Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• The Beco Agencies Limited vs The Karachi Municipal Corporation1987 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04
  octroi assessmentscrap ironcustoms tariffalternate remedywrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationresiduary clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court on the grounds of non-exhaustion of alternate remedies and the existence of disputed questions of fact regarding the classification of imported goods for octroi assessment. The core legal question was whether imported "re-rollable" and "re-meltable" scrap iron should be classified as "scrap iron" under Class VIII, item 1(b) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, or under the residuary item 1(l) for unspecified iron and steel articles. The Supreme Court held that "scrap iron" in trade usage and dictionary definitions encompasses both re-rollable and re-meltable scrap, which require reprocessing before use. The Court ruled that because "scrap iron" was specifically listed in the schedule, the residuary clause "not specified elsewhere" was inapplicable. Consequently, the goods were liable to octroi at the lower rate for scrap iron rather than the higher rate for unspecified articles, and the absence of physical verification by the authorities precluded any factual dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'scrap iron' in an octroi schedule include both re-rollable and re-meltable scrap iron when not otherwise qualified?
  • Can a residuary tariff classification for articles 'not specified elsewhere' be applied to goods that fall under a specifically listed category?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable without exhausting alternate statutory remedies when there is no factual controversy left to be resolved?
  Read full judgment →
• Tawab Gul And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  murder convictionocular testimonyself-defencetransportation for lifeabsconsionLaw Reforms Ordinancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the reversal of an acquittal by the Peshawar High Court. The appellants challenged their conviction for murder, arguing self-defence and contesting the sentencing regime applied. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in the absence of weapon recoveries, the validity of the self-defence plea, and whether the sentence of imprisonment for life was legally permissible for an offense committed prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and supported by the appellants' long absconsion. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that since the offense occurred in 1966, before the 1972 legislative changes, the appropriate sentence was transportation for life rather than imprisonment for life. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence accordingly, directing that the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be applied during sentence computation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when no recovery of weapons is made?
  • Does the plea of self-defence hold when the accused sustains no injuries during the occurrence?
  • Is the sentence of imprisonment for life applicable to an offense committed before the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  • Should the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted to a convict sentenced to transportation for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassawar Iqbal vs The State1987 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-13
  petition for special leave to appealright of self-defencemurdermurderous assaultconflicting versionscriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Tassawar Iqbal, who was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 and section 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of his cousin and injuries to another, resulting in life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment respectively, as maintained by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient attention was given by the trial and appellate courts to the plea of the right of self-defence raised by the petitioner, considering the presence of injuries on the petitioner and the existence of two conflicting versions of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised in support of the petition regarding the plea of self-defence give rise to a substantial question requiring examination, and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the plea of self-defence and the presence of injuries on the accused must be thoroughly evaluated against conflicting versions in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of the right of self-defence was properly considered by the trial and appellate courts?
  • Does the presence of injuries on the accused in a conflicting version case warrant a re-examination of guilt?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the defence raises a plausible plea of self-defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamin Shah vs The State1987 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesleave to appealapprehension at spotfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with convictions under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murderous assault. The core legal question revolved around the challenge to the conviction and whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life, given that the motive stemmed from a domestic dispute regarding the exchange marriage and the refusal of the deceased's family to return the petitioner's wife. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's convictions were well-founded based on the consistent testimony of injured and natural eye-witnesses and his apprehension at the spot with the crime weapon, and further held that the refusal to return the wife until the petitioner's sister was also returned did not constitute a mitigating circumstance for murder. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the refusal of a spouse's family to return her without a reciprocal return constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing the death sentence for murder?
  • Does the testimony of injured eye-witnesses present at the scene provide sufficient basis for sustaining a conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether apprehension of the accused at the spot immediately after the firing with the crime weapon establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Pervaiz And Another vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03
  double murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesacquittalcorroborationalibiappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine the conviction and death sentence of Tariq Pervaiz for double murder, as well as the acquittal of his co-accused brother, Tahirul Islam. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked two brothers following an altercation regarding positions taken outside a carpet weaving factory. The trial court convicted Tariq Pervaiz on two counts under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to death, while acquitting Tahirul Islam. The Lahore High Court dismissed the convict's appeal and confirmed the death sentence, upholding the acquittal of the co-accused. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, the credibility of eye-witnesses, the plea of alibi, and mitigating circumstances regarding the age and suddenness of the occurrence. The Court maintained the conviction and the approach taken by the lower courts regarding the evaluation of evidence and corroboration, ensuring the safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the death sentence of the appellant for double murder?
  • Whether the acquittal of the co-accused based on the requirement of corroboration was sustainable?
  • Whether the age of the accused and the suddenness of the altercation constitute mitigating circumstances for reducing a sentence of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Nisar vs The State1987 SCMR 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  murderleave to appealreduction of sentencedeath sentencegrave and sudden provocationfamily honour
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the death sentence of the accused, Tariq Nisar, to imprisonment for life for the murder of Zakir Sibtain, while dismissing the complainant's prayer for enhancement. The prosecution case was that the accused, angered by his sister's marriage to the deceased, attacked the deceased with a razor in a shop, causing a fatal neck injury, and was apprehended at the spot with the weapon by eyewitnesses. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of eyewitnesses, and the propriety of reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment on the grounds of family anguish. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly granted the maximum benefit of reducing the sentence based on the circumstances of family rancour arising from the marriage, and that the defence version was flimsy. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the ground of family rancour?
  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses supported by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Whether the defence plea of acting in self-defense after being detained under the Railway Act is credible when the accused is apprehended at the spot with the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Pakistan Television Corporation And Other1987 SCMR 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  retrospective appointmentCorporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinanceapprenticeshipservice lawleave to appealPakistan Television Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the termination or adverse action taken against an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation. The petitioner challenges the application of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, specifically questioning whether an appointment order given retrospective effect can trigger the provisions of said Ordinance. Furthermore, the petition raises the issue of whether the Ordinance was lawfully applied to the petitioner's specific circumstances and whether evidence pertaining to the petitioner's initial apprenticeship could legitimately be used to justify an order affecting a subsequent permanent appointment made two years later. The Supreme Court, noting that similar legal points were already under consideration in another pending Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (C.P.L.A. No. 1036 of 1986), granted leave to appeal in the instant case. The Court directed that this petition be heard alongside the aforementioned C.P.L.A., allowing the parties to rely on the existing record while granting liberty to file additional documents as necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order of appointment made to operate retrospectively be deemed to have been made from a previous date for the purposes of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978?
  • Is the application of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978 lawful in cases involving the transition from apprenticeship to permanent employment?
  • Can evidence regarding an apprenticeship be used to sustain an order affecting a permanent appointment made years later?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood And Others vs Muhammad Zaman1987 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03
  pre-emption suitjoint Khattatenant rightsadmission in pleadingsleave to appealrecord of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The dispute arose from the sale of 80 Kanals of land by a vendor, Mst. Nasim Akhtar, from a joint un-partitioned Khatta. The respondent, claiming to be a tenant on 72 Kanals of the sold land, filed a suit for pre-emption. The trial court limited the respondent's pre-emption rights to 6 Kanals, reasoning that he was a tenant of all co-sharers, not just the vendor. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's appeal based on an admission made by the petitioners during the trial that the respondent was cultivating the land under the vendor, thereby entitling him to pre-empt the entire area. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the admission was made by a layman, contradicted the record of rights, and that the vendor could not legally sell specific pieces of land from a joint Khatta without prior partition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding these legal questions required further examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendor sell a specific piece of land from a joint un-partitioned Khatta without first seeking partition?
  • Does an admission made by a layman during trial that contradicts the record of rights bind the parties?
  • Is a tenant of a co-sharer entitled to pre-empt the entire land sold by that co-sharer from a joint holding?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-03
  leave to appealculpable homicide not amounting to murderprivate defenceconfessional statementappreciation of evidenceocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  Tariq Hussain and his father Fazal Hussain were tried for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court acquitted Fazal Hussain but convicted Tariq Hussain under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed both the convict's appeal and the complainant's revision petition for enhancement and acquittal challenges. Both parties sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The prosecution alleged the murder arose from a dispute over an affair between Tariq Hussain and the deceased's niece, leading to a fatal knife blow. The courts below rejected the ocular testimony and weapon recovery but convicted Tariq Hussain based on his confessional statement while rejecting his plea of private defence. The core legal questions involve whether an accused's exculpatory statement must be accepted in its entirety when relied upon for conviction, and the appreciation of prompt First Information Reports and ocular testimony. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both parties for detailed examination.

  Questions settled

  • Must an accused person's statement admitting a fatal act be accepted in its entirety when relied upon by the court for a conviction?
  • Whether the rejection of ocular testimony and recovery evidence warrants leave to appeal against an acquittal and conviction?
  • Does a prompt First Information Report sufficiently exclude the possibility of fabrication in eyewitness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Jamshed And Another vs Raja Ghulam Haider1987 SCMR 2006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-02
  Civil ProcedureLeave to AppealFraudExecution ProceedingsThird-party ObjectionsRent Proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from rent proceedings. The judgment addresses several important legal questions concerning the competency and limitation period for an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by a non-party alleging fraud, the effect of the pendency of a parallel civil suit, and whether Section 22 of the Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 bars third parties from filing objections in execution proceedings or obstructing them when not claiming through the judgment debtor. Finding that the points raised deserve consideration, the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, allows the petition upon furnishing security, and directs that the appeal be heard on the present record with liberty to file additional documents. The Court establishes that applications under Section 12(2) involving allegations of fraud by non-parties and third-party obstruction rights under rent execution laws require authoritative examination.

  Questions settled

  • Was the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent by a petitioner in the trial Court inasmuch as he was not a party to the rent proceedings?
  • Was the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 within time and what Article of the Limitation Act was applicable in view of allegations of fraud?
  • What was the effect of the pendency of Suit No. 4141 of 1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge Karachi?
  • Whether the provision of Section 22 of the Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 debarred third parties from filing objections in execution proceedings and whether such third persons could obstruct execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Talib Qureshi And Other1987 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationsudden clashculpable homicideindividual responsibilitymurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court partly allowing criminal appeals and revisions in a murder case. The core legal question concerned the culpability of the accused persons and the propriety of their convictions under lesser offences rather than murder, given that both sides sustained injuries in a sudden clash. The Supreme Court held that where both parties withhold the truth and a clash flares up suddenly without premeditation, Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code is attracted, making each accused responsible for their own individual act. The petition for leave to appeal against acquittal was accordingly dismissed as substantial justice had been done.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code applies when a clash between two parties flares up suddenly without premeditation?
  • Is each accused responsible only for his own individual act when both parties are found to have withheld the truth in a mutual fight?
  • Does a sudden exchange of abuses and beating following a traffic dispute attract the rule of grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Abdul Hassan And Other1987 SCMR 856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17
  evacuee propertysettlement departmentland allotmentspecial leave to appealcompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 24-4-1975 concerning evacuee land in Tehsil Lodhran. The core legal question involved the validity of a subsequent allotment and a purported compromise regarding land previously allotted and confirmed in favor of another claimant. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate any prior valid allotment or legal right to the disputed land, whereas the original allottee's confirmation dated back to 1955 and the heirs had already transferred the property prior to the alleged compromise. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a subsequent claimant cannot displace a prior confirmed allotment without establishing a valid, legally recognized prior right, and heirs who have alienated their interest in property cannot subsequently surrender rights in favor of a third party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent claimant can challenge a prior confirmed land allotment without establishing a valid prior right?
  • Are heirs competent to surrender rights in disputed land after having already sold the property to a third party?
  • Does an unverified Parchi Khatoni Taqseem bearing no signatures of a competent authority suffice to prove a valid land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad And Others vs Ali Hassan Manghi And Other1987 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28
  ejectmentsub-lesseeobjection petitionlandlord and tenantexecution proceedingspossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the dismissal of objection petitions filed by sub-lessees against an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether sub-lessees, inducted without the landlord's consent, possess an independent right to remain in possession of demised premises after an ejectment order has been passed against the primary tenant, and whether they can invoke objection proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that sub-lessees inducted without the landlord's consent have no independent right to occupy the premises upon the ejectment of the tenant and are bound by the ejectment order passed against the tenant. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding objection petitions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings that the sub-lessees were bound by the ejectment order and their objection petitions were misconceived.

