regarding personal need in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that since the finding of the Additional District Judge was based on the appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity, the High Court very properly refused to interfere. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that findings of fact by lower appellate forums based on evidence will not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction unless afflicted with legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding personal need based on the appreciation of evidence?
- Does an appellate court's reversal of a Rent Controller's ejectment order warrant interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
- Zahid Mahmood and another vs Mst. Iqbal Begum1989 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the High Court of Sindh's dismissal of their first rent appeal, which had upheld an eviction order issued on the ground of subletting. The petitioners raised factual controversies regarding the transfer of possession, arguing that physical possession was not transferred and that there was no proof of legal possession being transferred for consideration, such as rent paid by the sub-tenant to the original tenant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the questions raised were essentially issues of fact concluded by unexceptionable concurrent findings of the lower forums. The Court further observed that technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply to rent proceedings before the Rent Controller, justifying the High Court's reliance on the record and high probabilities to resolve the question of subletting.
Questions settled- Whether strict provisions of the Evidence Act apply to proceedings before the Rent Controller?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding subletting can be re-agitated in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Can a court infer subletting based on material on record and high probabilities in the absence of direct evidence of payment of rent by the sub-tenant?
- Zaheeruddin and 4 others vs The State1989 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Petitioners, belonging to the Ahmadi community, were convicted under Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for wearing badges of 'Kalma Tayyabba', which was considered as 'posing' as Muslims. Their convictions and sentences of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine were upheld through the hierarchy of courts up to the High Court. Upon petitions for leave to appeal, the core legal questions involved whether wearing such a badge amounts to 'posing' as a Muslim under Section 298-C, whether the charge was framed in accordance with law, and whether Section 298-C violates Fundamental Rights Nos. 19, 20, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the points raised were of substantial legal importance, consequently granting leave to appeal and allowing the petitions for a full hearing.
Questions settled- Whether wearing a Kalma Tayyabba badge by an Ahmadi amounts to posing as a Muslim under Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the charge framed against the petitioners was in accordance with law?
- Whether Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violates Fundamental Rights Nos. 19, 20, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Zaheer Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Amina Begum1989 SCMR 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from separate proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, involving the same parties and the same commercial premises. The core legal questions were whether the respondent-landlady had established a bona fide personal requirement for the shop for her son's business, and whether the petitioner-tenant had committed a default in the payment of rent. In both instances, the Rent Controller and the High Court had concurrently ruled in favor of the landlady, finding that the personal requirement was proven and that the tenant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the rent default. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement and rent default were supported by the evidence and had been concurrently decided by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference and dismissed both petitions, affirming the eviction orders. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, when supported by evidence, are generally not disturbed in appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement in rent cases?
- Does a tenant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for rent default justify an eviction order?
- Is a landlord's requirement for a shop for their son's business a valid ground for ejectment under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Zafar Ali vs Allah Bachayo1989 PLD Supreme Court 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that set aside a Rent Controller's eviction order, holding that the disputed premises constituted a 'hotel' and were thus outside the jurisdiction of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a shop used for selling tea, described by the parties as 'hotel business', qualifies as a 'hotel' under the Ordinance, thereby excluding it from the definition of 'premises'. The Supreme Court held that the term 'hotel' in the Ordinance implies an establishment providing lodging for travellers and guests, not merely a place offering refreshments. Consequently, a tea shop does not fall within the exclusion. Furthermore, the Court held that the tenant could not raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in appeal when it required factual determination, particularly when the landlord had no opportunity to lead evidence on the issue at the trial stage. The Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the eviction application.
Questions settled- Does a shop used exclusively for selling tea and refreshments constitute a 'hotel' within the meaning of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a party raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in appeal when the objection requires the determination of a question of fact?
- Is a court required to decide an issue based on an alleged admission in the pleadings if the court deems it necessary to require proof of such facts?
