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.

• Muhammad vs Mst. Maryam Bibi And Another1987 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01
  habeas corpussui juriscustody of adultSection 491 Cr.P.C.judicial discretionvoluntary statementOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged orders passed by the Lahore High Court in a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of Mst. Nur Safia, an adult woman. The appellant, the woman's father, contended that the High Court erred in granting custody to the respondent, who was an accused in a pending abduction case registered by the appellant. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in allowing a sui juris woman to choose her custodian despite allegations of mala fides and pending criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in habeas corpus proceedings involving a sui juris adult, the court's primary duty is to ascertain the voluntary will of the person. Since the High Court had satisfied itself through a period of protective custody in Darul Amman that the woman’s statement was voluntary and free from coercion, it was justified in respecting her wishes to reside with her close female relatives, notwithstanding the pending criminal litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court in a habeas corpus petition grant custody of a sui juris woman to a person accused in a related criminal case?
  • Is the voluntary statement of a sui juris woman the paramount consideration in determining her custody in habeas corpus proceedings?
  • Does a habeas corpus petition filed by an accused person in a related abduction case necessarily constitute a mala fide act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs The Board of Revenue1987 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10
  evacuee trust propertyleave to appealejectment proceedingssettlement departmentconstitutional petitionres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer of property. The petitioner, a tenant of premises in Hyderabad, contested the transfer of the property by the Settlement Department to the respondent, Haji Islamuddin, arguing that the property was evacuee trust property and thus ineligible for transfer. This issue had been previously litigated through ejectment proceedings, where the Rent Controller and subsequent appellate forums rejected the petitioner's claims. The petitioner initiated a second round of litigation by petitioning the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board, which was also rejected. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter and found no grounds for interference, affirming the reasoning of the High Court. The Court held that the petitioner's contentions had been correctly adjudicated and rejected by the lower courts based on sound legal principles. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the finality of the previous adjudications regarding the property's status and transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge the transfer of property by the Settlement Department after the property has been auctioned and a P.T.O. issued?
  • Does the status of property as evacuee trust property invalidate a transfer made by the Settlement Department if the issue has been previously litigated and rejected?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable to re-litigate issues regarding property status that have already been decided in rent control proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Malik and Other vs Federal Service Tribunal and Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22
  civil serviceseniority listcadre vs gradevested right in promotioneligibility for promotionretrospective seniorityEstablishment Division directives
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from decisions of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the determination of inter se seniority and promotion eligibility among Upper Division Clerks (Auditors) and Selection Grade Clerks (Audit Assistants). The core legal questions involved whether grade and cadre are synonymous, whether civil servants possess a vested right in rules governing promotion or eligibility for promotion, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in unsettling an established seniority list maintained as of 14-8-1973 under Establishment Division directives. The Supreme Court held that pay scale or grade alone does not constitute a separate cadre without express creation by a competent authority, and that before cadre separation, promotion was based on the combined seniority list. Reversing the Service Tribunal, the Court ruled that civil servants have no vested right in promotion or rules determining eligibility for promotion. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Service Tribunal's judgments and upholding the seniority directives issued by the Auditor-General in line with Establishment Division policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right in rules governing promotion or eligibility for promotion?
  • Does a difference in pay scale or grade automatically create a distinct civil service cadre without an express order from the competent authority?
  • Can the Service Tribunal indirectly set aside a general policy decision of the Establishment Division regarding seniority fixation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman And Others vs Ahma And Another1987 SCMR 1077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  leave to appealconcurrent findingscivil revisionrecovery suitpossession of agricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed their civil revisions arising out of concurrent findings by the lower courts. The litigation involved two cross-suits: one filed by the petitioners for the recovery of money and the other by the respondents for the possession of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the petitioners' suit and decreed the respondents' suit, a decision subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether any interference was warranted in concurrent factual findings of the lower courts where the petitioners' own witness damaged their case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent judgments were unexceptionable as the petitioners' case was destroyed by their own witness, and no question of law of general importance was raised. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when a party's own witness destroys their case?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against concurrent judgments that raise no question of law of general importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1987 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-12
  murder convictionreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealconcurrent findingsleave to appealfactual findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, Muhammad Siddiq, for the murder of Arshad Mahmood. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The prosecution's case rested on eye-witness testimony, the recovery of a blood-stained weapon (Chhuri), medical evidence, and established motive regarding a financial dispute between the two students. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence warranted a reappraisal of the factual findings made by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel merely amounted to a request for a reappraisal of evidence on questions of fact. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, affirming that it is not a fit case for such an exercise, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a request for the reappraisal of evidence on questions of fact constitute sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to re-examine factual evidence in a criminal appeal where the lower courts have already established guilt based on eye-witness and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Ghulam Haider And Other1987 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-22
  last-seen evidencemurderadmissibility of FIRappreciation of evidencerecovery of blood-stained clothescriminal appealimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondents under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and instead convicted them under Section 201/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of last-seen evidence, the admissibility and use of an F.I.R. lodged by an accused, and the recovery of blood-stained incriminating articles. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court had properly appraised the evidence—including consistent last-seen testimonies and matching blood-stained clothing recovered from the spot—and that the High Court erred in excluding the F.I.R. statement since it was owned by the accused at trial and did not constitute a confession. The ratio laid down is that an appellate court should not interfere with a well-reasoned trial court judgment based on sound judicial principles unless the findings are speculative or misinterpret evidence, and an F.I.R. lodged by an accused containing an exculpatory version and owned at trial is admissible to explain conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with findings of a trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Can an F.I.R. lodged by an accused containing an exculpatory statement be used or referred to when owned by the accused at trial?
  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by recoveries and medical evidence?
  • Whether the High Court can alter a conviction to an offence for which the accused was neither charged nor tried?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq And Others vs Muhammad Ashraf And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencereappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findings of factmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 19-3-1986. The accused persons were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302/34 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault, receiving death sentences and rigorous imprisonment. The High Court dismissed their appeal against conviction but reduced the death sentences to imprisonment for life. The accused filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against their conviction and sentence, while the complainants filed a separate petition seeking enhancement of the sentences imposed on the accused. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and the arguments presented by counsel. Regarding the accused's petition, the Court found that it merely sought a reappraisal of evidence and a reversal of concurrent findings of fact, raising no substantial question of law. Regarding the enhancement petition, the Court held that the High Court's reasoning for reducing the sentences was tenable. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, declining to interfere with the High Court's findings or sentencing discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition for leave to appeal that merely seeks a reappraisal of evidence and reversal of concurrent findings of fact raise a question of law requiring Supreme Court intervention?
  • Is the High Court's reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment subject to interference by the Supreme Court if the reasons for such reduction are found to be tenable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher vs Fateh Khan And 4 Other1987 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-12
  criminal appealenhancement of sentenceacquittalocular testimonycorroborationmurdercommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent, Fateh Khan, and challenging the acquittal of his co-accused, Nawaz, Murid, and Ahmad Sher, in a murder case. The trial court had convicted Fateh Khan and two others for the murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the complainant, while acquitting one co-accused. The High Court subsequently acquitted two additional co-accused, maintaining only the conviction of Fateh Khan. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of the co-accused was justified and whether the sentence of the primary accused warranted enhancement given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence of Fateh Khan were proper, noting that his participation was corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of a blood-stained weapon, and the motive. Regarding the acquitted co-accused, the Court held that the ocular testimony lacked necessary corroboration for their specific roles. The principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is uncorroborated regarding the specific parts ascribed to co-accused, acquittal is justified.

  Questions settled

  • Is the acquittal of co-accused justified when ocular testimony lacks corroboration regarding their specific roles?
  • Can a conviction be maintained against a primary accused when there is corroborating evidence such as medical reports, weapon recovery, and motive?