  Questions settled

  • Are sub-lessees inducted without the landlord's consent bound by an ejectment order passed against the primary tenant?
  • Can a sub-lessee maintain an objection petition under Order XXI, Rules 99, 100, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they lack an independent right to the property?
  • Does an ejectment order against a tenant effectively terminate the occupation rights of unauthorized sub-lessees?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs Manak And Another1987 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18
  second appealdeclaration suitappellate courtframing of issuesmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a second appeal filed in the High Court against the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, which had decreed the respondents' suit for a declaration regarding a thoroughfare after the trial Court had initially dismissed it. The petitioner contested the second appeal on the grounds that the First Appellate Court had misread the evidence of a witness and had failed to discuss findings on all issues framed in the suit. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the First Appellate Court's disposal of the appeal by confining its discussion to the contested issue. The Supreme Court held that since the contest between the parties before the First Appellate Court remained confined to a single issue, the failure to discuss findings on the other unexceptionable issues did not render the disposal improper. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is bound to discuss all issues when the contest before it is confined to a single issue?
  • Does the failure to discuss unexceptionable findings on collateral issues vitiate an appellate judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Alias Tahri And Another vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appealocular testimonychance witnessesacquittalcriminal liabilitycommon intentionbailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the conviction of Tahir alias Tahri for murder and the acquittal of his brother, Zahid alias Billu. The trial court had convicted both for the murder of Abdul Sattar, sentencing Tahir to death and Zahid to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld Tahir's conviction but acquitted Zahid, citing his age and lack of knowledge regarding the weapon. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular testimony from chance witnesses, the implications of the failure to recover blood-stained earth from the crime scene, and the propriety of the High Court's acquittal of a co-accused who allegedly held the deceased during the attack. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions, determining that the contentions raised regarding the credibility of witnesses, the absence of forensic evidence at the scene, and the assessment of the co-accused's culpability required further examination. The Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the acquitted respondent, Zahid, to ensure his presence for the appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave to appeal be granted to examine the reliability of ocular testimony provided by chance witnesses?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to recover blood-stained earth from the crime scene necessarily invalidate the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
  • Is the acquittal of a co-accused based on age and lack of knowledge of the principal offender's weapon subject to appellate review?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Tasleem Hussain vs Muhammad Ishaq And 2 Other1987 SCMR 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07
  settlement authoritiesdisplaced personproperty divisionconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionleave to appealpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the division of property by Settlement Authorities. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person, contested the Settlement Authorities' decision to divide Property No. P/1529, Rawalpindi, and transfer portions to the respondents, arguing that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to carve out portions to accommodate late claimants and that an associate of a transferee loses rights if the primary transfer is quashed. The Supreme Court examined the contentions and held that the division of property by a notified officer is a matter within the Settlement Authority's discretion and cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction unless the division is shown to be arbitrary or fanciful. Finding that the parties had been in peaceful possession of their respective portions and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or impropriety in the division, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the High Court correctly declined to interfere in the Settlement Authority's settled decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can the division of property by a notified Settlement Authority be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does an associate of a transferee automatically lose rights to property if the transfer in favor of the primary transferee is set aside?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere with the division of property made by Settlement Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shaukat Hussain Zaidi vs Chief Engineer, Public Health1987 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17
  service tribunaladverse remarksannual confidential reportmedical boardcivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Superintending Engineer who had suffered an attack of hemiplegia, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal regarding the refusal of departmental authorities to expunge adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1983. The core legal question was whether medical fitness certificates issued by Medical Boards rendered the adverse remarks concerning his mental and physical performance invalid. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed, reasoning that medical boards are only concerned with fitness to resume duty and cannot comment on job performance, whereas departmental authorities are exclusively competent to assess work quality. The key principle laid down is that medical fitness to resume duties does not invalidate or negate departmental assessments regarding the professional performance and capabilities of a civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical fitness certificates issued by Medical Boards are relevant in adjudging the quality of work and performance of a civil servant?
  • Are departmental authorities competent to assess the performance of an employee despite a medical board declaring them fit to resume duty?
  • Does the recording of adverse remarks regarding mental and physical capacity by a reporting officer warrant interference when based on actual performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shaukat Hussain Rizvi vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan1987 SCMR 1911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-19
  compulsory retirementlimitation periodcause of actionservice lawgovernment servantscreening committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit challenging the compulsory retirement of a government servant. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Military Engineering Service, was compulsorily retired following a screening committee process initiated under Martial Law regulations in 1958. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing a suit challenging an order of compulsory retirement commences from the date of the Gazette notification announcing the retirement or from the date the employee was physically relieved of their duties. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that the Gazette notification constituted the operative order of retirement, thereby establishing the cause of action. Consequently, the limitation period began to run from the date of the notification, not the subsequent date of relinquishment of charge, which was merely a consequential act. The principle laid down is that in service matters involving an order of retirement, the limitation period for challenging such an order accrues from the date of the official notification, rather than the date of actual relief from service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for challenging a compulsory retirement order commence from the date of the Gazette notification or the date of actual relief from service?
  • Is the act of relinquishing a post following a retirement order a fresh cause of action for the purposes of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sharafat Ali Nadeem vs Federal Service Tribunal And Other1987 SCMR 1774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08
  civil servicedepartmental inquiryremoval from servicestatement of allegationsinquiry reportprocedural defectGovernment Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1973Federal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-5-1983, which had affirmed the appellant's removal from service following departmental proceedings. The appellant had been served with a charge-sheet without the mandatory statement of allegations and was not provided a copy of the inquiry report or the inquiry officer's recommendations. The core legal question was whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated due to non-compliance with the procedural safeguards prescribed under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the Tribunal's judgment and the dismissal order, holding that the mandatory procedural requirements, as interpreted in Mir Mohammad v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1981 SC 176), were violated. The Court reaffirmed that failure to supply the statement of allegations, show-cause notice, and inquiry report prejudices the employee and invalidates the removal order, leaving it open to the authorities to restart proceedings from the stage of the procedural defect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to serve a statement of allegations alongside a charge-sheet as required under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 vitiate departmental proceedings?
  • Whether the non-supply of an inquiry report and the inquiry officer's recommendations to a public servant prejudices the defense and invalidates an order of removal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shamshad Hussain vs The Controller of Post Offices, Karachi and 2 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-26
  service tribunallimitation perioddepartmental appealcivil servantwithholding of appealcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant civil servant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant was dismissed from service as an Assistant Post Master and initially filed a departmental appeal within time, but to the wrong authority. Pursuant to the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, the appeal was withheld and the appellant was informed, whereupon he resubmitted it to the proper authority within the permitted one-month period. Having received no decision after ninety days, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, which erroneously computed limitation from the date of the original defective appeal rather than the proper resubmission. The core legal question was how limitation and the ninety-day statutory waiting period are computed when a departmental appeal is initially addressed to an incorrect authority and subsequently resubmitted under rule 7 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977. The Supreme Court held that the waiting period under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, runs from the date of resubmission of the appeal to the proper authority under rule 7. The impugned order of the Service Tribunal was set aside and the case remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • How is the ninety-day statutory waiting period under section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 computed when a departmental appeal is initially addressed to the wrong authority and resubmitted under rule 7 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977?
  • Does an appeal addressed to an incompetent departmental authority stand dismissed ipso facto or is it required to be withheld under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977?
  • What is the limitation period for resubmitting a departmental appeal that has been withheld because it was addressed to an authority to which no appeal lies?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Hassan Shah And Another vs Mst. Noor Jahan And Another1987 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-01
  settlement lawnatural justiceauction purchaseropportunity of being heardnon est orderPermanent Transfer Deedrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the ownership of a shop, originally auctioned to Mst. Batool Bibi under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The respondents challenged the auction in revision proceedings, but failed to implead the auction purchaser, Mst. Batool Bibi, instead serving her husband. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner subsequently cancelled the auction sale. The core legal question was whether this order, passed without notice to the affected purchaser, was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the order was a nullity. The Court affirmed that under Section 20(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a mandatory statutory requirement reflecting natural justice. Because Mst. Batool Bibi was not impleaded or heard, the order cancelling her purchase was non est in law. Consequently, the auction sale remained valid, and the subsequent transfer of the property to the appellants was upheld, setting aside the High Court's contrary decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order passed by a Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner without impleading the affected auction purchaser violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is service of notice on a husband sufficient to satisfy the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to his wife, the auction purchaser, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does the failure to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by Section 20(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 render an administrative order non est in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Fida Hussain Shah vs Mst. Sharam Khatoon And Another1987 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02
  concurrent findings of factrevisional jurisdictionreligious persuasioninheritance disputespecial leave to appealnon-prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact regarding the religious persuasion of the deceased, Gaman Shah. The core legal question was whether the deceased was a Sunni Muslim or a Shia Muslim at the time of his death, a determination critical to the inheritance or succession dispute between the parties. The trial Court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the deceased was of Sunni persuasion. This finding was affirmed by the Additional District Judge on appeal. Subsequently, the High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no justification to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition both for non-prosecution, as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and on the merits, upholding the established factual determination regarding the deceased's religious affiliation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a person's religious persuasion?
  • Is a petition for special leave to appeal liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to appear?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Baha Ud Din And Another vs Kh. Muhammad Sharif And Other1987 SCMR 9 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  abatement of appeallegal representativesdissolution of partnershipnecessary partiessecond appealdeath of respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court holding that a second appeal had abated due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the second appeal abated in toto upon the death of a party whose legal representatives were allegedly not impleaded. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the impugned order of the High Court was unsustainable because the respondent in question had died before the filing of the second appeal, rendering her impleadment improper and the doctrine of abatement inapplicable to a dead person. The Court laid down the principle that where a party's death occurs prior to the institution of an appeal, the question of abatement of that appeal does not arise, and the matter must be examined instead on the principles of proper constitution of the appeal and necessary parties rather than post-filing abatement under the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal abate when a respondent dies before the filing of that appeal?
  • What is the effect on an appeal when a party passes away prior to its institution rather than during its pendency?
  • Whether the non-substitution of legal representatives of a person who died before the commencement of an appeal attracts the provisions of abatement under the Code of Civil Procedure.
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdullah Shah And Others vs Abdul Ghaffar Khan And Other1987 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22
  bias of judgeremand orderframing of issueslimitationboard of revenuepre-emptioncivil procedure special provisions ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines the correctness of a High Court judgment declining to interfere with a remand order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, despite acknowledging that the said Member was disqualified from hearing the case due to his previous association as President of a trial tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether a judicial officer who previously recorded a dissenting opinion on a matter can subsequently sit in revision at the apex of the revenue hierarchy, and whether proceedings can be remanded on technical grounds such as non-framing of issues or limitation without proof of prejudice or proper pleading. The Supreme Court held that the Member, Board of Revenue was indeed disqualified from adjudicating the matter and that remanding the case on the unpleaded ground of limitation and non-framing of issues without showing prejudice was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Board of Revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revenue officer who previously acted as a tribunal president and recorded a dissenting opinion is disqualified from hearing the same matter in revision at the apex level?
  • Can an appellate or revisional authority remand a case for non-framing of issues without establishing that actual prejudice was caused to the parties?
  • Is a revisional authority justified in remanding a case on the ground of limitation when the plea of limitation was neither raised in the pleadings nor in the revision petition?