- Yara and others vs Ahmad1989 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a declaration suit concerning land ownership following consolidation proceedings. The core legal question is whether the consolidation authorities were justified in allocating a specific portion of land measuring 10 marlas to the respondent based on prior joint possession and residential structures. The Supreme Court held that the consolidation authorities acted with good justification in allocating the area to the respondent to protect existing residential houses following a flood, and that the lower forums committed no infirmity in dismissing the petitioners' claims. The Court established the principle that orders of consolidation authorities made with valid justification regarding pre-existing joint holdings and residential structures will not be interfered with in appellate review.
Questions settled- Whether consolidation authorities are justified in allocating land to a party based on pre-existing residential structures?
- Can a declaration suit for adverse possession succeed against a co-sharer in joint holdings without establishing statutory requirements?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding consolidation proceedings absent legal infirmity?
- World Trade Corporation vs Export Promotion Bureau and others1989 SCMR 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court dated 22-10-1988, which had upheld conditions imposed by the Export Promotion Bureau regarding the petitioner's export quota entitlements. The petitioner argued that the previous order was based on incorrect factual assumptions regarding alleged unauthorized shipments made in 1984. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the ban imposed on 19-8-1984 did not become effective until 20-11-1984, meaning their shipments during that interim period were lawful and did not require regularization or penalties. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's acceptance of the Bureau's conditions and the alleged factual errors in the previous judgment warranted a review. The Court held that the review petition must be dismissed, affirming that the mere existence of a plausible alternative view does not constitute valid grounds for review when the Court has already adopted one of two possible interpretations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the specific argument regarding the effective date of the ban had not been raised in previous proceedings, leaving the petitioner to pursue that argument in appropriate forums in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an equally plausible alternative view constitute sufficient grounds for a review of a judgment?
- Can a party raise a new factual argument in a review petition that was not agitated before the High Court or the Supreme Court in the original proceedings?
- World Trade Corporation through its Managing Partner Abdul Hafeez1989 SCMR 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a High Court decision regarding the allocation of export quotas for cotton textiles. Having made unauthorized excess shipments, the petitioners were granted regularization by the Export Promotion Bureau (EPB) on the condition that the excess would be adjusted against their 1986 quota entitlement and a penalty paid. The petitioners initially accepted these terms but later claimed a subsequent letter waived the adjustment condition. The Supreme Court examined the authenticity of the alleged waiver letter, noting that the official who purportedly signed it denied its issuance and that the petitioners' subsequent correspondence failed to reference it. The Court held that the petitioners, having availed themselves of the regularization benefit under the original conditions, were estopped from challenging those conditions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that there was no reliable evidence of a waiver and that the petitioners had no valid cause to maintain their constitutional challenge.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the conditions of a regulatory relief after having accepted and acted upon those conditions?
- Does the acceptance of a benefit conditional upon specific terms preclude a subsequent challenge to those terms?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable where the petitioner has already accepted the terms of an administrative decision?
- Wazeer Ali vs Abdullah and others1989 SCMR 1485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which had challenged an appellate order setting aside a trial court decree passed in favour of the petitioner in a declaratory suit for possession. The petitioner had instituted the original suit seeking a declaration that a disputed sale-deed dated 4-1-1967 was fictitious, fraudulent, and ineffective against his rights. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of evidence regarding the execution and proof of the sale-deed, specifically the non-production of marginal witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the argument pertained to a question of fact which had been properly adjudicated upon by the appellate court after appreciating the evidence, and no legal defect was shown to warrant interference by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that findings of fact by lower appellate courts based on evidence will not be interfered with absent a legal defect.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact recorded by an appellate court regarding the execution of a sale-deed can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Does the non-production of a marginal witness to a sale-deed raise a question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
- When can the High Court interfere with concurrent or appellate findings of fact in a civil matter?
- Water and Power Development AUTHORITYPeitioner vs Abdul Rashid1989 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent's service appeal was allowed and he was held entitled to be granted Grade-16 as a sub-Engineer. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred for failure to exhaust departmental remedies under section 4 of the relevant Act, whether the appeal was barred by time, and whether the respondent possessed the requisite recognized qualification in civil engineering for promotion to Grade-16 given that the institution's recognition status was disputed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed consideration, and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment pending the final decision of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the exhaustion of departmental remedies, limitation periods, and educational qualifications for service upgradation warrant a full hearing on merits before the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 if the aggrieved civil servant fails to file a departmental appeal or review against the original adverse order?