  • Does the presence of a motive and prior history between parties justify the enhancement of a sentence for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Zulfiqar And Other1987 SCMR 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  leave to appealocular testimonyinterested witnessacquittalre-appraisal of evidencemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted three individuals—Zulfiqar, Nasar Khan, and Niaz Ahmad—of the murder of a local councillor. The trial court had initially convicted the accused based on ocular testimony, sentencing one to death and two to life imprisonment. The High Court, however, overturned these convictions, ruling that the prosecution's ocular evidence was deeply interested and inimical, lacking necessary independent corroboration. Furthermore, the High Court relied on defense testimony from a police official regarding the investigation and the potential presence of other witnesses, which contradicted the FIR. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court improperly admitted inadmissible investigative material and failed to correctly assess the quality of the evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the evidence required a thorough re-appraisal to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the three acquitted individuals to examine the propriety of their acquittal, while refusing leave regarding the fourth accused who had been acquitted by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reliance on inadmissible investigative material by a High Court in an acquittal judgment warrant a re-appraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a High Court acquit accused persons solely on the basis of the absence of independent corroboration for interested ocular testimony?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal order passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Abdul Latif1987 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-22
  misreading of evidenceservice of summonsex parte proceedingsrestoration of suitcivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition regarding the dismissal of a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on a finding that the petitioner had been served with notice, despite evidence suggesting misreading of the bailiff's report. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misread the bailiff's report, which actually indicated that the notice was returned unserved because the petitioner's counsel had died and the respondent was not present, rather than confirming service as the lower court had concluded. The Court held that a judicial decision based on a material misreading of the record is unsustainable. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, noting the substance in the petitioner's contention regarding the misreading of evidence, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final disposal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court's decision be sustained if it is based on a material misreading of the bailiff's report regarding the service of summons?
  • Does the dismissal of an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a correct assessment of whether the party was duly served?
  • Is a finding of fact by a High Court revisional bench open to challenge if it relies on a misinterpretation of the trial court's record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Khan And Others vs Ghulam Abbas1987 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02
  leave to appealdeclaratory suitshamilat landthal development authorityfeeding the estoppeltransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of a declaratory suit based on a claim of ownership by purchase. The core legal question concerns whether the vendor, who sold village Shamilat land that was subsequently acquired and returned by the Thal Development Authority, is bound under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to satisfy the vendees' claim out of the subsequently acquired or returned land on the principle of feeding the estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised require examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down relates to the application of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act when a vendor subsequently acquires an interest in property they previously purported to transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vendor is bound under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to satisfy a vendee's claim when land is subsequently returned following acquisition by the Thal Development Authority?
  • Does the principle of feeding the estoppel apply to the sale of Shamilat land in excess of the vendor's actual share when the vendor subsequently acquires title to replacement land?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-06
  leave to appealmurdermurderous assaultinterested witnessesenmityparity of evidenceabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by two brothers who were convicted under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and a murderous assault, which convictions and modified sentences were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involves evaluating the sustainability of the conviction in the presence of long-standing enmity, interested witnesses, and identical evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the lack of distinguishing features between convicted and acquitted co-accused, the close-range firing on a deceased with whom there was no enmity, and the interested nature of the ocular testimony require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners, laying down principles regarding the scrutiny of ocular evidence and parity of treatment in criminal cases involving multiple accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when the evidence against the convicted persons is identical to that against co-accused who were acquitted?
  • How does long-standing enmity and the interested nature of ocular witnesses affect the reliability of prosecution evidence in a murder trial?
  • Does the presence of blackening indicating close-range fire on a deceased with whom there was no prior enmity create a doubt in the prosecution's narrative?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 2035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24
  leave to appealmurderre-appraisal of evidenceeye-witness testimonycriminal appealcommon intentionblunt weapon injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case alleged that the petitioners, along with an acquitted co-accused, attacked the deceased with Sotas following a dispute over the turn of water, resulting in fatal injuries. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in relying upon the testimony of an eye-witness who allegedly witnessed the occurrence from a considerable distance. The Supreme Court held that given the open field setting during daylight, the distance of six kanals did not preclude the eye-witness from observing the assault. Consequently, the Court found no justification for a re-appraisal of the evidence and dismissed the petition, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on credible ocular testimony will not be disturbed absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness observing an assault from a distance of six kanals in an open field during daylight is reliable?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter without strong grounds?
  • Whether a case for re-appraisal of evidence is made out when ocular accounts are supported by recoveries and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 2 Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08
  leave to appealprivate defenceright of private defence of propertyright of private defence of personcriminal appealpossession of landinjuries to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the petitioners were convicted for murder and causing injuries under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners challenged their conviction, primarily arguing that the trial court and the High Court failed to properly consider the plea of private defence raised by one of the petitioners, Abdul Majid. The petitioner contended that he sustained multiple injuries during the incident, including stab wounds, and that evidence from the Revenue Patwari and a defence witness established that the land in dispute was in his possession, suggesting the complainant party were the aggressors. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the plea of private defence of person and property in light of the injuries sustained by the accused and the evidence regarding possession of the disputed land. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record and the arguments, found that the points raised regarding the right of private defence required further examination and consequently granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of injuries on the person of an accused in a murder case necessitate a deeper examination of a plea of private defence?
  • Can a claim of possession of disputed land support a plea of private defence of property in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique And Others vs Abdul Hayee And Other1987 SCMR 1371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  Section 145 CrPCrestoration of possessioninherent powersSection 561-A CrPClimitation periodpreliminary orderforcible dispossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns proceedings initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the restoration of possession of a shop. The core legal questions were whether an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is competent after the exhaustion of revisional jurisdiction under Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the two-month limitation period for restoration of possession under Section 145(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is calculated from the date of the application or the date of the Magistrate's preliminary order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court may invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A to correct patent legal errors even after revisional powers are exhausted. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the two-month limitation period for restoration of possession is strictly calculated from the date of the Magistrate's preliminary order. The Court established that equitable doctrines such as 'nunc pro tunc' cannot be applied to extend statutory limitation periods in criminal procedure, emphasizing that the Magistrate's jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent after the exhaustion of revisional jurisdiction under Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the two-month limitation period for restoration of possession under Section 145(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 commence from the date of the application or the date of the preliminary order?
  • Can equitable doctrines such as 'nunc pro tunc' be applied to extend the statutory limitation period for restoration of possession under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Alias Billa And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29
  dying declarationcriminal petitionmurdercorroborationbenefit of doubtpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners were tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge under sections 302/34 and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences of imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment, following an incident on 14-10-1972 that resulted in the death of the victim. Their subsequent appeals to the High Court were dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the petition for leave to appeal, which argued that multiple police investigations had been conducted and that a certified copy of a statement contained discrepancies. The Supreme Court noted that the conviction was securely based on the dying declaration of the deceased, which was believed by the courts below and found to require no further corroboration as the deceased was disinterested. Holding that no point of law arose from the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration from a disinterested deceased person is sufficient to sustain a conviction without requiring further corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration requires corroboration when the deceased is an absolutely disinterested witness?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a document containing discrepancies that was never put to any witnesses or tested for genuineness?
  • Does the conduct of multiple police investigations vitiate a trial where the conviction is based on a reliable dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner And Another1987 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14
  settlement departmentauction proceedingspermanent transfer deedconstitutional jurisdictionlacheswrit petitionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had directed the Settlement Commissioner to examine the entitlement of respondent No. 2 to a portion of an auctioned plot permanently transferred to the appellant's predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question involved the propriety of invoking constitutional jurisdiction to reopen a long-settled property transfer dispute where the respondent's prior appeals had been dismissed in default and through prolonged delay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in issuing a writ based on worthless, unattested documents and ignored crucial facts, including the absence of proof that the respondent had ever applied for transfer under the relevant scheme or diligently pursued his remedies over a span of six years. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the High Court's writ was set aside, laying down the principle that unexplained laches, absence of primary evidence of entitlement, and finality of administrative auction proceedings preclude the grant of relief under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge settlement auction proceedings after an unexplained delay of over six years?
  • Is an unattested copy of a departmental report sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to the transfer of evacuee property?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable where the aggrieved party fails to place foundational orders of the lower settlement authorities on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Others vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner And Other1987 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06
  Settlement Scheme No. VIIIlocus standisub-tenantconstructive possessionPermanent Transfer Deedevacuee propertyDeputy Settlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals against the High Court judgment dismissing constitutional petitions against settlement orders transferring property units. The dispute concerned two shops transferred to the respondents' predecessor under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The appellants, who were occupying the shops as sub-tenants, challenged the transfer on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, fraud, transferee's lack of actual physical possession, and transfer of multiple units to a single person. The Supreme Court held that under Settlement Scheme No. VIII read with Settlement Scheme No. I, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had the authority to ascertain entitlement for transfer. Furthermore, the Court held that possession through sub-lessees, recognized by the Deputy Custodian, constituted valid constructive possession establishing entitlement to transfer. Persons claiming no independent title or interest, and occupying property merely as sub-tenants under the transferee, have no locus standi to challenge the transfer after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sub-tenant in occupation of evacuee property through a main tenant has locus standi to challenge the transfer of property made in favour of such main tenant?
  • Whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner is competent under Settlement Scheme No. VIII to determine entitlement and order transfer of available property?
  • Whether constructive possession through sub-lessees satisfies the requirement of possession for determining entitlement to transfer under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Muhammad Aslam And Another1987 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09
  criminal petitiondying declarationocular testimonyleave to appealsafe dispensation of justicemurder convictionappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal petitions: one challenging the acquittal of Muhammad Aslam and the other challenging the conviction and sentence of Zia-ud-Din for the murder of Munawar Hayat. The prosecution case relied on an oral dying declaration incorporated into the F.I.R., ocular testimony, and forensic evidence matching a recovered gun to crime-empties. The trial court and the High Court disbelieved the alleged motive and, while rejecting the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, relied on the oral dying declaration. The petitioner argued that the absence of exact words in the dying declaration, combined with the High Court's rejection of the presence of the co-accused (Muhammad Aslam) and other discrepancies in ocular evidence, rendered the conviction unsafe. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the arguments regarding the reliability of the evidence and the implications of the co-accused's acquittal, determined that the evidence required a deeper appraisal to ensure the safe dispensation of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions and issued bailable warrants for the acquitted accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of the exact words spoken by a deceased person in an oral dying declaration necessarily render it unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the ocular testimony and dying declaration are challenged due to the acquittal of a co-accused and the failure to establish the alleged motive?
  • When is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal in criminal cases involving the appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement1987 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-25
  writ petitionallotment of landmukhbari applicationdisplaced personslocus standiremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition on the ground of competency. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's writ petition challenging an administrative allotment order could be dismissed in limine merely because an earlier petition for leave to appeal arising from parallel proceedings had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, noting that the petitioner had a subsisting interest in protecting the land allotted to him following cancellation proceedings and was recognized as a necessary party by other litigants. The appeal was accordingly converted and allowed, setting aside the impugned order with directions to hear the petitioner's writ petition on merits alongside related pending petitions. The key principle laid down is that a party having a direct and acknowledged interest in land allotment proceedings cannot be barred from maintaining a writ petition solely due to the dismissal of an unrelated prior leave petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of competency solely because an earlier petition for leave to appeal in a collateral matter was dismissed?
  • Does a person who secured land from a cancelled allotment possess sufficient interest to maintain a writ petition challenging subsequent restoration orders?
  • Whether a writ petition should be heard on merits when other aggrieved parties have impleaded the petitioner as a necessary party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar And Others vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-09
  leave to appealre-appraisal of evidenceenhancement of sentencecriminal justicevicarious liabilitymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The first is a jail petition filed by two convicts, Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Nazir, challenging their conviction and life imprisonment sentence for murder. The second is a petition by the complainant, Ghulam Muhammad, seeking the enhancement of the convicts' sentences and the reversal of the acquittal of four co-accused persons who were originally charged under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but were convicted only under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the High Court. The core legal questions concern the propriety of the High Court's decision to acquit the four co-accused of the murder charge despite finding the eyewitness testimony credible, and the justification for commuting the death sentences of the main accused to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to conduct a re-appraisal of the evidence to ensure the safe dispensation of criminal justice. The Court issued bailable warrants for the arrest of the four co-accused to facilitate further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the finding that eyewitnesses are credible and present at the scene necessitate the conviction of all accused under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a sentence of death be commuted to life imprisonment solely on the ground that the immediate cause of the offence was not proved?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justified when the injuries caused by them were found to be simple in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 2039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26
  leave to appealmurderattempt to murderappraisal of evidencesudden fightprovocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question involves whether the courts below erred in appreciating evidence and whether the incident constituted a sudden fight arising from grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution established its case through reliable eyewitness testimony, including injured witnesses, and that the petitioners initiated the attack following a minor dispute over kite-flying rather than engaging in a sudden mutual fight. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that no case was made out for re-appraisal of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a criminal matter where the concurrent findings of the lower courts are based on reliable eyewitness testimony?
  • Does a minor dispute originating from kite-flying followed by verbal altercations constitute grave and sudden provocation to mitigate murder?
  • Can the testimony of injured witnesses be relied upon to maintain convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and Another vs Fazal Ahmad and Another1987 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11
  presumption of deathburden of proofoccupancy tenancysuccessionevidence acttenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over occupancy tenancy and subsequent ownership rights of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether section 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 raises a presumption as to the exact date of death of a person unheard of for seven years, or merely presumes death at the date of the suit, thereby affecting the applicability of the amended section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The Supreme Court held that sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 regulate the burden of proof and do not fix the date or time of death, which must be established independently through positive evidence. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's interpretation that the presumption under section 108 does not extend to the specific date of death.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 raise a presumption regarding the exact date of a person's death?
  • Is the date of death under section 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 required to be proved by positive evidence?
  • Does the presumption of death under section 108 extend to the end of the seven-year period or the date of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29
  bail cancellationprejudice to trialad hoc observationscriminal theftleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to cancel the bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, in a criminal case registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the theft of Kinoo plants. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its refusal to cancel the bail and whether the observations made by the lower courts regarding the merits of the case would prejudice the trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds for interference were established. The Court clarified that observations made by superior courts during bail proceedings are merely ad hoc and limited to the context of the bail application. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must entirely disregard such observations and decide the case solely on the basis of evidence produced during the trial, ensuring that bail-related findings do not influence the final adjudication of the criminal matter.

  Questions settled

  • Do observations made by a court during bail proceedings bind the trial court in its final decision?
  • Should a trial court consider findings recorded during bail proceedings when evaluating evidence at trial?
  • Is an order refusing to cancel bail subject to interference by the Supreme Court if the lower court's observations are merely ad hoc?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Mst. Rashida Begum And Other1987 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantconcurrent findings of factwrit jurisdictionrent defaultspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The respondent sought the petitioner's eviction from a house, alleging non-payment of rent. The petitioner contested the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting that the property had been acquired by the Government under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. The Rent Controller, after evaluating evidence, determined that a landlord-tenant relationship existed and ordered ejectment due to rent default. This finding was affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge and subsequently upheld by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a tenancy and the applicability of the land acquisition statute. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly relied on evidence, including the petitioner's own witness testimony, and that the petitioner failed to prove the specific property was acquired under the 1973 Act. Consequently, the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the appellate court in a rent matter?
  • Does the mere production of notifications regarding land acquisition by the government automatically prove that a specific property in dispute was included in such acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem And Others vs Muhammad Yaqub And Other1987 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26
  evacuee propertydisplaced personcompensation bookresumption of propertytransfer of shopsauctionclaimant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the resumption of evacuee shops transferred to a displaced person, Haji Muhammad Siddiq. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities could validly cancel the transfer of shops auctioned to the claimant on the ground of default in payment, when the claimant's Compensation Book—intended for adjusting the transfer price—was under dispute due to the cancellation of his verified claim. The Supreme Court held that the resumption was unjustified. The Court reasoned that because the claimant's verified claim was subsequently restored upon re-verification, the Compensation Book submitted to the authorities constituted a sufficient answer to the demand notices for payment. Consequently, the shops could not be resumed for default. The key principle laid down is that where a claimant has submitted a Compensation Book for the adjustment of transfer prices, the resumption of property for non-payment is improper if the underlying claim, though temporarily disputed, is ultimately found to be valid and restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Settlement Authorities resume shops transferred to a claimant for default in payment when the claimant's Compensation Book was submitted for adjustment?