  • What manner of recording evidence is contemplated under Section 8 of the Civil Procedure Code (Special Provisions Ordinance) 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur And Others vs Nazar Hussain1987 SCMR 1435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28
  service lawpolice disciplinary proceedingsenhancement of punishmentservice tribunalpolice rulesjurisdiction of disciplinary authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent from police service. The respondent, originally a member of the Bahawalpur State police, faced disciplinary action for negligence while guarding a railway bridge, resulting in a penalty of forfeited service and reduced pay by the Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, the Deputy Inspector General of Police enhanced this punishment to dismissal. The Tribunal held that the respondent remained governed by Bahawalpur State police rules, which lacked provisions for such enhancement, and restored the original penalty. The petitioners contend that the respondent had opted to be governed by the Punjab Police Rules, which empower the Deputy Inspector General to enhance punishments. The core legal question is whether the respondent was subject to the Bahawalpur rules or the Punjab Police Rules, and consequently, whether the enhancement of punishment was within the Deputy Inspector General's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding the contention regarding the applicability of the Punjab Police Rules worthy of examination.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police officer who transfers to a new province upon its creation automatically become subject to the police rules of that new province?
  • Does the Deputy Inspector General of Police have the authority to enhance a punishment imposed by a lower authority under the police rules of the former Bahawalpur State?
  • Can a police officer voluntarily opt to be governed by the police rules of a new province after the integration of states?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood vs The State1987 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16
  leave to appealsentence mitigationdeath penaltyfamily honourmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Sultan Mahmood, was convicted for the murder of Muhammad Noor and Muhammad Razzaq and sentenced to death, a conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court. The prosecution alleged the motive for the crime was a long-standing suspicion of illicit relations between the complainant, Muhammad Nawaz, and the petitioner's wife. In his statement at trial, the petitioner admitted to having a heated argument with the deceased, Muhammad Razzaq, regarding this alleged illicit relationship shortly before the occurrence, though he denied committing the murders. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that the motive established by the prosecution and his own admission regarding the dispute over family honour warranted a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court found that the matter required further consideration regarding the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of the motive presented. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, but strictly limited the scope of the appeal to the question of the sentence imposed on the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave to appeal be granted limited solely to the question of sentence?
  • Does a motive based on family honour provide sufficient grounds for the mitigation of a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 1415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-01
  criminal breach of trustmisappropriationanti-corruptionreduction of sentencepetition for special leave to appealfood inspector
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal filed respectively by the convict and the State against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, a Food Inspector, was tried and convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the misappropriation of wheat and sugar from a government godown. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but drastically reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone and lowered the fine. The petitioner sought complete acquittal, while the State sought enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave in both petitions to consider whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction under the aforementioned provisions and whether the reasons recorded for reducing the sentence were proper and cogent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
  • Whether the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone were proper and cogent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan And 3 Others vs The State And 2 Other1987 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-23
  acquittalretrialdelay in retrialright of private defenceexceeding right of private defencebenefit of doubtcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a double murder case where the appellants were initially acquitted by the trial court giving them the benefit of the doubt. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court, which set aside the acquittal and ordered a de novo retrial. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether directing a retrial after a lapse of a considerable period was proper under the circumstances. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that although the appellants may have had a right of private defence, they arguably exceeded it given the disproportionate number of injuries inflicted. However, observing that over twenty-one years had elapsed since the original occurrence and acquittal, the Court held that ordering a retrial after such an inordinate delay would be a futile exercise. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order of retrial, and restored the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate or revisional court should order a retrial after the lapse of a considerable period following an acquittal?
  • Does the right of private defence extend to the infliction of more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence?
  • Whether an order of retrial is justified when a long delay renders the availability of witnesses unlikely and the proceeding an exercise in futility?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-10
  ballistic expert reportsection 510 crpcinterested witnessesrecovery of weaponsmitigating circumstancescommutation of death sentencedouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentences of Sultan and Khan, along with life imprisonments for Ghulam Hussain and Khanoo, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Amir Hussain Shah and Ghulam Hussain Shah. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and admissibility of a Fire-arm/Ballistic Expert's report under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without reasons or formal examination, the necessity of independent corroboration for interested witnesses regarding weapon recoveries, and whether prior blood feuds and prolonged delay in the execution of death sentences constitute mitigating circumstances for sentence reduction. The Supreme Court held that under Section 510 Cr.P.C., an expert's report is admissible without calling the expert as a witness unless the court or the accused deems it necessary in the interest of justice. The Court established that while recoveries involving interested witnesses must be scrutinized, the ocular and medical evidence sufficiently established guilt. However, considering the prior murder of the appellants' brother and the prolonged delay in the death cells, the Court dismissed the appeals against conviction but commuted the death sentences of Sultan and Khan to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Fire-arm Expert's report is admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the expert as a witness?
  • Is the prosecution legally bound to summon a Ballistic or Chemical Expert when the opposing party does not request it under the proviso to Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a prolonged delay in the execution of a death sentence constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment?
  • Whether the testimony of partisan or interested eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs Ghulam Hussain And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10
  leave to appealrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factcanal authoritieswater entitlementprivate partition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts regarding the entitlement to additional water sanctioned by canal authorities. The core legal question is whether the additional water sanctioned on the application of the petitioner was intended exclusively for his land or for both brothers, and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction based on the assumption of joint landholding. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the existence of a private partition based on the revenue record and the limits of revisional jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner, noting that the High Court's assumption regarding the joint nature of the land warranted a formal review of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of subordinate courts in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does additional water sanctioned by canal authorities on an individual' accrue to jointly held land or solely to the applicant?
  • Whether a private partition established through revenue records affects the distribution of sanctioned canal water?
  Read full judgment →
• Subah Sadique Khan vs District Judge, Mr. Lutaf Ali Khan, D.G. Khan And Other1987 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-21
  pre-emptionZar-i-Panjumwrit jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefconduct of petitionerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit, repeatedly failed to deposit the required one-fifth price (Zar-i-Panjum) of the land in dispute by the court-ordered deadlines. Although the trial court granted extensions, the respondents successfully challenged these orders in a revision petition before the District Judge, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The High Court subsequently declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, citing the petitioner's conduct. The Supreme Court addressed whether it should interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The Court held that since the High Court's decision was based on the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, and given the petitioner's conduct, there was no justification for interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to grant relief in writ jurisdiction when based on the conduct of the party.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction based on the conduct of the petitioner?
  • Does the failure to deposit the Zar-i-Panjum within the extended time period justify the dismissal of a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Star Textile Mills Ltd. vs K.E.S.C. And Another1987 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08
  electricity supplysecurity depositcash securitytariff ratesdisconnection of electricitystatutory notificationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from consolidated appeals challenging a High Court judgment that dismissed constitutional petitions filed by various textile mills against demands by the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (K.E.S.C.) for enhanced security deposits in cash. The core legal questions concerned whether statutory amendments to the Electricity Act, 1910 by Ordinance No. LXII of 1979 restricted the licensee's power to demand or increase security and disconnect supply, and whether the demand for enhanced cash security was legally justified under the agreements and applicable statutory notifications. The Supreme Court held that the security in dispute was distinct from the initial installation security contemplated under Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910, rendering the 1979 amendments to Clause VI inapplicable. Instead, the enhancement was justified and legally mandated under statutory tariff notifications issued pursuant to the Karachi Electricity Control Act, 1952 and the Electricity Act, 1910, which authorized the recovery of security deposits not exceeding the average bill for two and a half months. The Court laid down that security deposits tied to actual consumption and governed by specific tariff notifications operate independently of Clause VI of the Schedule, and that licensees are legally authorized to demand such security in cash to reflect rising consumption and costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment effected in Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910 by Ordinance No. LXII of 1979 restrict a licensee's power to demand additional security for ongoing electricity consumption?
  • Whether a licensee is legally authorized to demand an enhanced security deposit based on the average bill of consumption under applicable statutory notifications?
  • Can a security deposit for electricity consumption be validly demanded in cash?
  • Does Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 cover the power to disconnect electricity supply for failure to furnish sufficient security?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Akhtar And 3 Others vs The Land Acquisition Collector And Other1987 SCMR 1534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-08
  land acquisitionevacuee propertyconstitutional jurisdictioncompensation claimexemption plotsallotment of landspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a claim for compensation and exemption plots regarding acquired land. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, as allottees of evacuee property, were entitled to compensation from the Lahore Development Authority, given the disputed land's history and its potential exclusion from an earlier government acquisition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioners' contention—that the land was un-allotted evacuee property at the time of the initial acquisition and thus fell under the subsequent acquisition by the Lahore Development Authority—merited a thorough examination. The key principle established is that while constitutional jurisdiction is generally not the appropriate forum for resolving complex factual disputes requiring detailed inquiry, leave to appeal is warranted where the record suggests a potential error in the lower court's assessment of the acquisition status and the resulting entitlement to compensation, necessitating a deeper review of the factual and legal position.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can dismiss a constitutional petition on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact when the record suggests a potential error in the acquisition status of land?
  • Does the exclusion of specific land from a government acquisition notification imply that such land remains available for subsequent acquisition by another authority?
  • Are allottees of evacuee property entitled to compensation or exemption plots if their land is acquired by a development authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Soeni And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09
  murderocular testimonyinjured witnessconcurrent findingsspecial leave to appealcriminal liabilityrioting
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal filed by Soeni, Yara, Baqri, and Kharri against their convictions and sentences for murder and rioting. The petitioners were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, including murder and causing hurt, following an incident where the deceased was killed and four others injured. The High Court dismissed their appeals, upholding the convictions based on ocular testimony. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the petitioners, based on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses, were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the eyewitnesses was established by the injuries they sustained during the occurrence, and their testimony provided a substantially true account of the event. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the lower courts were justified in their findings. The judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, whose presence at the scene is corroborated by their own injuries, carries significant evidentiary weight in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of injured eyewitnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Is the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of a crime sufficiently established by the fact that they sustained injuries during the occurrence?
  • Does the existence of prior enmity between parties automatically invalidate the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ud Din And Others vs Muhammad Umar Khan And Other1987 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-30
  constitutional petitionjurisdictioncivil suitpossessionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgments and orders of lower revenue and civil authorities regarding a suit for possession of land originally entrusted to caretakers during the rule of the Ruler of Dir. The core legal question concerned the jurisdictional competence of the Deputy Commissioner to decide the suit on the original side, and whether the provisions of Dastoorul Amal Dir were applicable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court correctly identified patent illegality and irregularity going to the root of the case warranting interference in constitutional jurisdiction, and affirmed the decision directing the matter to be examined by the competent forum having jurisdiction for a decision afresh according to law. The key principle laid down is that matters tainted with patent jurisdictional defects and procedural irregularities by lower authorities warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction for re-examination by the competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner have the power to decide a case on the original side where regulations empower him only on the appellate side?
  • Whether patent illegality and irregularity in lower court proceedings warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are provisions of Dastoorul Amal Dir relating to limitation applicable to suits instituted before its enforcement?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs Muhammad Khan And Another1987 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  pre-emptionabatement of appeallegal representativescondonation of delayimpleadmentcompetency of appealdeceased respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit involving a land transaction and a subsequent exchange. The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment, which had upheld the validity of the exchange. However, a preliminary objection was raised that the appeal was incompetent because the primary respondent, Muhammad Khan, had died years before the appeal was filed, and his legal representatives were not impleaded within the limitation period. The appellant sought to condone the delay, arguing he was unaware of the death and had relied on the High Court record. The Supreme Court rejected this, noting the appellant, a collateral residing in the same village, had attended the deceased's funeral and thus possessed actual knowledge of the death. The Court held that the appeal was not properly constituted due to the failure to implead the legal representatives in time. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the delay could not be condoned under the circumstances, thereby rendering the proceedings against the deceased respondent incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be maintained if filed against a deceased respondent without impleading legal representatives?
  • Is an appellant's personal knowledge of a respondent's death a bar to condoning the delay in filing an application to implead legal representatives?