- Whether an employee holding a diploma from an institution recognized only for specific disciplines is qualified for promotion or upgradation to Grade-16 in a different discipline under the applicable service rules?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Riaz1989 SCMR 1663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed an employee's appeal and restored a departmental appellate order that set aside his dismissal and substituted it with the stoppage of four annual increments. The respondent employee was originally dismissed for misconduct, after which an order was passed purportedly on his departmental appeal. Subsequently, another officer claiming to be the competent authority set aside that order, leading the employee to approach the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that the earlier order had been acted upon and implemented through the employee's reinstatement, declining to examine its validity or the competency of the making authority. The core legal question concerns whether an invalid or allegedly incompetent departmental order can be sustained simply because it has been acted upon, and whether the Service Tribunal was justified in bypassing the questions of jurisdiction and the merits of the misconduct charge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions and suspended the impugned order in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by an allegedly incompetent authority can be sustained solely on the ground that it has been acted upon and implemented?
- Is it incumbent upon the Service Tribunal to examine the correctness of findings of misconduct before allowing an employee's appeal?
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is competent when no departmental appeal is filed against a subsequent superseding order?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Riaz Butt and others1989 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the removal from service of the two respondents. The respondents had been initially exonerated by a subordinate authority, but the WAPDA "Authority", exercising suo motu revisional powers under clause 12 of the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978, set aside the exoneration and ordered their removal without recording reasons in the impugned order or indicating consideration of the inquiry report. The Federal Service Tribunal held the removal orders to be arbitrary and illegal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, assuming the Tribunal's observations regarding the lack of reasons in the formal order are correct, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the case to the Authority for a fresh decision or re-writing of a proper judgment instead of simply setting aside the removal.
Questions settled- Whether the Authority can revise an order of a subordinate authority under Rule 12 of the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978 without recording reasons in the impugned order?
- Whether internal file notings and opinions can cure the absence of reasons in a formal office order passed by a statutory authority?
- Whether the Service Tribunal, upon finding that an order lacks proper reasons, should remand the case to the competent authority for a fresh decision?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Akram1989 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially accepted the appeal of a Meter Reader, Muhammad Akram. The Tribunal had quashed the respondent's removal from service but maintained an order of reversion for two years and directed that the period the respondent remained out of service be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Federal Service Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction, which the petitioner contended was limited to examining issues of mala fides and coram non judice, citing precedent. The Supreme Court found that the legal point raised regarding the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal exceeded its statutory authority in modifying the disciplinary orders passed against the employee. The appeal was ordered to be prepared on the existing record, with permission for parties to file additional documents within two months.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary orders beyond the scope of mala fides and coram non judice?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service to a period of reversion and leave without pay?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Javaid Ahmad, Line1989 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a service dispute between the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and its employee, a Line Superintendent, whose services were terminated in 1981. The employee successfully challenged his termination before the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, orders which the Lahore High Court subsequently upheld. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in failing to apply Section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, which deems WAPDA employees to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Supreme Court held that the amendment to the 1958 Act effectively classified WAPDA employees as civil servants, thereby excluding them from the jurisdiction of labour courts. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court judgments, ruling that the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, as the appropriate forum for such service disputes is the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 classify WAPDA employees as civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Do labour courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate service termination disputes involving WAPDA employees?
- Is a WAPDA employee considered a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Ajmal Hameed1989 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the termination of the respondent, a former temporary Junior Engineer with the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The respondent was granted leave for Umra but failed to return to duty upon its expiration, despite warnings. Subsequently, his services were removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Following his removal, the respondent submitted his resignation and remained inactive regarding his employment status for approximately three years before appealing to the C.M.L.A. and subsequently the Ministry of Water and Power, which rejected his appeal. The Federal Service Tribunal later issued a favorable order for the respondent. The petitioner contends that the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred due to the significant delay in challenging the termination. The Supreme Court finds that the case requires consideration regarding the limitation issue and grants leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is maintainable when the aggrieved party has delayed challenging the termination order for several years?