  • Does the subsequent restoration of a cancelled verified claim invalidate the prior resumption of property based on the alleged invalidity of that claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs The Director, Food, Punjab Lahore And Another1987 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-23
  major penaltyregular inquirydispensing with inquiryservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsreduction in rank
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order imposing a major penalty of reduction in rank. The petitioner, serving as a Foodgrain Inspector, faced disciplinary proceedings for purchasing sub-standard wheat and procuring it through commission agents instead of growers. The formal inquiry was dispensed with, and after a show-cause notice and personal hearing, the Deputy Director imposed a major penalty, which was partially modified on appeal by the Director regarding promotion, and subsequently upheld by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question is whether the imposition of a major penalty without holding a regular departmental inquiry is illegal under the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court held that the imposition of a major penalty without a regular inquiry is lawful where the authorised officer is competent to dispense with it under the rules, particularly when the evidence is documentary and no prejudice is shown. The key principle laid down is that an authorised officer may dispense with a formal inquiry under the relevant rules when the proof is documentary and the employee has not demanded an inquiry or shown prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authorised officer dispense with a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Whether the imposition of a major penalty without a formal inquiry is illegal when the evidence is of a documentary nature?
  • Does failure to request a regular inquiry or show prejudice in defense preclude a civil servant from challenging the absence of an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar Bhatti vs The State1987 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-06
  capital convictioneye-witness credibilitysafe administration of criminal justiceappreciation of evidencemurdertheftacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder and theft. The core legal question is whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness, whose claim to have witnessed the crime was not disclosed to the police officer encountered immediately after the incident, is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Supreme Court held that the witness's failure to identify the assailant or disclose his status as an eye-witness to the police officer he met while en route to report the crime casts significant doubt on his credibility. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery of the weapon was disbelieved by the lower courts and the recovery of the stolen property was procedurally doubtful. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, establishing the principle that where a witness's conduct is inconsistent with the natural reaction of an eye-witness, particularly regarding the prompt disclosure of the assailant's identity to authorities, it is unsafe to rely on such testimony to support a conviction in a capital case.

  Questions settled

  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of a sole eye-witness who fails to disclose their status as an eye-witness to the police officer they encounter shortly after the incident?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose conduct is inconsistent with that of a genuine eye-witness?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the recovery of stolen property and the weapon of offense undermine the reliability of the entire case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Khalida Shaheen And Other1987 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  Khuladissolution of marriageprompt dowerconstitutional jurisdictionfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim a refund of the prompt dower for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction when no such plea was raised before the Family Court. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot raise a claim for the refund of prompt dower for the first time in constitutional proceedings if it was never pleaded in the written statement or stated before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that pleas not raised before the subordinate fora, particularly regarding financial adjustments in Khula' decrees, cannot be entertained for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a husband claim a refund of prompt dower in constitutional jurisdiction if the plea was not raised before the Family Court?
  • Whether an appellate court's decision on Khula can be interfered with when no foundational plea for dower refund existed in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Malik vs WAPDA1987 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  service appeallimitation and condonation of delaydepartmental reviewremoval from serviceSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of WAPDA removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment dismissing his appeal as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a non-statutory departmental review or representation constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay under the limitation provisions governing service appeals. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay, noting that where a departmental remedy is statutorily provided, the limitation period is regulated by law, and the pendency of a non-statutory review cannot automatically serve as a basis for condonation. The key principle laid down is that each case of condonation of delay must be examined on its own merits, and the pursuit of extra-statutory departmental remedies does not furnish a universal legal ground for extending the statutory period of limitation for filing appeals before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a departmental review automatically warrant the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether an order passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is final and challengeable before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the exercise of discretion by the Service Tribunal in refusing to condone delay raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-28
  leave to appealcommon intentionmurdercriminal liabilitybenefit of section 382-B
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the High Court, which had upheld their conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Hassan. The core legal questions involve whether Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was rightly applied to a co-accused who allegedly had no knowledge that the principal offender was carrying a weapon or would commit a fatal stabbing, and whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the applicability of common intention under Section 34 regarding the younger petitioner, and also issued notice regarding the extension of the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, directing an early hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is applicable to an accused who allegedly did not know that his co-accused was carrying a knife or intended to stab the deceased?
  • Can youthful offenders be granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Alias Riasti And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12
  common intentionyouthful offendersmurderbenefit of section 382-Bcriminal appealappellate decision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellants, Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Nawaz, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Ghulam Hassan, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied to Muhammad Nawaz, and whether both youthful appellants were entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that Muhammad Nawaz shared the common intention on the spot to murder the deceased, as he threw a brickbat at the deceased's face immediately after the fatal stab wound was inflicted by Muhammad Riaz, thereby attracting section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. On the second question, the Court held that given their youthful age at the time of the occurrence, both appellants were entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with the modification that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was granted in the computation of their sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted where an accused participates in an assault by throwing a brickbat at the victim after a fatal stab wound has already been inflicted by a co-accused?
  • Whether youthful convicts sentenced to life imprisonment are entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza And Others vs Mst. Aalia And Other1987 SCMR 1819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15
  condonation of delaylimitation periodpetition for leave to appealsufficient causetime-barred petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Baluchistan High Court. The petition was presented with a delay of two days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, arguing that their failure to file on time was due to a bona fide mistake in computing the 60-day limitation period and the distance of their residence from the court. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the petition was prepared and the power of attorney signed two days before the actual filing date, with no explanation provided for this intervening delay. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, as the explanation offered did not account for the period between the preparation of the petition and its actual submission. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred, emphasizing that a lack of sufficient explanation for the delay precludes the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bona fide mistake in computing the limitation period constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to condonation of delay when the petition was prepared days before filing but submitted without explanation after the limitation period expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division And Other1987 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  evacuee propertysettlement schemepermanent buildingunauthorized possessionauction validitypermanent transfer deedlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the entitlement of an occupant to the transfer of an evacuee building site under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the transfer entitlement is governed exclusively by Paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Act, or if it must also satisfy the 1/4th built-up area condition prescribed in the Settlement Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the Schedule to the Act prevails over the Settlement Scheme. The Court affirmed the principle that the Scheme cannot impose additional limitations, such as the 1/4th area requirement, to restrict the statutory right of a person in unauthorized possession who has constructed a permanent building in the ordinary sense. Consequently, the Court ruled that the property was not available for auction while the appellant's entitlement was pending, rendering the subsequent auction and issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed invalid. The key principle established is that the Schedule to the Act is the primary determinant for transfer rights, and any restrictive definitions in the Scheme inconsistent with the Act are ultra vires.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, prevail over the Settlement Scheme regarding the transfer of building sites?
  • Can a condition in a Settlement Scheme, such as the 1/4th built-up area requirement, restrict the statutory entitlement provided under the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed validate an auction of property that was not legally available for auction at the time?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Mehraj Bibi And Other1987 SCMR 1551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14
  evacuee propertysettlement lawsrepeal of statutesjurisdiction of settlement commissionertransfer of propertyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's claim regarding the transfer of an evacuee house. The dispute originated when the petitioner sought the transfer of a house in his favour in 1978, arguing that the compensation book used by the original transferee, Ghulam Rasool, had been declared bogus. The core legal question was whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner retained jurisdiction to entertain an application for the transfer of property after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not a fit case for interference. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, ruling that no application could be maintained before a Deputy Settlement Commissioner following the repeal of the evacuee laws. The Court further rejected the petitioner's contention that the transfer matter remained pending, establishing the principle that once evacuee laws are repealed, the jurisdiction of settlement authorities to adjudicate new claims or reopen past transfers ceases to exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner retain jurisdiction to entertain an application for property transfer after the repeal of evacuee laws?
  • Can a claim for the transfer of an evacuee house be treated as a pending matter after the repeal of the relevant settlement statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1987 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-17
  constitutional petitionleave to appealnew pleajurisdictionBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3-12-1983, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 29-5-1983. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to consider a contention regarding a departmental directive dated 13-7-1976 that was never raised before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to examine a plea not raised before the lower forum, while noting that the petitioner's remedy lay in agitating the matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in accordance with law. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a constitutional petition cannot be used to introduce new factual or legal contentions that were not raised before the subordinate forum whose order is being challenged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can entertain a new contention in constitutional jurisdiction that was not raised before the subordinate tribunal?