  • Does the failure to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent render an appeal incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Shah And Others vs Sher Zaman And Other1987 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  mortgage redemptionsubsisting mortgagemutationlimitation periodadditional chargenovation of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the subsistence of a mortgage originally created in 1892 and its subsequent redemption status. The core legal question was whether the mortgage remained a continuous, subsisting obligation despite 1916 mutations that recorded a redemption and the creation of two new, distinct mortgages. The Supreme Court held that the 1916 mutations represented an actual, factual redemption and the formation of new contracts rather than a mere 'notional' or supplementary continuation of the original mortgage. The Court observed that because the parties, shares, and mortgage amounts in the 1916 transactions differed from the original 1892 agreement, the original mortgage was extinguished. Consequently, the High Court erred in applying the principle that additional charges do not terminate an original mortgage. The principle laid down is that while the creation of an additional charge does not per se terminate an original mortgage, the conduct of parties—evidenced by distinct mutations—must be examined to determine if a new, independent contract was intended and executed, thereby breaking the continuity of the prior mortgage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of an additional charge on a mortgage per se terminate the original mortgage?
  • When does a mutation recording redemption and new mortgage terms constitute a break in the continuity of an original mortgage?
  • Can a mutation be treated as a 'notional' redemption if the parties, shares, and mortgage amounts differ from the original transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs Zafar Ali And 2 Other1987 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  leave to appealmurderlife imprisonmentenhancement of sentenceocular testimonyweapon recoverymedical evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an appeal against conviction and life imprisonment for murder, while also refusing an enhancement of sentence to death. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses was reliable, and whether corroborative evidence regarding motive and weapon recoveries was sufficient. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the accused, the reliability of the eyewitnesses, and the weapon recoveries were well-founded given the broad-day occurrence and medical evidence corroborating the use of firearms. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal to both parties, dismissing the petitions while allowing the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that related eyewitness testimony, when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries in a daylight occurrence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against the refusal of the High Court to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death?
  • Whether discrepancies in weapon recoveries and the non-production of certain witnesses vitiate a conviction based on concurrent findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Represented By His Legal Heirs And Others vs Samundarkhan Represented By His Legal Heirs And Other1987 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02
  pre-emptionpast and closed transactionsfundamental rightsright to propertyreasonable restrictionscollateral pre-emptor
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' second appeal against a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondents. The petitioners raised two primary contentions: first, that the impugned judgment violates the principle laid down in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360); and second, that the Punjab Pre-emption Act, insofar as it grants a right of pre-emption to collaterals, violates Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings had already become past and closed prior to the target date of 31st July 1986 fixed in the Malik Said Kamal Shah case, rendering that judgment inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court held that the challenge under Article 23 was unfounded, as the constitutional right to property is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, and the petitioners failed to establish that the pre-emption rights conferred on collaterals were unreasonable or against public interest during the relevant period. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of the judgment in Malik Said Kamal Shah regarding pre-emption laws be extended to proceedings that became past and closed before the target date fixed by the Court?
  • Does the provision in the Punjab Pre-emption Act conferring a right of pre-emption on a collateral violate Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the restrictions imposed on property rights by the Punjab law of pre-emption considered reasonable and in the public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs Janib And 3 Other1987 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  murderacquittalleave to appealocular testimonymotiverecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and death sentence based on doubts in the ocular testimony, disbelieved motive, and unverified recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court needs no interference as the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot was highly doubtful, the testimony regarding the fourth assailant suffered from material contradictions, and the motive and weapon recoveries were rightly disbelieved by the lower appellate court. The key principle laid down is that where the ocular account, motive, and recoveries are found to be untrustworthy and plagued with reasonable doubts, the appellate court's judgment of acquittal will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment of acquittal when the ocular version is fraught with doubts?
  • Does the unreliability of eye-witnesses and disbelieved motive warrant the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the crime scene is rendered doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Baz vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi And Other1987 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-25
  senioritycivil servantsarmed forces inductionsecretariat groupnational pay scalesprinciple of equivalenceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of service appeals by the Service Tribunal regarding the fixation of inter se seniority of Army officers (Brigadiers) inducted into the civil service within the Secretariat Group as Joint Secretaries. The core legal question is whether military service rendered prior to civil induction can be counted for determining seniority in the civil Secretariat Group under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and applicable rules, or whether seniority must be reckoned strictly from the date of continuous regular officiation or induction into the civil service. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that army service has no direct relevance for counting seniority in the civil Secretariat Group in the absence of specific rules, and that general principles of seniority dictate that a person inducted into a service counts seniority from the date of such induction. The key principle laid down is that prior military service cannot automatically be tacked on for civil seniority unless expressly provided by statutory rules governing civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether military service rendered by an Army officer prior to induction into civil service can be counted for determining seniority in the civil Secretariat Group?
  • How is the seniority of a Joint Secretary determined under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and applicable rules?
  • Does an order of equivalence between military ranks and civil National Pay Scales confer a right to count prior military service for civil seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal And 2 Others vs Hayat Gul1987 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  suit for possessiontitleabatement of appealrevisional jurisdictionfindings of factburden of prooftenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership and possession of a shop in Tehsil Haripur. The appellants filed a suit for possession based on title, alleging the respondent was their tenant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants. However, on appeal, the District Judge reversed this, finding the appellants failed to prove ownership. A second appeal to the High Court was filed by the respondent and a co-defendant (the Nawab), but the appeal abated against the Nawab upon his death. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appellants' revision petition, affirming the findings of fact regarding the lack of ownership. The core legal question was whether the abatement of the appeal against the Nawab precluded the adjudication of the merits of the appellants' claim against the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants failed to establish their title, they could not succeed in their claim for possession, regardless of the abatement. The Court affirmed that findings of fact regarding ownership, when properly reached, are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abatement of an appeal against one party in a suit for possession preclude the court from deciding the merits of the claim against another party?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in a suit for possession based on title without establishing their own ownership of the disputed property?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding ownership subject to interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afghan vs Muhammad Shafiq And 2 Other1987 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-13
  murderocular accountappreciation of evidencecorroborationcriminal petitionconcurrent findingssupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence and whether the testimony of interested eye-witnesses regarding a murder charge required independent corroboration which was lacking. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court had made a fair appraisal of the evidence based on adequate reasons, finding the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to be unreliable and uncorroborated, particularly given the circumstances of the case and the medical and ballistic reports. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of unreliable ocular testimony in a criminal trial will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of related witnesses requires corroboration when found to be unreliable?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of eye-witness testimony when ballistics and circumstances contradict the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf vs District Judge, Ralwalpindi And 2 Other1987 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-26
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantconstitutional jurisdictionquestions of factrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of a rented shop for himself and his son under the relevant rent restriction laws. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, which was initially reversed by the District Judge, leading to multiple rounds of litigation involving successive writ petitions and remands before the Lahore High Court and the appellate authority, culminating in the dismissal of the tenant's final writ petition. The core legal questions pertained to whether the landlord established sufficient proof of bona fide personal need, whether the receipt of Pugree or a change in the nature of business barred eviction, and whether concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that findings on bona fide personal need are questions of fact properly resolved by the lower forums and cannot be reviewed under constitutional jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a landlord's change in financial position or business prospects with the assistance of a son constitutes a valid basis for a bona fide personal requirement, and questions of fact concurrently determined by lower tribunals are immune from interference in writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of bona fide personal requirement of a rented premises is a question of fact that cannot be reviewed in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the receipt of Pugree at the time of letting out premises debar a landlord from subsequently seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need?
  • Whether a change in the nature of business intended to be carried on by the landlord and his son affects the validity of a bona fide personal requirement?
  • Does a landlord who previously vacated a shop without sufficient cause get barred from seeking ejectment under section 13(3)(a)(ii)(c) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if no explanation was elicited during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Amin vs Chief Settlement Commissioner Pakistan1987 SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20
  discretionary reliefwrit jurisdictionsettlement proceedingsdisplaced personstransfer of propertyleave to appealillegal transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a non-claimant displaced person, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition and letters patent appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the transfer of a bungalow forming part of an improperly combined property unit. The core legal question was whether the High Court was bound to interfere in its writ jurisdiction against an allegedly illegal order of a Settlement Authority when such interference would result in perpetuating an unauthorized transfer and aiding an injustice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the settlement authority's order, even if it suffered from legal flaws, because granting relief would restore property in excess of what was lawfully applied for and perpetuate an illegality. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in the exercise of its discretionary constitutional writ jurisdiction, will decline to interfere with an impugned order—regardless of its strict legality—if doing so would result in the perpetuation of an injustice or an illegal benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is bound to interfere in its writ jurisdiction against an order of a Settlement Authority that is allegedly without legal authority?
  • Can the High Court refuse discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction if granting such relief would perpetuate an illegality?
  • Whether a non-claimant displaced person is entitled to the transfer of property in excess of what was originally applied for?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharaf Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-05
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencedefence forcestrial vitiationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sharaf Khan against the dismissal of his appeal and the confirmation of his death sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question raised was whether the trial court's alleged failure to inform the military authorities about the trial of a member of the Defence Forces vitiated the entire trial. The Supreme Court held that this hyper-technical plea, never raised before the trial court or the High Court, could not be permitted for the first time at the leave to appeal stage, especially when there was no record showing the military authorities were unaware of the detention. The petition was consequently dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a hyper-technical plea not raised before the trial court or the High Court can be permitted for the first time at the leave to appeal stage?
  • Does the omission to inform military authorities about the trial of a member of the Defence Forces automatically vitiate the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shan Muhammad And 3 Others vs Imtiaz Ahmad1987 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07
  pre-emption suittenancy rightsleave to appealKhasra Girdawarirevenue recordindivisible saleco-vendees
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent challenging a sale of agricultural land by his father to the petitioners. The petitioners resisted the suit claiming superior pre-emptive rights as existing tenants of the disputed land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent son. On second appeal, the High Court affirmed the decree, reasoning that one co-vendee (Shan Muhammad) was not listed as a tenant in the revenue record, and because the sale was indivisible, all petitioners lost the defense of tenancy. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower appellate courts ignored material evidence regarding tenancy status, noting that the Khasra Girdawari entry referenced 'Muhammad Abbas... etc.' and uncontradicted oral evidence supported all petitioners' tenancy. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of material evidence regarding tenancy status required proper consideration on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the inclusion of the term 'etc.' in a Khasra Girdawari entry combined with uncontradicted oral evidence is sufficient to establish tenancy status of co-vendees?
  • Whether the High Court erred in ignoring material evidence regarding tenancy status when upholding a decree in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakar Khan And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, Quetta And Other1987 SCMR 1797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15
  ejectmentsecond appealrevisional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationleave to appealrevenue court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment suit filed against the petitioners under the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioners, and their first appeal was subsequently dismissed as time-barred. The petitioners filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, who accepted it and remanded the case. However, the Member, Board of Revenue, reversed this decision on the ground that a second appeal was barred under Section 67(c) proviso (ii) of the Ordinance. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition, holding that the Commissioner lacked the power to pass final orders under Section 71 of the Ordinance and could only refer the matter to the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed a conflict between subsections (3) and (4) of Section 71, noting that the plain language of subsection (4) appears to empower both the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner to pass final orders. The Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively interpret Section 71 and to determine whether an incompetent appeal could be treated as a valid exercise of revisional power.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between subsections (3) and (4) of Section 71 of the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978 regarding the Commissioner's power to pass final orders?
  • Does the Commissioner possess the jurisdiction to pass a final order when exercising revisional powers under Section 71 of the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978?
  • Can an order passed by an appellate authority in an incompetent appeal be sustained by referencing the authority's independent revisional powers under the relevant statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15
  special leave to appealconduct of prosecutionPublic Prosecutorcross casestender of evidencecriminal triallocus standi of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition upholding the trial court's order. The core legal question was whether a prosecution witness, even if injured, can independently move the trial court to tender certain evidence that the Public Prosecutor has refused or declined to lead. The Supreme Court held that under Section 265-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the prosecution is conducted by the Public Prosecutor, and the decision regarding what evidence to adduce rests solely with him. A witness has no locus standi to bypass the Public Prosecutor by filing an application to introduce evidence not supported by the prosecution. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that individual witnesses cannot usurp the role of the Public Prosecutor in conducting criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a prosecution witness can apply to the trial court to tender evidence that the Public Prosecutor has not chosen to adduce?
  • Does an injured witness have the legal status to bypass the Public Prosecutor in the conduct of a criminal trial?