- Does the failure to agitate a service termination for a significant period render an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal time-barred?
- Water and Power Development Authority and another vs Muhammad1989 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a judgment of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had modified the respondent's penalty from dismissal from service to removal from service, following the respondent's misconduct involving the incorrect recording of consumer meter readings on twenty occasions. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to provide sufficient reasons for substituting the penalty, asserting that the original dismissal was competently awarded. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Service Tribunal's appellate powers, referencing established precedents regarding the amplitude of such authority. The Court held that the Service Tribunal acted within its competent power when modifying the penalty. Consequently, the Court determined that the impugned order did not raise a question of law of public importance sufficient to justify granting leave to appeal under the Constitution. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the Tribunal's discretion in matters of service penalties.
Questions settled- Does the modification of a service penalty by a Service Tribunal raise a question of law of public importance justifying leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Does a Service Tribunal possess the authority to substitute a penalty of dismissal with removal from service?
- Wasil Khan vs Mst. Sakina Bayee and 3 others1989 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning the sale of property in Zaryab Colony, Peshawar. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 4, acting as general attorney for other respondents, entered into an agreement to sell the property and received earnest money, evidenced by a receipt (Ex.PW1/1). The trial court, district court, and High Court dismissed the suit, partly relying on the exclusion of the receipt from evidence due to it being unstamped. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in excluding the document. Citing the proviso to Section 35 of the Stamp Act 1899, the Court clarified that an insufficiently stamped instrument, other than specific exceptions, is admissible in evidence upon payment of the requisite duty and penalty. Additionally, the Court noted that the failure of the respondent who negotiated the bargain to appear in court cast doubt on the respondents' bona fides. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an insufficiently stamped document be admitted in evidence upon payment of the requisite duty and penalty?
- Does the failure of a material witness to appear in court to rebut a claim create an adverse inference?
- Is a court justified in dismissing a suit for specific performance solely on the basis of an unstamped receipt without allowing for the payment of duty?
- Wasal Ahmad vs The State1989 SCMR 1992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction from Section 304, Part-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner sought to re-argue the evidence, which the Supreme Court declined to entertain, noting that such appreciation of evidence is not permissible in leave to appeal proceedings. Regarding the sentence, the petitioner contended that the maximum penalty was unwarranted. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, emphasizing that the incident involved the deaths of seven individuals due to the petitioner's rash and negligent driving. The Court held that given the gravity of the consequences—seven fatalities—a sentence lesser than the maximum prescribed under Section 304-A would not have been justified. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the appropriateness of the maximum sentence for the proven negligence.
Questions settled- Is the appreciation of evidence permissible in proceedings for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Does the death of multiple victims due to rash and negligent driving justify the imposition of the maximum sentence under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Waqar Ali Zafar and others vs Province of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition against the requisitioning of property. The petitioners contended that the requisition order issued by the Commissioner was unlawful because they were in actual occupation of the disputed property, and additionally argued that the house was incomplete and required further construction. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could determine the factual controversy regarding the vacancy or occupation of the property at the time of requisition. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, holding that the High Court correctly declined to engage in a factual inquiry regarding the vacancy of the property, as such disputes fall within the domain of a court of plenary jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that where a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is pending, the civil court is the competent forum to adjudicate factual disputes concerning the status of the property at the time of its requisition.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction determine factual disputes regarding whether a property was vacant at the time of its requisition?
- Is a civil court the appropriate forum to adjudicate factual controversies concerning the occupation status of requisitioned property when a civil suit is pending?
- WAPDA through its Chairman and another vs Muhammad Latif1989 SCMR 1771(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the High Court's acceptance of the respondent's appeal regarding his removal from service and consequential punishments, following his earlier acquittal by a Special Judge in criminal proceedings concerning the same accusations. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the respondent's exoneration by the Service Tribunal raised a question of law of public importance warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal did not raise any question of law of public importance. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal under such circumstances unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
Questions settled- Does the exoneration of an employee by a service tribunal in departmental proceedings raise a question of law of public importance when criminal charges on the same facts resulted in an acquittal?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a service tribunal's judgment where no substantial question of law of public importance is involved?