  • Does a petitioner have the right to agitate a matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in accordance with law after the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23
  exhumationdisintermentsuspicious deathmedical jurisprudencepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court directing the exhumation of the dead body of Mst. Lalo Bibi to ascertain the cause of her death. The core legal question concerns the propriety of ordering the disinterment of a body for medical examination after multiple prior inquiries and the lapse of a significant period of time, specifically one year, following a suspicious death. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was legally sound, noting that the petitioner had initially expressed no objection to the exhumation and that medical authority supports disinterment even after one year. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the order for exhumation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dead body be exhumed to ascertain the cause of death after a period of one year?
  • Whether an order for the exhumation of a dead body is justified when prior inquiries yielded conflicting conclusions regarding the nature of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs Mst. Balan Bibi1987 SCMR 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12
  civil revisionallotment of landsuit for possessionrevenue departmentcolony act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, which modified a trial court decree regarding the recovery of possession of land. The core legal question concerns whether a suit for possession filed by an allottee is competent without taking possession through the Revenue Department under section 10(4) of the Colony Act, and whether a suit for partition was instead required. The Supreme Court held that since the allotment order was based on the report of the field staff and allotments were duly made by the Collector, the respondent was entitled to possess her share, rendering the suit for possession competent. The court thereby affirmed that an allottee given specific shares via a valid allotment order is entitled to seek possession of their allotted share through a suit for possession rather than strictly necessitating partition proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for possession competent when an allottee has not taken formal possession through the Revenue Department?
  • Whether an allottee holding a valid share under an allotment order must file a suit for partition instead of a suit for possession?
  • Does an allotment order based on the report of the field staff entitle an allottee to recover possession of their specific share?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs Kamal Din And Other1987 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-16
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceagreement to sellprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable lossspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the refusal of the trial court to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners established a prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction pending the resolution of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case or demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable loss, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that discretionary orders of lower courts refusing temporary injunctions will not be interfered with by the apex court unless the petitioner successfully establishes a clear legal error or infirmity in finding a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court should interfere with the refusal of a trial court to grant a temporary injunction when no prima facie case is made out?
  • Does a purchaser under an agreement to sell executed by an attorney suffer irreparable loss if a temporary injunction is refused?
  • Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting a temporary injunction where possession is disputed and the limitation period is questionable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Another vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands)1987 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-22
  land disputemisreading of recordremand orderconsent ordersettlement proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute concerning land measuring 93 kanals and 3 marlas in village Qila Harsukhrai, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands). The core legal question was whether the lower forums had misread the record in reaching their decisions. Upon perusal of the record, the Supreme Court found prima facie evidence of misreading of the record. With the mutual consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 28-5-1978, and remanded the case to the notified officer for fresh disposal on the merits after due notice and hearing to all parties in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment of the High Court and an order of the Settlement Commissioner can be set aside and remanded for fresh disposal on the ground of prima facie misreading of the record?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by the mutual consent of the parties' counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Alias Jan Muihammad vs The State1987 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29
  leave to appealcapital punishmentocular evidencecredibility of witnesssite planmurderreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of ocular evidence and whether physical obstructions, such as the branches of a tree noted in the site plan, rendered it impossible for the sole eyewitness to witness the fatal occurrence from her stated position. The Supreme Court observed that the submissions challenging the credibility of the eyewitness testimony based on the draftsman's cross-examination carry considerable force. Consequently, the Court held that the case requires further examination and granted leave to appeal to consider the reliability of the eyewitness account. The principle laid down is that material contradictions and physical impediments regarding visibility highlighted in the site plan warrant a deeper reappraisal of ocular testimony in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eyewitness can be relied upon when physical obstructions in the site plan cast doubt on visibility?
  • Does a discrepancy regarding the eyewitness's vantage point warrant the grant of leave to appeal in a capital sentence case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique And Others vs The Border Area Committee, Lahore1987 SCMR 1412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-26
  Border Area Committeecancellation of allotmentjurisdictionwrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the cancellation of their land allotment by the Border Area Committee. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted agricultural land in Kasur, which the Border Area Committee subsequently cancelled on grounds of competency and the transfer date of the claim. Although the High Court found that the Border Area Committee lacked jurisdiction over land falling within the urban area, it nevertheless dismissed the writ petition based on conjectural assumptions regarding the genuineness of the claim. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court, having determined a lack of jurisdiction in the canceling authority, erred in denying relief based on extraneous assumptions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised require detailed examination regarding the propriety of the High Court's refusal to grant relief despite finding a lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Border Area Committee has jurisdiction to cancel an allotment of land falling within an urban area?
  • Can the High Court decline relief to a petitioner on conjectural assumptions after finding that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Mohammad Shafique vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-22
  bail cancellationcriminal petitionexercise of discretionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition directed against the order of the Lahore High Court which cancelled the pre-trial or post-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge and ordered his arrest. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its discretion legally and properly in cancelling the bail. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was proper and that the case was not one in which bail should have been allowed in the first place. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the cancellation of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail was exercised illegally or improperly?
  • Is it a fit case for the grant of bail where the lower court improperly allowed it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1987 SCMR 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09
  murder convictionsentence reductionsudden fightcriminal appealleave to appeallife imprisonmentbrutal injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioner, Muhammad Rafiq, was originally tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence. Upon appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioner sought a further reduction in his sentence, arguing that the fatal injury, which involved a severe blow to the neck, occurred during a sudden fight and thus warranted leniency. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the weapon used, the location of the injury, and its severity. The Court held that the High Court was justified in awarding a life sentence given the brutality of the injury, which nearly severed the deceased's neck. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for further reduction in the sentence, noting that the petitioner had already received the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury that nearly severs the neck of a deceased person preclude a reduction in sentence even if the act occurred during a sudden fight?
  • Is the High Court justified in maintaining a sentence of life imprisonment when the nature of the weapon and the extent of the injury indicate extreme violence?
  • Can a petitioner claim entitlement to a lesser sentence based on a sudden fight when the physical evidence demonstrates a severe and fatal injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Agha Nisar Ahmed And Other1987 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionsettlement authoritiesclerical mistakerectification of transfer documentfindings of facturban settlementstay orderpossessiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment, which had upheld an order by the Administrator Residual Property. The case originated from an urban settlement matter concerning the transfer of a shop. The core legal question revolved around the Settlement Authorities' power to rectify a clerical mistake in transfer documents, specifically changing the transferred shop number from 5 to 6 in favor of Abdur Rashid, and whether the findings of fact by the lower authorities were open to interference. The Court held that Settlement Authorities possess the lawful authority to correct such clerical mistakes. It affirmed the concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and the Administrator Residual Property that Abdur Rashid was in possession of shop No. 6 and that it had been correctly transferred to him. The Court also noted adversely the petitioner's transfer of shop No. 6, which was made under Settlement Scheme No. VIII on the same day a status quo order was issued by the High Court. The petition was dismissed as the findings of fact were deemed unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Do Settlement Authorities have the lawful authority to correct clerical mistakes in transfer documents?
  • Can findings of fact by lower authorities be interfered with by higher courts if they are unexceptionable?
  • What is the effect of a property transfer made in contravention of a stay order?
  • Can a party claim transfer of a shop based on possession when an affidavit admits tenancy under another party?
  • Is a High Court's observation that an application for rectification of a mistake can be made to Settlement Authorities a valid directive?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The State1987 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonyrecovery of weaponblood-stained weaponappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner for murder under a sentence of life imprisonment and fine. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony and the evidentiary value of a blood-stained weapon recovered days after the occurrence, particularly regarding the non-examination of an independent witness who allegedly turned hostile. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the petitioner based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative recovery evidence were unexceptionable. The Court affirmed that minor contentions regarding the washing of bloodstains on the weapon of offence do not displace positive forensic reports without trial-stage proof to the contrary. Leave to appeal was consequently refused and the petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eyewitness account can be relied upon when another independent witness is given up by the prosecution as won over?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon after four days automatically negate the presence of human bloodstains on it?