  • Is the decision regarding what evidence the prosecution should lead at trial exclusively within the domain of the Public Prosecutor?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahana (Deceased) Through Mst. Rashidan Bibi And 2 Others vs Khushi Muhammad And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-25
  adverse possessionpossession of landrevenue recordleave to appealconsolidation operations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had restored a trial court decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of land. The core legal question concerned whether the defendants had established ownership of the suit land through adverse possession based on revenue entries. The Supreme Court held that mere entries in the revenue record are not sufficient in law to prove adverse possession, and upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the first appellate court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that unsubstantiated revenue entries do not suffice to establish a claim of adverse possession against the rightful owner.

  Questions settled

  • Are mere entries in the revenue record sufficient to prove adverse possession?
  • Whether the High Court can restore a trial court judgment when the first appellate court's findings are contrary to law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman And Others vs Muhammad Azam And Other1987 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07
  constitutional petitioncivil suitjurisdiction of civil courtsettlement authoritiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves civil appeals arising from a judgment of the High Court which permitted the withdrawal of writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact, granting the respondents the right to file civil suits. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits concerning the permanent entitlement of land transferred by settlement authorities, and whether the High Court's observations would bar raising the question of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents chose not to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. The Court allowed the appeals by confirming that the appellants are fully at liberty to raise all legal pleas in their defence in the pending civil suits, specifically including the plea regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suits. The principle laid down is that the withdrawal of a constitutional petition with permission to file a civil suit does not preclude the defendant from raising jurisdictional objections in the subsequent civil proceedings, and such courts must decide the question of jurisdiction in accordance with law unhindered by prior observations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits relating to the permanent entitlement of land transferred by settlement authorities?
  • Does the withdrawal of a constitutional petition with permission to file a civil suit bar the defendant from raising the plea of jurisdiction in the subsequent civil suit?
  • How should a civil court proceed when a plea regarding its jurisdiction is raised in a suit originating from a withdrawn constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Haji Abdul Haq And Other1987 SCMR 1757(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  time-barred petitioncondonation of delaylimitationsupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal which was filed with a delay of 176 days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to condone the extensive delay in filing the petition. The court held that no valid ground for the condonation of the delay was made out, and consequently dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of a valid and sufficient explanation for delay, a time-barred petition is liable to be dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a time-barred petition can be entertained without a valid ground for condonation of delay?
  • What constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning a delay of 176 days in filing a petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabih Ul Hassan vs Haji Abdul Jabbar And Other1987 SCMR 1455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-19
  Rehabilitation ActCivil Court JurisdictionOuster of JurisdictionAllotment CancellationDeclaratory DecreeEvacuee Property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit challenging an order by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, which cancelled an allotment of land subsequently gifted to the appellant. The appellant sought a declaratory decree, arguing the cancellation order was void for lack of notice. The trial court, upheld by the High Court, dismissed the suit, ruling that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenge. The core legal question was whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge an order passed by a Rehabilitation Authority, given the statutory bar on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was not maintainable. The Court affirmed that the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner could only be challenged through the appellate hierarchy provided under the relevant statute. The key principle laid down is that Section 17 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits against actions taken in good faith by Rehabilitation Authorities, mandating that such grievances be addressed through the prescribed departmental appellate forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 17 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a suit challenging an order of a Rehabilitation Authority?
  • Is a civil suit maintainable to challenge an order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the cancellation of land allotment?
  • Must an aggrieved party challenge an order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner through the appellate hierarchy of the Rehabilitation Authorities rather than a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• SH. Salahuddin vs Shaukat Umar And 2 Other1987 SCMR 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
• SH. Jaffar Hussain vs Amir Ali And Another1987 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25
  criminal appealwithdrawal of petitioncompromiseacquittalconviction alterationspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant and the State, respectively, challenging a High Court judgment that acquitted one accused and altered the conviction of another from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Regarding the complainant's petition, the petitioner sought to withdraw the appeal on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the complainant's petition accordingly. Regarding the State's petition, the Court examined the impugned High Court judgment to determine if any legal error existed. Upon hearing the State counsel and reviewing the record, the Court found no flaw in the High Court's reasoning or decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's petition for leave to appeal. The judgment affirms the finality of the High Court's decision in the absence of demonstrated legal error and acknowledges the right of a petitioner to withdraw a petition following a compromise between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner withdraw a petition for special leave to appeal if a compromise is reached between the parties?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment where no legal flaw is demonstrated by the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Hafiz Ur Rahim And Another vs Dr. Shafiq Ahmad And Another1987 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20
  civil revisionleave to appealpermanent transfer deedfraud and misrepresentationlocus standisettlement operationsrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from concurrent orders of the lower courts and the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision and affirming the rejection of their plaint. The core legal question concerns the availability of a remedy for challenging a property transfer deed alleged to have been secured through fraud and misrepresentation before the settlement authorities, after those authorities and the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction held they lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter post-issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed, while civil courts subsequently rejected the suit on locus standi grounds. The Supreme Court held that leaving the petitioners without access to any forum to investigate their plea of fraud and misrepresentation creates an anomalous position requiring examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the question and ordered the continuation of the status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities have jurisdiction to reopen a property transfer matter after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Does a party have locus standi to file a civil suit challenging a property transfer allegedly secured through fraud and misrepresentation before the settlement authorities?
  • Can a litigant be denied access to both constitutional and civil forums for redress regarding a fraudulent property transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Fazal Ur Rehman vs Pakistan Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Works And Rehabilitation, Islamabad And Other1987 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-11
  Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958Civil Court jurisdictionCompensation poolProperty transferEarmarking schemeOuster of jurisdictionPleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court judgment concerning the ownership of Bungalow No. 34, Haider Road, Rawalpindi, claimed by both the Cantonment Board and a private transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute or if such jurisdiction was barred by Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, given the property's status within the compensation pool. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the property remained part of the compensation pool and the transfer to the appellant was valid under the Act. The Court established that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 when the dispute involves determining entitlement to properties within the compensation pool, which must be resolved by authorities under the Act. Additionally, the Court held that when determining jurisdiction, courts must consider the pleadings of all parties rather than relying solely on the averments in the plaint, particularly when material facts are concealed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in disputes regarding properties within the compensation pool?
  • Should a court determine the question of its own jurisdiction based solely on the averments in the plaint or on the pleadings of all parties?
  • Can a property be considered outside the compensation pool if its sale approval was conditional upon it not being transferable under the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Seerat Hussain Shah vs The State1987 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16
  criminal appealdeath sentencemitigating circumstancessentence reductionmurder convictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Seerat Hussain Shah, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Abdul Shakoor under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner's appeal against the conviction and sentence was previously dismissed by the High Court, which confirmed the death penalty. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel did not challenge the conviction on its merits but specifically sought a reduction in the sentence. The core legal question before the Court was whether there existed any mitigating circumstances that would justify a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid mitigating factors that would warrant a lesser sentence under the law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the sentence imposed for the offence of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remains undisturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of mitigating circumstances justify the maintenance of a death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a death sentence be reduced when the petitioner does not challenge the conviction on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Sattu Khan And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14
  leave to appealright of self-defencedefence of propertymurderappreciation of evidencepossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioners for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in rejecting the accused's plea of self-defence of person and property, particularly in light of the significant injuries sustained by the accused during the incident and the underlying dispute regarding land possession. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, motive, and medical evidence, while the defence contended that the complainant party initiated the aggression, creating a genuine apprehension of danger. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's reasoning for rejecting the plea of self-defence requires further examination, especially regarding the ambiguity in evidence concerning which party held possession of the disputed land at the time of the occurrence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve whether the benefit of the doubt regarding the right of self-defence and the possession of property should have been extended to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defence of person and property?
  • Should ambiguity in evidence regarding the possession of disputed land be resolved in favour of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan And Another vs Muhammad Iqbal And Other1987 SCMR 1330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20
  ocular testimonyforensic corroborationbenefit of doubtacquittalmurderinterested witnessesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the death sentence of the petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz, for murder, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the ocular testimony, which was challenged as interested, was sufficiently corroborated by forensic evidence to sustain the petitioner's conviction, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused was justified due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the petitioner was sound, as the ocular testimony was consistent and corroborated by forensic evidence—specifically, the matching of the recovered gun with the crime empty found at the scene. The Court dismissed the challenge to the acquittal of the co-accused, finding that the lower courts correctly applied the principle of benefit of doubt due to material inconsistencies in the testimony regarding the specific roles and actions of those co-accused. The judgment reaffirms that forensic corroboration can validate ocular testimony even when witnesses are related to the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon to sustain a conviction when the witnesses are related to the deceased?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from a petitioner's possession provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Is an acquittal justified when there are material inconsistencies in the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding the roles of co-accused?
  • Does the fact that a weapon is licensed in the name of another person invalidate its recovery from the accused for evidentiary purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  criminal appealocular evidenceindependent corroborationforensic evidencerecovery of weaponsinterested witnessesdouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a double murder case where the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence, provided by interested witnesses, required independent corroboration, and if such corroboration existed given that the trial and appellate courts had rejected the recovery evidence due to procedural delays. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in rejecting the recovery evidence; a delay of a few days in dispatching recovered items to the Forensic Science Laboratory, absent evidence of tampering or lack of safe custody, does not invalidate the recoveries. The Court found that the matching of a recovered empty shell with the firearm seized from appellant Sarwar provided the necessary independent corroboration for his conviction. However, regarding the other appellants, the Court found insufficient evidence to sustain their convictions. The key principle laid down is that mere delay in the dispatch of recovered crime scene items to a forensic laboratory does not automatically render the recovery evidence inadmissible or worthless, provided the integrity and safe custody of the evidence remain unchallenged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in dispatching recovered crime scene items to a forensic laboratory automatically invalidate the recovery evidence?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of interested witnesses in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence corroborated by forensic matching of a recovered firearm?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sakhawatuddin And 3 Others Muhammad Aslam Farooq And Others vs Muhammad Iqbal And 4 Other Mst. Ijaz Munawar1987 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20
  Civil ProcedureWritten StatementPenal ProvisionNon-prosecutionRestoration of RevisionSpecific PerformanceJudicial Discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  These two civil appeals concern the interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the consequences of a defendant's failure to file a written statement, alongside the restoration of a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question is whether a court may automatically pronounce judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 upon such failure, and what constitutes a valid "requirement" for a written statement. The Supreme Court held that the penal consequences of Order VIII, Rule 10 are not automatic or mandatory. The provision is discretionary and must be strictly construed. A court may only invoke this rule if it has explicitly "required" the written statement through a speaking order, demonstrating an application of mind. Furthermore, the court must ensure the judgment is just and based on merits. Regarding the civil revision, the Court ordered its restoration, finding that the counsel’s absence due to professional obligations in an adjacent courtroom justified the delay. The principle established is that penal procedural rules require strict compliance and judicial discretion, preventing the routine imposition of judgment without substantive justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court automatically pronounce judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely due to a failure to file a written statement?
  • Does the penal provision of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a specific speaking order from the court to be enforceable?
  • Is the pronouncement of judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or discretionary upon a party's failure to file a written statement?
  • Should a civil revision be restored when the counsel's absence was due to professional obligations in an adjacent courtroom?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The State1987 SCMR 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-29
  death sentencecompromisemitigating circumstancecoercionmurderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentences of the petitioners for the murder of six individuals and a murderous assault on a minor child, Mst. Haleema, under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a compromise between the accused and the sole survivor of the incident, who is the niece of one of the accused, should be accepted as a mitigating circumstance to commute the death sentence. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of this compromise. The Court held that while it has previously considered compromises in murder cases as mitigating factors, it must exercise extreme caution to ensure such agreements are genuine and not coerced, particularly when made as a 'last resort' by death-row convicts. The principle laid down is that the Court must proactively investigate whether a compromise is voluntary or the result of coercion, and whether it serves the interests of justice, especially when the accused have killed the victim's entire family.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise in a murder case be accepted as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence?