- Wali Muhammad vs Mukhtar Hussain1989 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal in a rent restriction case challenging an ejectment order passed against the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the ejectment order, specifically focusing on two primary legal questions. First, the Court will determine whether the relationship of landlord and tenant could be established between the parties while appeal proceedings regarding the ownership of the property were pending. Second, the Court will consider whether the case is distinguishable from standard ejectment cases based on default in rent payment, particularly where the tenancy was not long-standing under the new purchaser and the period of default found by the lower courts was minimal. Additionally, the Court will examine whether the petitioner might have been entitled to discretionary relief had the issue of the landlord-tenant relationship been framed differently. The Court ordered the appeal to be prepared on the existing record and directed that the previously granted stay order remain in operation.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of landlord and tenant exist when appeal proceedings regarding the ownership of the property are pending?
- Can an ejectment order for default in rent payment be distinguished when the tenancy is new and the default period is of a very short duration?
- Is a tenant entitled to discretionary relief in an ejectment proceeding if the issue of the landlord-tenant relationship is contested?
- Wali Muhammad vs Muhammad Shaft and others1989 SCMR 1517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Wali Muhammad, against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had acquitted four respondents previously convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had acquitted seven co-accused and convicted the four respondents, sentencing one to death and three to life imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted all four respondents on the grounds that the eye-witnesses were chance, interested, and inimical witnesses due to prior criminal litigation, and their testimony lacked independent, unimpeachable corroboration. Additionally, no incriminating recoveries were made from the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the evidence, affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that it is unsafe to rely on interested ocular testimony without independent corroborative evidence, especially when the same testimony was disbelieved regarding other co-accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony from interested and inimical witnesses can form the sole basis of a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without independent corroboration?
- Can an acquittal by a High Court be overturned in a petition for leave to appeal when the prosecution's eye-witnesses are determined to be chance witnesses with strained relations with the accused?
- Wali Muhammad vs Ismail Kathiawar and another1989 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for culpable homicide. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had modified his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(II) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to eight years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court's reappraisal of evidence and subsequent alteration of the conviction and sentence warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s conclusions were based on a proper appreciation of the prosecution's ocular testimony and the petitioner's judicial confession. Finding no error in the lower court's reasoning regarding the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact or the reappraisal of evidence by the High Court unless such findings are based on a misreading of evidence or are otherwise perverse.
Questions settled- Does the absence of premeditation in a fatal altercation justify a conviction under Section 304(II) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of Section 302?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's reappraisal of evidence if the findings are based on a proper appreciation of the prosecution's case?
- Can a judicial confession be partially accepted while rejecting the self-defense plea contained within it?
- Wali Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Nazar and others1989 SCMR 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in favor of the respondents. The dispute originated from the allotment of land to Attaullah Khan, the father of the respondents, who was a claimant from a non-agreed area. Following the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 89, his allotment was reduced, requiring him to surrender a specific number of Produce Index (P.I.) units. Although he opted to purchase the surrendered area, he failed to pay any installments due to ongoing disputes regarding his actual entitlement and the extent of the land to be surrendered. When his request for a second extension to pay the purchase price was refused and he was ordered to surrender the land, he successfully challenged this in the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's view that a formal order of assumption was a necessary prerequisite before the authorities could compel the surrender of the excess land.
Questions settled- Is a formal order of assumption required before authorities can compel the surrender of excess land under Martial Law Regulation No. 89?
- Can a claimant be compelled to surrender land when there is a dispute regarding the actual entitlement and the area to be surrendered?