  • Whether concurrent factual findings of lower courts regarding a murder conviction warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim And Another vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationpolice misconductfalse implicationsodomycriminal liabilitydiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to two police officers accused of offences under sections 365, 342, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The complainant alleged that the petitioners attempted to commit sodomy upon him. While the Additional Sessions Judge initially granted post-arrest bail, the Lahore High Court subsequently cancelled it, prompting the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the complainant, a student from a respectable family, had no apparent motive to falsely implicate police officers, thereby tarnishing his own reputation. Furthermore, the Court observed an absence of previous enmity between the parties. The principle laid down is that in the absence of evidence of false implication or prior enmity, the credibility of a complainant's report is not easily discarded at the bail stage, justifying the cancellation of bail when serious allegations are supported by prima facie evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of previous enmity a relevant factor in determining the validity of a criminal complaint for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the cancellation of bail by a High Court require evidence of a motive for false implication by the complainant?
  • Can a court refuse to grant bail where there is no prima facie reason for a complainant to falsely implicate the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Sher Muhammad1987 PLD Supreme Court 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  pre-emptionforum of appealpecuniary jurisdictionvalue of improvementsoriginal suit valuecivil court decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the question of whether an appeal lies to the High Court from a civil court decree in a pre-emption suit valued below the pecuniary limit for the High Court, where the decree directs the pre-emptor to pay a sum exceeding that limit as the value of improvements on the land. The appellant brought a pre-emption suit for agricultural land valued at Rs. 200 for jurisdictional purposes, but the trial court decreed the suit subject to payment of over Rs. 95,000, including the value of improvements. The Lahore High Court returned the appeal for presentation to the District Judge, relying on precedent. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the separate valuation of improvements altered the appellate forum. The Supreme Court held that under Section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, the forum of appeal is determined strictly by the value of the original suit as fixed for jurisdiction, and not by the ultimate decretal amount, sale price, or conditional payments ordered for improvements under Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the forum of appeal in a pre-emption suit is determined by the value of the original suit or by the amount of the conditional decree including improvements?
  • Does a direction in a pre-emption decree to pay a sum exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction limit for improvements alter the appellate forum under the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
  • Is the jurisdictional value for an appeal affected by the market value or sale price of the subject-matter in agricultural land pre-emption suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Pehalwan And Other1987 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  ocular testimonychance witnessesmedical evidenceacquittalcriminal appealdelayed reportingmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted three respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been convicted by a trial court for the murder of the deceased, allegedly by throttling. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by witnesses who surfaced more than a month after the incident, and whether the medical evidence conclusively established homicide. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding that the eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose conduct was highly suspicious. Specifically, these witnesses failed to report the incident to the victim's family despite visiting them shortly after the occurrence. Furthermore, the medical evidence was inconclusive, as the abrasions on the deceased's neck could have resulted from a medical fit rather than criminal throttling. The Court affirmed the principle that where ocular testimony is demonstrably planted and unreliable, and medical evidence is ambiguous, conviction cannot be sustained, necessitating an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony that was delayed by more than a month without a reasonable explanation?
  • Does medical evidence indicating throttling necessarily prove a criminal act when alternative medical explanations for neck marks exist?
  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of chance witnesses who failed to inform the victim's family of the incident despite having the opportunity to do so?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Hussain Lashkarani And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  petition for leave to appealenhancement of sentencealteration of convictionfirearm injuriesmitigating circumstancesprolonged trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondents was altered from Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and their sentence was reduced from five years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence based on the mitigating circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided cogent reasons for its decision, including the simple nature of the firearm injuries, the lack of repeated firing, the sudden motive arising from suspected illicit relations, the absence of previous enmity, and the agony of a prolonged trial lasting over nine years. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition for enhancement of sentence, laying down that mitigating circumstances such as delayed trial and absence of previous enmity justify sentence reduction in appropriate cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering a conviction from section 307 to section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the firearm injuries sustained are simple in nature?
  • Can the agony of a prolonged trial be considered a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a sentence?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with a High Court's sentence reduction order based on cogent reasoning and mitigating factors?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-18
  parolegood conduct prisonersprobational releaseocular testimonyre-appraisal of evidencemurderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioners' convictions and sentences under sections 302/34 and 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The Supreme Court evaluated the concurrent findings of fact regarding ocular testimony, motive, and medical evidence, and declined to re-appraise the evidence, holding that the testimony of related witnesses was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence and motive. However, the Court addressed a distinct legal question concerning the status of convicts released on parole. Upon examining the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926, the Pakistan Prison Rules, and section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court held that the period spent by a convict on parole counts towards their sentence and that the High Court erred in summarily ordering their immediate rearrest under the mistaken impression that they were on bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on merits regarding the conviction, but the direction for immediate imprisonment while on valid parole was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period spent by a convict out of prison on parole is to be reckoned as a part of the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced?
  • Does a high court have justification to order the immediate arrest and recommitment to prison of convicts who are lawfully released on parole pending appeal?
  • Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Is the credibility of eye-witnesses divisible when some co-accused are acquitted while others are convicted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Another vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 1052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  murderre-appraisal of evidenceself-defencebenefit of doubtcriminal petitionpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a double murder case and injuries sustained during a land dispute. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court properly appreciated the evidence regarding self-defence, possession of the disputed land, and the specific roles of the accused persons, and whether the Supreme Court should re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any misreading of evidence or erroneous determination of a legal principle, the mere contention that evidence was not properly appreciated is insufficient for interference. The petitions filed by both the convict and the complainant were dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with a High Court judgment merely on the ground that the evidence was not properly appreciated?
  • Can the right of private defence be claimed after the opposite party has receded?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused when medical and circumstantial evidence contradicts the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer Humayon vs Mst. Syeda Ummatul Khabir1987 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-22
  habeas corpuschild custodyHizanatminorwelfare of the minorGuardian Courtjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court issued in habeas corpus proceedings, which directed the petitioner (father) to hand over custody of his minor daughter, aged under four, to the respondent (mother). The petitioner argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate custody disputes between spouses under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, relying on precedent suggesting such matters should be handled by a Guardian Judge. The High Court had distinguished the case based on the parties' marital status, noting they were no longer married. The Supreme Court declined to definitively rule on the jurisdictional question regarding the scope of habeas corpus in custody matters. Instead, the Court focused on the welfare of the minor, determining that it would be unfair to remove the child from the mother's custody at such a tender age while the parties were still entitled to seek a final determination from the Guardian Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the status quo pending formal resolution by the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine custody of a minor child?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to grant interim custody of a minor in habeas corpus proceedings pending a final decision by a Guardian Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha And 4 Other1987 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06
  seniority disputeservice lawgovernment servicepromotionreversionService Tribunaljoining time
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a Service Tribunal order regarding his seniority and subsequent reversion from the post of Head Draftsman. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner’s seniority relative to respondent No. 5 was incorrectly determined and whether the promotion of respondent No. 4 to Head Draftsman was valid. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authorities correctly established seniority based on the factual record of joining times, noting that respondent No. 5 joined in the forenoon while the petitioner joined in the afternoon on the same day. The Court further upheld the promotion of respondent No. 4, finding that he was senior to both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 and possessed the requisite technical qualifications. The Court affirmed that seniority is determined by the actual date and time of joining service, and that competent authorities possess the power to correct erroneous seniority lists and rectify promotion decisions to ensure the senior-most eligible candidate is appointed. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time of joining (forenoon vs. afternoon) determine inter se seniority between government employees joining on the same day?
  • Can a competent authority correct a previously issued seniority list that was found to be erroneous?