  • What factors must the Court consider when evaluating the genuineness of a compromise in a criminal case?
  • Does the Court have a duty to investigate potential coercion in compromises offered by death-row convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Asim vs Sheikh Allah Dad1987 SCMR 1778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  bona fide requirementrent restrictionejectmentlocal commissionerlandlord and tenantappellate inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a rent dispute where the appellant-landlord sought the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from a portion of a bungalow, claiming the premises were required in good faith for his personal use and his family's occupation. The Rent Controller initially allowed the ejectment application, but the High Court reversed this decision, finding the landlord failed to prove the bona fide requirement or the unsuitability of his current accommodation. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established the necessity of the disputed premises given his existing accommodation and family size. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the landlord's claim regarding the insufficiency of his current housing was factually incorrect. The Court affirmed that the appointment of a local commissioner by consent to inspect the premises was a valid mode of inquiry at the appellate stage. Ultimately, the Court held that the landlord failed to satisfy the burden of proof regarding bona fide personal need, and the appellate findings were based on a proper evaluation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court appoint a local commissioner to inspect premises during an appeal in a rent case?
  • Does the appointment of a local commissioner by consent of parties preclude a party from challenging the report?
  • Is the burden of proof on the landlord to establish that existing accommodation is unsuitable when seeking eviction for personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Woollen Mills Ltd. and Another vs Monopoly Control. Authority1987 PLD Supreme Court 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  value of assetsmonopoly control authorityconcentration of economic powerrestrictive trade practicesfixed and current assetsdepreciationliabilities deduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil appeal addressed whether the expression "value of assets" under section 2(1)(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, relates to gross assets, whether liabilities must be deducted when computing the value of assets, and whether current assets are included. The appellants contended that "value of assets" should be restricted to fixed assets capable of depreciation or construed as net assets after deducting liabilities. The Supreme Court held that the statutory definition encompasses all assets in their entirety—including fixed, current, liquid, tangible, or intangible assets—evaluated at cost less normal depreciation where applicable under income tax laws, and that liabilities are not to be deducted. The Court reasoned that size, measured by the total value of assets, serves as the sole criterion to determine undue concentration of economic power under the Ordinance. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court remanding the matters to the Monopoly Control Authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the expression 'value of assets' under section 2(1)(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, connotes gross assets or only fixed assets?
  • Whether liabilities of an undertaking are to be taken into account and deducted when computing the 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
  • Does the definition of 'value of assets' include current, liquid, and circulating assets alongside fixed assets?
  • How is depreciation to be factored into the calculation of the value of assets under section 2(1)(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Woollen Mills Limited and another vs Monopoly Control Autho-PTCL 1987 CL. 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  monopoly controlvalue of assetsundue concentration of economic powerstatutory interpretationcorporate assetseconomic powerrestrictive trade practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against High Court judgments regarding the interpretation of the term "value of assets" under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970. The core legal questions were whether "value of assets" includes only fixed, depreciable assets or all assets, and whether liabilities must be deducted to arrive at a "net" value. The Supreme Court held that the definition encompasses the totality of an undertaking's assets, including fixed, current, liquid, tangible, and intangible assets, valued at cost less normal depreciation. The Court rejected the argument that liabilities should be deducted, reasoning that the legislative intent was to measure the "size" of an undertaking as an indicator of economic power. Consequently, excluding current assets or liabilities would undermine the Ordinance's regulatory purpose. The Court affirmed that the reference to income tax laws in the definition serves solely to calculate depreciation rates, not to classify the nature of assets. The appeals were dismissed, confirming that the Authority correctly included all assets to determine if an undertaking exceeds the statutory threshold for undue concentration of economic power.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, include current and liquid assets in addition to fixed assets?
  • Are liabilities to be deducted from the gross value of assets when determining the 'value of assets' for the purposes of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
  • Does the reference to income tax laws in the definition of 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, serve to classify the nature of assets or merely to provide a method for calculating depreciation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs WAPDA1987 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27
  service tribunaljurisdictionremoval from servicelimitationWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 8-8-1984, which dismissed the appellant meter-reader's service appeal. The appellant had been removed from service on 12-1-1983 under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. Leave was granted to examine whether the Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with WAPDA's orders given the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act. The Supreme Court noted that the question of the Tribunal's jurisdiction stood finally resolved by prior precedent. Finding no defect in the Tribunal's order—which had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and merits—the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed under it in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act?
  • Can a service appeal be dismissed on the grounds of limitation and merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1987 SCMR 1889 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25
  constitutional petitionleave to appealevacuee propertysettlement authoritiestransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns the character of the disputed property situated within the Sialkot Cantonment, specifically whether it constitutes Government/Cantonment Board property or evacuee property, and whether the petitioner, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir who received an initial transfer of a portion of the land, was entitled to the transfer of an additional adjacent piece of land under the Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the evacuee nature of the property and his entitlement to the additional land require detailed examination, especially since neither the Government nor the Cantonment Board had previously asserted that the land was not evacuee property during earlier transfer proceedings. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these matters further.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land situated within a cantonment limits and previously held on a lease in perpetuity can be treated as evacuee property?
  • Can a refugee entitled to an initial transfer of property claim an extra piece of adjacent land under the Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme?
  • Whether the High Court was correct in assuming the disputed property belonged to the Government or the Cantonment Board without prior assertion by those authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Butt vs The Master of the Mint, Pakistan Mint, Lahore1987 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-09
  service lawtermination of servicedepartmental inquiryprinciples of natural justiceshow-cause noticeintra-court appealsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal, which had challenged the termination of his services from the Pakistan Mint. The petitioner, employed as an Assistant Bullion Keeper, faced allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, and subversive activities, leading to departmental proceedings and an inquiry wherein he ultimately boycotted the proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to provide a separate show-cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report vitiated the termination order, and whether important documents were wrongfully withheld during the inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the contentions were without substance, ruling that the failure to supply a show-cause notice or inquiry report did not invalidate the proceedings in light of established precedent, and that the withheld document allegation was factually incorrect since the document was duly exhibited and the petitioner had chosen to boycott the inquiry. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to provide a show-cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report vitiates an order of termination?
  • Can a delinquent employee complain that a document was withheld when he boycotted the inquiry proceedings and failed to cross-examine the author?
  • Whether departmental remedies ought to be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sales Tax Officer, Lahore vs Messrs International Body Builders, Ferozepur Road, Lahore And Other1987 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29
  sales taxsale of goodscontract for workremandspecial leave to appealconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the High Court in a writ petition concerning the assessment of sales tax on the construction and repair of bus and truck bodies by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the respondent's business activity constituted a sale of goods rendering it liable to pay sales tax, or a contract for the performance of work exempting it from the same. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remanding the matter for a proper determination of this basic question, which the tax authorities had failed to address initially. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that tax authorities must first determine the foundational nature of a business transaction as either a sale of goods or a contract for work before imposing tax liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the construction of bus and truck bodies using customer-supplied chassis amounts to a sale of goods or a contract for the performance of work?
  • Can tax authorities impose sales tax liability without first determining the basic nature of the taxpayer's business transaction?
  • Is an order of remand by the High Court for determining foundational factual and legal questions open to interference by the Supreme Court under special leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sales Tax Officer And 2 Others vs Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd.1987 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08
  sales tax refundappellate tribunaldiscretionary jurisdictionconstitutional petitionverification of claimsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent regarding a refund of sales tax for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75. The core legal dispute arose after the Appellate Tribunal directed the refund of sales tax, but the Sales Tax Officer subsequently requested the respondent to produce records for verification of the claimed amount. The respondent refused, arguing that the Tribunal's earlier orders implied that the refund should be granted without further verification. The High Court upheld the respondent's position, concluding that the final orders in the first round of litigation precluded the necessity of verification. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, observed that the question of whether the claim required verification and determination in accordance with prescribed procedures had not been properly examined or decided in the initial litigation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the necessity of verification and whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in this matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order for a tax refund by an Appellate Tribunal automatically preclude the tax authorities from verifying the actual amount claimed?
  • Should the High Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under a constitutional petition when a party refuses to comply with a verification request for a tax refund?
  • Is a claim for a tax refund subject to verification of the amount paid despite prior appellate orders directing the refund?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs Ghulam Sarwar And Other1987 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20
  petition for leave to appealacquittalbenefit of the doubtinterested witnessocular testimonymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, which acquitted respondents 1 to 7 of charges under sections 302, 149, 148, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents for murder and rioting. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony and a motive involving illicit relations and prior altercations. The High Court acquitted the respondents by granting them the benefit of the doubt due to the uncorroborated, interested, and inimical nature of the eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court examined the testimony of the purported independent eye-witness and found that he was likewise hostile and inimical, thereby affirming that the High Court's assessment was justified. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in granting the benefit of the doubt and acquitting the respondents based on interested and inimical eye-witness testimony?
  • Can an eye-witness considered independent by the complainant be deemed hostile and inimical upon perusal of their statement?
  • Does medical evidence alone corroborate interested ocular testimony when independent corroboration is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin And Others vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Education And Other1987 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06
  seniorityprovincializationlocal councilsministerial staffservice tribunalspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a service dispute concerning the determination of seniority between ministerial staff transferred from Local Councils to the Provincial Education Department following the promulgation of the West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance, 1962, and those already serving in the department prior to the transfer. The core legal question was whether the transferred employees were entitled to count their previous length of service under the Local Councils for seniority or whether their seniority should commence strictly from the date of their provincialization on July 1, 1962. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the petitioners were entitled to receive seniority only from July 1, 1962, when they joined government service. Upon challenge, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing that the questions raised regarding the fixation of seniority upon provincialization or nationalization are of great public importance and pending consideration in other appeals.

  Questions settled

  • How is the seniority of ministerial staff transferred from Local Councils to the Provincial Government under the West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance, 1962 to be determined?
  • Whether employees whose services were transferred to the Provincial Education Department are entitled to count their previous length of service under Local Councils for fixation of seniority?
  • Whether an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal is competent when the aggrieved parties have not exhausted the departmental remedy of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs The State1987 SCMR 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03
  murderself-defencesentence reductionsudden quarrelcriminal petitionsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  These are cross-petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, where the petitioner Suleman was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Nisar Ahmad and sentenced to imprisonment for life after his death sentence was commuted by the High Court, while the deceased's brother sought restoration of the death sentence. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner acted in self-defence and whether the High Court correctly exercised discretion in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life given the suddenness of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was rightly rejected by the lower courts and that no interference was warranted with the High Court's discretion to reduce the sentence, dismissing both petitions while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principles laid down include the evaluation of sudden altercations for sentencing mitigation and the strict standards required to substantiate a plea of self-defence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of self-defence can be sustained when the accused fails to substantiate it with evidence and the physical circumstances contradict the version?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a sudden occurrence?
  • Whether an accused involved in a sudden affray at the spur of the moment is entitled to the commutation of a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad And Others vs Abdul Majid And Another1987 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02
  special oathres judicatamaintainability of suitleave to appealpredecessor-in-interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioners. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a subsequent suit is maintainable when the dispute between the parties had already been concluded in an earlier suit through a special oath taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the present suit was not maintainable because the matter had already been adjudicated upon the taking of a special oath in the previous litigation. The Court reasoned that if the decree in the earlier suit did not align with the terms of the special oath, the proper remedy for the petitioners was to file an appeal against that specific decree, rather than initiating a new suit. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a subsequent suit maintainable when the dispute between the parties has already been concluded by a special oath in an earlier suit?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy if a decree passed based on a special oath does not conform to the terms of that oath?
  Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad And Others vs Begum Akhtar Akhlaq Hussain And Other1987 SCMR 1923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-12
  strike off defencecivil procedurewritten statementrevisional jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration of ownership regarding a house in Gulberg, Lahore, which was resisted by the respondents. The respondents failed to file a statement containing their addresses and names of legal heirs along with their written statement under Rules 11 and 13 of Order VIII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but subsequently supplied the same shortly after the omission was pointed out in the replication. The trial Court declined to strike off the defence. On revision, the Additional District Judge struck off the defence and decreed the suit. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the Additional District Judge's order and remanded the case to the trial Court. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the propriety of invoking constitutional jurisdiction when an appeal was allegedly available and the competence of the Additional District Judge to withdraw the suit to his own file. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, staying further proceedings in the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy of appeal is available against a decree?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial Court to strike off the defence of a defendant who fails to file a statement of addresses along with the written statement?