- Wali Dad vs Multan and 10 others1989 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions arising from pre-emption suits filed by tenants against the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of 'sinker'—which bars a pre-emption suit if a stranger is joined as a plaintiff—applied where multiple tenants, each having a tenancy interest in specific portions of the sold land, joined together as plaintiffs in suits challenging the sale of the entire joint holding. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of sinker was not applicable in this case. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs were not strangers to the land; rather, they were tenants with legitimate claims to the specific portions of the land sold. By instituting three separate suits corresponding to the three sale deeds, the pre-emptors maintained the integrity of the transactions. The Court affirmed that even if technical arguments regarding the joinder of parties were raised, the principle of sinker could not be invoked to defeat substantial justice where the claimants were not strangers to the subject matter of the pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of sinker apply when tenants with specific interests in different portions of a joint holding join as plaintiffs in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed on the ground of sinker if the plaintiffs are not strangers to the land sold?
- Is the doctrine of sinker applicable where pre-emptors maintain the integrity of the sale transactions by filing separate suits for separate sale deeds?
- Wahid Bakhsh and others vs Ghulam Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' regular second appeal regarding land originally mortgaged in 1921. The petitioners challenged subsequent mutations of redemption, sale, and exchange sanctioned in 1937, arguing they were collusive, without consideration, and unregistered, and filed a suit for declaration of redemption and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit based on a finding of sale and adverse possession, a view upheld in appeal and by the High Court, despite no issue having been framed regarding adverse possession. The core legal question is whether a party can simultaneously raise contradictory pleas of ownership by purchase and ownership by adverse possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, holding that such inconsistent pleas warrant further consideration by the appellate forum.
Questions settled- Whether in view of the respondents' claim about purchase of the disputed land, they could also be given the benefit of adverse possession?
- Waheed Ullah Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Hanif and two others1989 SCMR 2042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their first appeal by the High Court, which upheld their eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal controversy concerns the relationship of landlord and tenant, specifically whether a complicated question of title regarding evacuee property transferred under settlement laws could be conclusively decided by the rent forum in light of prior writ proceedings, or whether it should have been referred to a civil court of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal to examine whether the tenants should be permitted to agitate the question of title before a court of general jurisdiction while maintaining the eviction order, repelling all other pleas raised by the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can the question of title in a rent restriction matter be decided with reference to a final decision by settlement authorities and superior courts?
- Is it obligatory for a Rent Controller to refer a complicated question of title to a competent civil court for adjudication?
- Whether the High Court's finding on title in writ proceedings operates as a conclusive bar to reagitating the matter before the Rent Controller?
- Usman Khan vs Malik Allah Wasaya Khan and others1989 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff, challenging the High Court's dismissal of their second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and annulment of a sale. The dispute arose from a sale of land executed by the plaintiff’s attorney, who was the plaintiff's son, after the plaintiff had allegedly cancelled the power of attorney. The petitioners contended that the attorney lacked authority at the time of the consent decree for specific performance, as the power of attorney had been revoked prior to the decree. Conversely, the respondents argued that the alienation was agreed upon and a receipt was executed before the revocation, thereby validating the transaction. The core legal questions involve determining whether the sale transaction was legally complete prior to the cancellation of the power of attorney and whether the subsequent suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, finding these issues substantial, granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the alienation and the limitation period applicable to the suit.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a power of attorney invalidate a consent decree for specific performance entered into by the attorney after the date of revocation?
- Can a sale transaction be considered complete based on a prior receipt despite the formal power of attorney being cancelled before the final decree?
- Is a suit for declaration and annulment of a sale time-barred when the cause of action arises from a disputed consent decree?
- Usman A.Ghafoor and 2 others vs Messrs Attock Textile Mills Ltd. and 21989 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-10-1988, which accepted an application for the transfer of a civil suit for damages from Rawalpindi to Lahore to be heard alongside a previously pending suit between the parties. The core legal question concerned the propriety of transferring a suit for damages filed against insurance surveyors from one city to another for consolidation with a related proceeding. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of the suit was a matter of judicial discretion exercised by the High Court keeping in view the convenience of both parties and involved no legal defect or substantial question of law. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's discretionary order transferring a civil suit for consolidation with a pending case warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a suit for damages against insurance surveyors properly transferable to the court where a related suit between the same parties is already pending?