  • Is the promotion of a senior employee valid if they were initially bypassed due to a misunderstanding regarding their technical qualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mast vs Inayat1987 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17
  pre-emption suitmemorandum of appealcopy of decreeprocedural requirementcompetency of appealremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the procedural requirement of filing a copy of the decree with a memorandum of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent filed a pre-emption suit which was dismissed by the trial court. Upon appeal, the respondent failed to attach a copy of the decree to the memorandum of appeal, leading the Additional District Judge to dismiss the appeal as incompetent. The High Court subsequently set aside this dismissal, reasoning that the court possessed the full record of the suit and thus did not require a separate copy of the decree. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates the attachment of the decree copy, and this requirement cannot be dispensed with. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioner's contention regarding the mandatory nature of filing the decree copy warrants further consideration, and stayed the final disposal of the appeal by the Additional District Judge pending the outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Is the attachment of a copy of the decree to the memorandum of appeal a mandatory requirement under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an appellate court dispense with the requirement of filing a copy of the decree if the full record of the suit is already before it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Masood Khan Bhatti vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1987 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-18
  pre-emptionshariat appellate benchretrospective effectdeclaratory statutelimitationwaiverregistration of sale deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondent, claiming a superior right of pre-emption as the sister of the vendor, successfully obtained a decree. The appellant-vendee challenged the decree, contending that the Shariat Appellate Bench's decision in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) had a retrospective declaratory effect that extinguished the respondent's pre-emption category in pending proceedings. The appellant also raised issues of limitation and waiver. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction exercised under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is adjudicatory and not declaratory in the traditional retrospective sense, and the express words of Article 203-D(3)(b) preclude retrospective application to pending or past transactions. On limitation, the Court ruled that since the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applied, sale of immovable property valued over Rs.100 required registration; thus, possession obtained prior to registration was not 'under the sale' for calculating limitation under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court under Article 203-D of the Constitution has retrospective effect on pending pre-emption proceedings?
  • Can possession of land obtained prior to the registration of a sale deed be considered possession 'under the sale' for the purpose of determining limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does a refusal by a pre-emptor's husband to purchase property constitute a waiver of the pre-emption right by the female pre-emptor herself?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood vs Ghulam Rasool And Other1987 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02
  specific performanceex parte proceedingsservice of summonsclosing of evidenceprocedural delayrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale filed by the petitioner against the sole defendant, Nazir Hussain. Following the defendant's failure to appear, the trial court ordered ex parte proceedings based on a process-server's report of personal service. The defendant subsequently applied to set aside these proceedings, alleging he was never served. The trial court framed an issue regarding the validity of the service. Over the next three years, the petitioner failed to produce evidence to rebut the defendant's claim of non-service despite numerous adjournments. Consequently, the trial court closed the petitioner's evidence, ruled in favor of the defendant, and set aside the ex parte order. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion in closing the petitioner's evidence after three years of inaction. The Court affirmed that a litigant cannot claim insufficient opportunity when they fail to utilize multiple opportunities provided over an extended period.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court close a party's evidence after they fail to produce it over a period of three years?
  • Is a trial court justified in setting aside ex parte proceedings when the defendant successfully challenges the validity of service?
  • Does the failure to utilize multiple opportunities for evidence production constitute a valid ground for challenging a trial court's order to close evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Islam Ud Din And Other1987 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01
  transfer of propertyfinality of transfer ordersettlement authoritiescorrection of P.T.O.boundary disputedisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-12-1973 passed in Writ Petition No. 484-R of 1967. The core dispute arose when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner allowed a correction of the respondents' transfer order regarding plot boundaries, substituting khasra numbers long after the original transfer orders in favor of both parties had become final. The Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed an appeal setting aside the correction, and the Settlement Commissioner dismissed a revision against it. The High Court, however, set aside both appellate and revisional orders on a technical ground. The Supreme Court examined the matter and held that once transfer orders in favor of parties have become final, subordinate settlement authorities have no legal competence to modify them or alter boundaries. Consequently, all subsequent orders passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner, and Settlement Commissioner were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, leaving the original final transfer orders operative, while clarifying that disputes regarding exact boundaries of transferred properties must be resolved by a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Deputy Settlement Commissioner modify or correct transfer orders after they have become final?
  • Do settlement authorities have the jurisdiction to determine exact boundary disputes of transferred properties?
  • What is the proper forum to resolve a dispute regarding the exact boundaries of a property transferred under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Bhatti vs The Chairman, Area Electricity Board (E) Gujranwala1987 SCMR 1936 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17
  service tribunaldepartmental appealgrievance noticeindustrial relations ordinanceexhaustion of remediescivil servantWAPDAsubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a grievance notice served under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance amounted to substantial compliance with Rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978, to satisfy the first proviso to section 4(1) of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The appellants, former employees of WAPDA, were removed from service and initially pursued remedies before the Labour Court under labour laws before being declared civil servants by the High Court. Upon filing appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised regarding their failure to exhaust departmental remedies under the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The Supreme Court held that a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is fundamentally different in scope, procedure, and time limits from a departmental appeal under Rule 11, and therefore does not constitute substantial compliance with the mandatory requirements of the law. The Court concluded that mistaken legal advice or a misconception of the applicable legal regime does not excuse a party from fulfilling statutory jurisdictional prerequisites. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a grievance notice given under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance amount to substantial compliance with Rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978?
  • Whether the failure to exhaust departmental remedies under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules bars an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973?
  • Can a mistaken view of the law regarding the applicability of labour laws excuse a civil servant from fulfilling statutory jurisdictional requirements for approaching a service tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif And Others vs Muhammad Ayub And Other1987 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08
  sudden quarrelculpable homicidepremeditationException 4 to Section 300enhancement of sentencecriminal revisionwatercourse dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that altered the convictions of three accused persons from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The original trial court had convicted the accused for the murders of two individuals arising from a dispute over a watercourse. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that the incident occurred suddenly during an altercation without premeditation, and that the accused did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. Consequently, the High Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's appraisal of the evidence, holding that the findings regarding the sudden nature of the quarrel were correct. The Court dismissed the petition seeking enhancement of sentence, dismissed the petition of one accused as infructuous due to his death, and dismissed the jail petition regarding sentencing, thereby upholding the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden quarrel and fight without premeditation attract Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the accused did not take undue advantage of the situation?
  • Is the presence of injuries on the accused a relevant factor in determining the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lal vs Muhammad Fayyaz And 4 Other1987 SCMR 2013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  sudden fightleave to appealenhancement of sentenceacquittaljudicial discretioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the convictions of two respondents for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code but reduced their sentences to the period already undergone, while upholding the acquittal of two other co-accused. The core legal questions concerned whether the incident constituted a pre-planned attack or a sudden fight, and whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in modifying the sentences of the convicted respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of both the trial court and the High Court that the incident arose from a sudden fight triggered by a domestic dispute regarding the custody of a child. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly assessed the nature of the occurrence and that the High Court’s exercise of discretion in reducing the sentences to the time already served was appropriate. The Court declined to interfere with the lower courts' findings of fact or the exercise of judicial discretion regarding sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden fight resulting from a domestic dispute negate the existence of a pre-planned attack?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in reducing sentences to the period already undergone?
  • Is each participant in a sudden fight liable only for their individual acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muzaffar Khan And 5 Other1987 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-27
  leave to appealcriminal appealacquittalcorroborative evidencecommon intentioninterested witnessesrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through petitions for leave to appeal arising from a criminal case involving multiple accused persons. The core legal questions presented for the Court's consideration concern the sufficiency of evidence for conviction when some co-accused have been acquitted, the validity of rejecting corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of weapon empties and their forensic matching, and the application of the principle of common intention regarding the two convicts. In its order, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these specific issues. However, the Court refused leave to appeal against the acquittal of three respondents—Yaqoob, Khalas, and Sattar—concluding that the testimony against them was provided by interested witnesses and lacked any independent corroborative evidence. Consequently, the Court maintained the status quo regarding the incarceration of one of the convicts, Hidayat, ordering that he shall not be released from prison pending the final hearing of the appeals. The judgment focuses on the threshold for appellate review in criminal convictions and the evidentiary requirements for establishing common intention and corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence that resulted in the acquittal of three accused be sufficient for convicting two others without additional incriminating factors?
  • Was the corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of empties and their matching with weapons rejected on unsupportable grounds?
  • Does the evidence in the case establish a common intention among the two convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Mumtaz And Other1987 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-24
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailsupreme courtcriminal trial delayspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a case registered under section 307, read with sections 109, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's refusal to cancel bail where the initial grounds for refusing cancellation—namely, the imminent conclusion of the trial and undertakings by the accused—subsequently failed or proved illusory due to the transfer of the magistrate and delays caused by the respondents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that interference was unwarranted at this stage, but clarified that since the grounds relied upon by the High Court had proved illusory, the petitioner was at liberty to approach the High Court afresh to reconsider its earlier order in light of the new circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where grounds for sustaining a bail refusal or dismissal of bail cancellation become illusory due to subsequent events, the appropriate forum for reconsideration of bail cancellation is the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the High Court refusing to cancel bail when the grounds for such refusal have subsequently failed?