  • Whether an Additional District Judge is competent to withdraw a suit to his own file in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Abbas And 2 Other vs The State1987 PLD Supreme Court 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-30
  murderocular testimonyinterested witnessesweapon recoverymotivedeath sentence commutationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of one Sajid Abbas. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony given by related and interested witnesses in the absence of an established motive, the reliability of weapon recoveries made several days after arrest, and whether an unwarranted disparity in sentencing among co-accused brothers warrants reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, by majority, held that convincing ocular testimony from natural witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the immediate motive is unproven or some co-accused are given the benefit of the doubt, and that weapon recoveries attested by a police officer against whom there is no allegation of dishonesty are admissible and corroborative. The principle laid down is that while corroboration is a rule of prudence, high-quality eyewitness testimony supported by medical and circumstantial evidence requires no corroboration, and minor discrepancies in an FIR do not vitiate the entire prosecution case against participating accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony from natural and related witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction in the absence of a proven motive?
  • Is a police officer's testimony regarding weapon recoveries admissible as corroborative evidence when no independent public witnesses are available?
  • Whether an appellate court is justified in discarding weapon recoveries solely because they were effected a few days after the accused's arrest?
  • Does an inconsistency or omission in the First Information Report regarding certain co-accused discredit the testimony of eyewitnesses against other participating accused?
  • Whether a disparity in the sentences awarded to co-accused brothers requires reducing the death sentence of another brother to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Tariq Nazir Butt And Another1987 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11
  ejectmentpersonal usebona fide requirementconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionfindings of factlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from an ejectment order passed against a tenant. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a commercial shop on the ground of personal use. The Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Subsequently, the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction set aside the appellate court's judgment and restored the Rent Controller's order. The core legal question revolved around whether a landlord's temporary absence abroad for studies during the pendency of eviction proceedings negates the bona fides of personal requirement, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a landlord is not expected to sit idle during protracted litigation, and going abroad or engaging in gainful occupation does not disprove bona fide personal use. Furthermore, the High Court is justified in interfering with an appellate finding of fact if it runs contrary to established legal principles and evidence on record. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord going abroad for studies during the pendency of eviction proceedings negate the bona fides of personal requirement?
  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the appellate court in rent matters?
  • Does the fact that a landlord's father pursues the ejectment proceedings on his behalf imply that his claim for personal use is false?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Nawaz Alias Tipu And Another vs The State And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-22
  special leave to appealocular testimonywitness credibilitymurder convictionacquittalconflicting statementscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified the convictions of the accused in a murder case. The accused were originally convicted by the trial court under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the death of the deceased. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two co-accused and converted the conviction of the primary accused to one under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence following the rejection of certain ocular testimony, the reliability of a witness who provided conflicting versions of the identity of the shooter, and the appropriateness of the High Court's acquittal of co-accused despite allegations of intentional killing with a lethal weapon. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the primary accused regarding his conviction and to the complainant regarding the acquittal of the accused under the murder charge. The Court refused leave regarding the acquittal of one co-accused, citing the improbability of his involvement in a minor dispute. The case highlights the necessity of re-examining evidence when witness credibility is challenged.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary ocular testimony is contradictory regarding the identity of the assailant?
  • Is it appropriate to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal when there are substantial questions regarding the reliability of witness testimony?
  • Does the use of a lethal weapon on a vital part of an unarmed person's body necessarily preclude the application of exceptions to murder under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• S.M. Naeem vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And Other1987 SCMR 1318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28
  displaced personsettlement of claimsauctionvoid ab initiotransfer of propertyresumption orderwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the auction of a residential flat transferred to a claimant displaced person. The appellant had been granted a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) but faced resumption of the property due to alleged non-payment. Subsequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued an order granting the appellant ninety days to pay the outstanding balance, contingent upon the finalization of his pending claim case. Despite this, the property was auctioned. The core legal question was whether the auction was valid given the pending claim case and the prior order granting time for payment. The Supreme Court held that the auction was void ab initio because the claim case had not been finalized, meaning the property was not legally available for disposal. The Court emphasized that administrative authorities must adhere to their own orders; since the condition precedent for auction—the finalization of the claim—had not occurred, the subsequent auction lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court, restoring the appellant's rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a property be auctioned by settlement authorities if the condition precedent for such auction, specifically the finalization of a claim case, has not been met?
  • Is an auction of property void ab initio if it is conducted in violation of a prior administrative order granting the transferee time to pay the transfer price?
  • Does the failure of settlement authorities to communicate or implement an order granting time for payment render a subsequent auction of the subject property legally invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Sarwat Haider And Another vs Central Board of Revenue,And Other1987 SCMR 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08
  senioritypower of reviewnecessary partiesService Tribunalcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the seniority of Appraisers in the Customs House, Karachi. The Federal Service Tribunal had accepted the appeals of respondents 3 and 4, granting them seniority, without impleading the appellants whose seniority was adversely affected. The appellants successfully applied to the Tribunal to recall this order, but the Tribunal subsequently reversed itself, holding that it possessed no statutory power of review. The Supreme Court considered whether the Tribunal could recall its own order in the absence of an express review power. The Court held that neither the Service Tribunals Act nor the rules made thereunder invest the Service Tribunal with the power to review its own orders under any circumstance. Consequently, the Tribunal's review order was without jurisdiction. However, the Court declared that because the appellants were necessary parties and were not impleaded, they were not bound by the original order and remained free to challenge their seniority before the departmental authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the statutory power to review or recall its own orders?
  • What is the legal effect of an order passed by the Service Tribunal on the seniority of civil servants who were necessary parties but were not impleaded in the proceedings?
  • Can a civil servant whose seniority is adversely affected by an order passed in their absence challenge that seniority before the departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Mahmood Alam Shah vs The StatePLD 1987. Supreme Court 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  forgerypublic servantspecial judge jurisdictionappreciation of evidencehandwriting expertcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a public servant, for forgery under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged alteration of a cheque amount. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence to prove forgery and whether the Special Judge possessed jurisdiction to try the appellant for acts committed in a private capacity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the forgery, noting that the physical evidence of the cheque showed no signs of alteration, and the handwriting expert's testimony was unreliable. Furthermore, the Court established that the Special Judge’s jurisdiction under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 is exclusive only when the offence is committed by a public servant 'as such.' Because the appellant acted in his private capacity as an agent for his wife, the act lacked the necessary nexus to his official duties. Consequently, the trial was vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, and the appellant was acquitted on both merits and legal grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 extend to offences committed by a public servant in their private capacity?
  • Is a court bound to accept the opinion of a handwriting expert in criminal proceedings?
  • What constitutes an act done by a public servant 'as such' for the purpose of establishing the jurisdiction of a Special Judge?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the essential elements of forgery on the face of the disputed document?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Irshad Hussain And Another vs Azizullah Khan And Another1987 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02
  ex parte decreetransfer of suitcivil procedureservice of noticeex parte defendantSection 24-A CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 24-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the requirement to notify ex parte defendants of the transfer of a civil suit. The plaintiffs-appellants challenged a High Court judgment that set aside an ex parte decree on the grounds that the transferee court failed to issue fresh notices to defendants who had previously been proceeded against ex parte. The core legal question was whether Section 24-A(2) imposes an obligation on the court to issue fresh notices to ex parte defendants upon the transfer of a case, or if the burden lies on the parties to appear before the court where the case was originally pending. The Supreme Court held that Section 24-A was enacted to streamline proceedings and place the obligation on parties to ascertain the status of their case upon transfer. The Court ruled that an ex parte defendant is not entitled to fresh notice of transfer, as the law requires parties to attend the original court to be informed of the transfer. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the application to set aside the ex parte decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 24-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a court to issue fresh notices to ex parte defendants upon the transfer of a suit?
  • Is an ex parte defendant entitled to be informed of the transfer of a case to a new court?
  • Does the failure of a court to notify an ex parte defendant of a case transfer render subsequent proceedings invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Zafar vs The State1987 SCMR 2041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  suspension of sentencecriminal appealjudicial discretionleave to appealco-convicts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the High Court refusing to suspend the petitioner's sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The petitioner was tried under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but was ultimately convicted by the Sessions Judge under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for firing at and grievously hurting a prosecution witness. The core legal question is whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to suspend the petitioner's sentence while suspending the sentence of a co-convict. The Supreme Court held that no case for interfering with the High Court's discretion was made out, distinguishing the petitioner's case from that of the co-convict due to the substantially different sentence lengths. The key principle laid down is that the suspension of sentence during appeal is a matter of judicial discretion, and differential treatment of co-convicts is justified where their respective sentences and cases are distinguishable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to suspend a sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Is the suspension of a co-convict's sentence a binding precedent for granting similar relief to another convict with a substantially different sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Riazul Haq vs Seth Khushi Muhammad And Another1987 SCMR 2048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17
  election petitionequality of votesdrawing of lotsreturning officerelection tribunallocal government election
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court regarding an election dispute for a seat in the Municipal Committee Okara. The core legal question was whether, upon finding an equality of votes between contesting candidates during an election petition, the Election Tribunal itself is mandated to draw lots under Rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979, or if it can remand the matter to the Returning Officer under the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. The Supreme Court held that once an election petition is before the Tribunal, Rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 makes it mandatory for the Tribunal itself to draw lots in the event of an equality of votes, rendering any remand to the Returning Officer for that purpose illegal and without lawful authority. The Court laid down the principle that the procedure for drawing lots by a Returning Officer applies during the initial election stage, whereas the Election Tribunal possesses exclusive, mandatory jurisdiction to draw lots when deciding an election petition under the specific election petition rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Election Tribunal can remand a case to the Returning Officer to draw lots in case of an equality of votes during an election petition?
  • Is it mandatory for the Election Tribunal to itself draw lots under Rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 upon finding an equality of votes?
  • Does participation in the drawing of lots before a Returning Officer confer jurisdiction on the Returning Officer when the matter is already before the Election Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain Shah vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colony), West Pakistan and 2 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-07
  Colonization of Government Landsscheduled tenancysublettingresumption of tenancyunauthorized possessionejectmentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court writ petition that set aside concurrent orders of Revenue authorities. A shop site governed by the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 was allotted to the respondent in 1948. The respondent later applied for proprietary rights, but the appellant objected, asserting he had been in possession and running the shop as a sub-tenant for years. The Collector, Additional Commissioner, and Member, Board of Revenue, resumed the shop site from the respondent and allotted it to the appellant. The High Court quashed these orders. The Supreme Court examined whether the resumption and re-allotment were valid. The Court held that the shop site was a scheduled tenancy under Section 4 of the Act. Subletting without written consent was void under Section 19, making the transferee's possession unauthorized and subject to ejectment. Furthermore, Section 27 excluded the application of Section 24 penalty and resumption provisions to scheduled tenancies. Consequently, the Revenue authorities' orders allotting the site to the sub-tenant were legally erroneous, and the High Court's setting aside of those orders was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 apply to scheduled tenancies?
  • What is the effect of subletting a scheduled tenancy without the written consent of Revenue authorities under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
  • Can Revenue authorities allot a resumed scheduled tenancy to an unauthorized sub-tenant in possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain And Another vs District Council, Muzaffargarh Through Chairman And Another1987 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11
  special leave to appealWaqf propertyAuqaf Departmentlease expirationlocus standitemporary injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising out of identical facts concerning a dispute over property that forms part of a Waqf created by Sardar Kaura Khan. The property was taken over by the Auqaf Department by notification in 1973 and subsequently leased out to the petitioners in 1981 for two years. Upon a later notification releasing the property, the petitioners filed suits challenging the release and seeking temporary injunctions. The trial court dismissed the interim relief applications, and the additional district judge not only dismissed the appeals but also rejected the plaints. Civil revisions before the High Court were similarly unsuccessful, leading to the present petitions. The core legal question involved the competence of the lower appellate court to reject the plaints and the entitlement of the petitioners to interim relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitions are not fit for the grant of leave because the leases granted to the petitioners have since expired, leaving them without any locus standi in the matter. The key principle laid down is that the expiration of a lease extinguishes the lessee's locus standi to challenge subsequent dealings or releases of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does a lessee retain locus standi to challenge property proceedings after the expiration of their lease?
  • Is leave to appeal to the Supreme Court warranted when the underlying lease of the petitioners has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Farooq Ahmad And Another1987 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-05
  Criminal Petition for Special Leave to AppealSection 302 PPCalteration of convictionreduction of sentenceplea of defenceenhancement of sentencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal petitions for special leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by both the complainant (seeking enhancement of sentence and challenging the alteration of charge) and the convict (challenging his conviction and altered sentence). The convict, Muhammad Farooq, was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, along with a fine. On appeal, the High Court altered his conviction to Section 304 Part II (referred to in the text as Section 302-II) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to five years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine, based on a finding that a reasonable possibility existed that the defence version might be true. The Supreme Court dismissed the convict's petition as not pressed. Regarding the complainant's petition challenging the appreciation of the defence plea, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's assessment of the evidence and reasoning, finding no merit in the challenge and accordingly dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's alteration of a conviction from murder to a lesser offence based on the reasonable possibility of the defence plea being true warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether leave to appeal against reduction of sentence should be granted when the appellate court's appreciation of the defence plea is supported by the evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Muhammad Jaffar Khan And Other1987 SCMR 761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  specific performanceagreement to sellrevisional jurisdictionleave to appealdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court declining to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which had dismissed the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The core legal question concerns whether the appellate court and revisional court properly evaluated the documentary evidence regarding the alleged agreement to sell and whether documents could be accepted during arguments in revision. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the rejection of documents by the High Court and the visual inspection of tampered documents by the Additional District Judge required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the deposit of security, and ordered that the status quo regarding the disputed property be maintained subject to furnishing security for mesne profits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether documents not filed along with the grounds of revision can be permitted to be placed on the record at the time of arguments?
  • Whether an appellate court is justified in holding a document to be forged or tampered with solely upon visual inspection without summoning the trial court's record?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings on a question of fact in a specific performance suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Mrs. Alia And Other1987 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25
  ejectmentdefault in rentlandlord and tenantrent restrictionlump sum paymentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment dispute concerning a residential flat in Karachi. The landlord sought the tenant's eviction based on default in rent payment for a specific period. The tenant contended that the parties had established a practice of paying rent in lump sums, and that the landlord had intentionally failed to collect the rent to manufacture a ground for eviction. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, accepting the tenant's plea of established practice. However, the High Court reversed this decision on appeal, finding that the evidence demonstrated the tenant had consistently paid rent in advance, rather than in arrears, and that the tenant had failed to pay rent for the disputed period. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including rent receipts and cheque payments, and upheld the High Court's finding. The Court affirmed that the tenant failed to establish a practice of lump-sum payments that would excuse the admitted default, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant avoid eviction for non-payment of rent by alleging an established practice of lump-sum payments if the evidence contradicts such a claim?
  • Does the failure to pay rent for a specific period constitute default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding rent payment practices by the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court if supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat And 3 Others vs The State1987 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29
  criminal petitionleave to appealdying declarationocular testimonymurderbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioners' conviction and sentences under sections 302, 307, and 365 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, murderous assault, and abduction. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, specifically the reliability of a dying declaration, ocular testimony of an injured witness, and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the evidence had been properly appreciated by the courts below and that no substantial question of law warranted interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration along with the testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does an alleged contradiction in medical evidence automatically entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali And Others vs Naeem Ahmad And Other1987 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08
  pre-emptionco-shareragricultural landjoint khatapre-emptive rightleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The pre-emptor claimed a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being a co-sharer in the relevant joint khata. The trial court initially dismissed the suit as time-barred and held that the pre-emptor failed to establish a superior right. However, the District Judge reversed these findings on appeal and decreed the suit, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in a revision petition. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a co-sharer in a joint khata loses his status as a co-owner of agricultural land merely by constructing a house on a portion of the purchased land. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and District Judge, holding that since the land largely remained agricultural and used for crops, constructing a structure on part of the joint land did not divest the pre-emptor of his status as a co-owner. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does constructing a structure on a portion of land in a joint khata deprive a person of their status as a co-owner of agricultural land for pre-emption purposes?
  • Whether agricultural land retains its character when part of it is used for residential construction while the rest is cultivated?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmani Gul vs Rent Controller And Other1987 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-24
  implied repealgeneralia specialibus non derogantrent controltribal areasjurisdiction of Rent Controllerstatutory interpretationspecial law vs general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an eviction proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant in Swat, within the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas. The core legal question was whether the enactment of Regulation No. II of 1975 (as amended by Regulation No. IV of 1976), which mandated that cases of a civil nature be referred to a Jirga, impliedly repealed the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, thereby divesting the Rent Controller of jurisdiction to hear eviction applications. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the Rent Ordinance constitutes a special law, while the subsequent Regulation is a general law. Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court affirmed that a general later law does not impliedly repeal an earlier special law unless such an intention is clearly manifested. The Court concluded that the legislature intended for special laws, like the Rent Ordinance, to continue operating alongside the general Jirga system, thus dismissing the tenant's appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent general law impliedly repeal an earlier special law?
  • Did the enactment of Regulation No. II of 1975 divest the Rent Controller of jurisdiction to hear eviction cases in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas?
  • Can a Rent Controller exercise jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the absence of a specific notification under section 4 of Regulation No. I of 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Shah And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-30
  murdercommon intentiondying declarationocular testimonymotivefirearm injuriesmitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellants, two brothers, were accused of murdering their brother-in-law by firing at him after he beat their sister. The core legal questions involved whether the findings of guilt were based on safe criminal justice principles, and whether the intention of the appellants—manifested by shooting at the legs—was merely to punish the deceased rather than commit murder, thereby attracting a lesser offence such as Section 304 or Section 326 instead of Section 302. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concerted firing of lethal weapons (rifles) by both appellants at the victim, resulting in fatal hemorrhage, sufficiently established a common intention to murder, and that a lesser penalty of life imprisonment had already adequately accounted for mitigating circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the use of lethal firearms targeting limbs, when resulting in death, does not automatically negate a common intention to murder where the nature and manner of the attack are inherently dangerous to human life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the firing of firearms at the legs of a victim by multiple accused indicates an absence of common intention to murder?
  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon even if it omits the name of one of the ocular witnesses present at the scene?
  • Whether the use of rifles resulting in fatal hemorrhage from leg injuries constitutes murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does the younger age of an co-accused acting under the influence of an elder brother warrant an acquittal or further reduction in sentence when life imprisonment has already been awarded?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehm Din vs Rizwan Hussain1987 SCMR 1517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25
  special leave to appealmisreading of evidenceconcurrent findingsreceiptzar-i-punjam
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a finding by the High Court that the District Judge and the trial Court misread the receipt Exh.A-1 regarding the date of deposit of zar-i-punjam, determining it to be 13-7-1967 instead of 12-7-1967. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the misreading of evidence by the lower courts suffered from any legal infirmity justifying interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the High Court's finding, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a material misreading or infirmity is successfully established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the misreading of evidence?
  • Does a finding on the date of deposit based on a receipt constitute a question of fact open to interference if properly evaluated?
  • Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to show any infirmity in the impugned High Court judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Alias Shida vs The State1987 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-28
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencegenesis of incidentleave to appealcriminal appealsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Rashid alias Shida, for the murder of Farooq Azam. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fatally stabbed the deceased with a knife following a prior dispute over pigeons. While the petitioner initially claimed the act was committed in self-defense against a sexual assault, this plea was abandoned during the appeal proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to a lesser sentence than death, given that the prosecution evidence failed to establish the immediate genesis of the attack or the events preceding the fatal assault. The Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine whether the absence of evidence regarding the incident's origin warrants the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, consistent with established precedents regarding sentencing in cases where the motive or immediate provocation remains unproven.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the genesis of a murder incident entitle the accused to a lesser sentence than death?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the events immediately preceding the fatal attack remain unknown?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajwali (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs And 4 Others vs Allah Dad1987 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-10
  leave to appealinheritance disputelimited estatesuccessioncollateral successionnecessary parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal and upheld the concurrent judgments of the lower courts in a declaratory suit concerning inheritance. The original suit was filed by the respondents seeking their share in the estate of Shahwali, who died in 1921 leaving a limited estate to his widow Gulab Khatoon, who passed away in 1962. The trial court divided the estate among the widow's heirs, the sisters of the deceased, and collaterals. A contention was raised by the petitioners that upon the death of one collateral, Ghulam Muhammad, in 1939, his share should have devolved solely upon Rajwali, the only surviving collateral at that time, rather than being distributed among predeceased collaterals. The Supreme Court noted that this question, along with the effect of failing to implead necessary parties in the first appeal, requires examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the share of a collateral who dies after the opening of inheritance should devolve solely upon the surviving collateral at the time of his death?
  • What is the legal effect of the failure to implead necessary parties in the first appeal arising from a declaratory decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali And 3 Others vs Dairus B. Kandawalla And Another1987 SCMR 1487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-01
  leave to appealevictionbona fide personal requirementrented premisesinterim staylandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal challenging the decision of the High Court regarding eviction proceedings. The core legal question presented was whether the High Court erred in applying the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance to the case and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondents' bona fide personal requirement for the premises were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the submissions regarding the erroneous application of the law and the flawed factual approach of the lower courts warranted further consideration. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, set the security amount at Rs. 1,000 per case, and directed that the appeals be heard on the existing record, while permitting the parties to file additional documents. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim order restraining the eviction of the petitioners pending the final decision of the appeals, subject to the continued deposit of rent as previously ordered, and directed that the appeals be heard within one year by consent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance apply to all eviction proceedings regardless of the specific facts of the case?
  • Can a finding of bona fide personal requirement for premises be challenged if the lower court's approach to the facts is alleged to be erroneous?
  • Under what conditions can the Supreme Court grant a stay of eviction pending the final disposal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Javed Ahmad And Others vs Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala And Another1987 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  service tribunalpolice servicedismissal from servicedispensing with inquirysecurity of pakistanleave to appealquantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their dismissal from police service. The petitioners, members of the Police Reserve, were accused of participating in and leading a serious strike following grievances against a superior officer. The core legal questions involve whether the invocation of proviso (b) in Rule 9 of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, dispensing with a regular inquiry on the ground of the security of Pakistan, was justified, and whether the quantum of punishment of dismissal was appropriate given the findings that the superior officer was also at fault. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised required closer examination, particularly regarding the applicability of the security proviso and the appropriateness of the penalty. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the security of Pakistan proviso for dispensing with a regular inquiry applies to a localized police strike?
  • Does a service tribunal have the duty to examine the proportionality and appropriateness of the penalty of dismissal when the superior officer is also found to be at fault?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Khan vs University of Agriculture1987 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19
  compulsory retirementservice lawquantum of punishmentwrit petitionUniversity employee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing his writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement from service as a senior clerk at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The core legal question concerned whether the penalty of compulsory retirement, imposed after a regular inquiry finding him guilty of unauthorized absence and falsely implicating two senior teachers in a criminal case, was open to judicial interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the quantum of punishment falls entirely within the determination of the competent University authorities and that the penalty imposed was not excessive given the gravity of the misconduct. The key principle laid down is that superior courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction will not interfere with the quantum of administrative punishment determined by competent authorities following a regular and unblemished inquiry, unless the penalty is shown to be wholly disproportionate or unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quantum of punishment awarded by a University authority in a disciplinary matter is open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a regular departmental inquiry resulting in a finding of guilt for absence and falsely implicating teachers warrant compulsory retirement?
  Read full judgment →