  • Can a party approach the High Court afresh for bail cancellation if the grounds upon which an earlier cancellation petition was refused have proved illusory?
  • Does the transfer of a trial magistrate and subsequent trial delays warrant the interference of the Supreme Court in a bail cancellation matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Mahmood Shah And Other1987 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  bail cancellationpetition for leave to appealjudicial discretioncriminal murderSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the grant of bail to the respondents. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with the concurrent exercise of judicial discretion by the courts below in granting bail to persons charged under sections 302, 307, 149, 148, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that since both the lower courts properly exercised their discretion in allowing bail to the respondents, no sufficient ground existed to interfere with the impugned order. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with concurrent discretionary orders granting bail unless perversity or grave illegality is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by lower courts in granting bail?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail cancellation application be maintained without showing compelling grounds of misuse of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 277(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20
  double murderocular testimonyWajtakkar witnessesappraisal of evidenceleave to appealcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by both the convicts and the complainant against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding a double murder case. The petitioners challenged their convictions under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, while the complainant sought the enhancement of sentences and challenged the acquittal of certain co-accused. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly appraised the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and the supporting evidence of 'Wajtakkar' witnesses in determining the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, holding that the High Court had conducted a fair and proper appraisal of the evidence. The Court affirmed that where ocular testimony is corroborated by independent witnesses and the physical circumstances of the crime—such as the transportation of dead bodies—necessitate the participation of multiple individuals, the conviction of the accused is legally sound. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with a High Court's factual findings when they are based on a sound and comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by Wajtakkar witnesses?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to maintain convictions where the physical nature of the crime necessitates multiple participants?
  • Is the appraisal of evidence by a High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court when it is found to be fair and proper?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kasim vs Khair Muhammad And Other1987 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-17
  Islamic law of successionHanafi lawresiduariesdistant kindredinheritance disputeagnatesorder of succession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the inheritance of the estate of a deceased person, specifically whether a distant cousin (agnate) or the sister's sons (distant kindred) are entitled to the property. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied Islamic law principles regarding the classification of heirs and the order of succession. The Supreme Court held that under Hanafi law, heirs are categorized into sharers, agnates (residuaries), and uterine relations (distant kindred). Residuaries inherit the residue after sharers, and distant kindred only inherit in the absence of both sharers and residuaries. The Court ruled that the High Court erred in treating both parties as distant kindred; instead, the appellant, as a distant cousin related through a male ascendant, qualified as a residuary and thus excluded the respondents, who were distant kindred. The principle laid down is that in the presence of an heir belonging to the category of residuaries, no one falling in the class of distant kindred can inherit the property of the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Under Hanafi law, does an heir classified as a residuary exclude an heir classified as a distant kindred?
  • Are the sons of a deceased's sister considered distant kindred under Islamic law?
  • Does a distant cousin related through a male ascendant qualify as a residuary under Hanafi law of succession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim vs Director Health Services And Other1987 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-10
  service tribunaljurisdictioncadrepromotionrepatriationcivil servantseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal setting aside the appointment of the appellant, Muhammad Karim, to the post of Chief Laboratory Technician at Mardan. The appellant had originally opted for the Blood Bank Technicians cadre upon the reorganization of para-medical services. Later, seeking a posting at Mardan, he claimed a conditional option to be repatriated to the Laboratory Technicians cadre if it was upgraded, and the Minister of Health accordingly transferred him and appointed him as Chief Laboratory Technician. Respondent No. 3, a senior member of the Laboratory Technicians cadre, challenged this appointment before the Service Tribunal, which set it aside. The core legal questions involved whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge and whether a civil servant could change cadres retrospectively to claim a promotional post. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly exercised jurisdiction as the appointment violated the terms and conditions and cadre rules affecting respondent No. 3's seniority and promotion rights, and further held that a civil servant cannot become a member of a cadre without holding a post or lien therein. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by a civil servant whose promotion rights and cadre rules are violated by the appointment of an outsider?
  • Can a civil servant become a member of a specific service cadre without holding a post or a lien in that cadre?
  • Whether a conditional option exercised during the reorganization of service cadres permits a retrospective change of cadre to claim a promotional post?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javeds vs The State1987 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  murderleave to appealenhancement of sentencelife imprisonmentdeath penaltyocular testimonymedical evidenceeyewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard two connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed both the convict's appeal against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder, as well as the complainant's criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The prosecution case rested on motive, reliable ocular testimony of two eyewitnesses (a relative and an independent neighbor residing in the vicinity), medical evidence showing fatal incised wounds, and recoveries. The convict contended that the eyewitnesses were inactive spectators whose testimony was unreliable, while the complainant argued that the brutal nature of the murder warranted the capital sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned, the eyewitness testimony was trustworthy without any motive for false implication, and the punishment of life imprisonment met the ends of justice without warranting enhancement to death. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere failure of eyewitnesses to actively intervene or rescue a victim during a sudden knife attack renders their ocular testimony untrustworthy?
  • Whether concurrent findings on conviction and sentence of life imprisonment should be interfered with when supported by credible ocular and medical evidence?
  • Whether a sentence of life imprisonment for murder ought to be enhanced to death when the immediate circumstances preceding the occurrence remain uncertain?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed And Another vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14
  criminal appealmurder convictiondeath sentencecommutation of sentencecompromiseDiyatlegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal arising from the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the petitioner, Muhammad Javed, for the murder of an Advocate. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether a compromise reached between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased, involving the payment of compensation (Diyat), warrants the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Court observed that the legal heirs, including the widow and other family members, had voluntarily forgiven the petitioner and received a sum of Rs. 70,000 as compensation. Consequently, the Court held that the compromise was valid and sufficient grounds existed to alter the sentence. The Court maintained the conviction but commuted the capital sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the fine. The key principle laid down is that in cases of murder, a voluntary compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased, supported by the payment of compensation, constitutes a valid basis for the appellate court to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life based on a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Does the voluntary forgiveness of a convict by the legal heirs of the deceased constitute sufficient grounds for the appellate court to alter a capital sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Ahmad vs Muhammad Ali And Other1987 SCMR 1750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-06
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil nature transactionacknowledgment of liabilityleave to appealcriminal intent
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Lahore High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings against him under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involved the entrustment of money abroad for delivery in Pakistan, subsequent default, and an alleged agreement to pay in instalments. The petitioner contended that the acknowledgment of liability and agreement to pay converted the matter into a civil transaction, rendering the criminal prosecution untenable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that whether an act is criminal or civil depends primarily on intention, which must be gathered from attending circumstances and the conduct of the parties through evidence. The Court ruled that a simple acknowledgment of liability to pay does not as a matter of law convert an offence under sections 420 and 406 into a purely civil claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a simple acknowledgment of liability to pay convert what is otherwise an offence under section 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 into a claim of a civil nature?
  • How is the intention of a person determined when assessing whether an act is criminal or civil?
  • At what stage should the question of whether an agreement to pay money in instalments amounts to an admission of misappropriation be considered?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Iqbal And Other1987 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-31
  murderright of private defencesudden fightcommon intentionleave to appealsentence reductionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the convictions of three accused persons involved in a murder case. The accused were initially convicted for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over drain water. The High Court had acquitted two co-accused and reduced the death sentence of the primary accused, Muhammad Iqbal, to life imprisonment, citing a sudden fight. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused, whether the primary accused was entitled to the right of private defence, and whether the sentence reduction was justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly assessed the evidence, finding that the accused exceeded the right of private defence by using a firearm without real apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The Court affirmed the acquittal of the co-accused, finding no common intention, and upheld the life sentence for the primary accused, ruling that the incident constituted a sudden fight. The principle established is that the right of private defence is not absolute and cannot be invoked when the accused uses disproportionate force without reasonable apprehension of danger.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of a firearm in a sudden fight where the accused faces no real apprehension of death or grievous hurt constitute a valid exercise of the right of private defence?
  • Can an appellate court maintain a conviction for murder while acquitting co-accused of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment justified when the court finds the incident was a sudden fight?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Faiz Bakhsh And Other1987 SCMR 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16
  special leave to appealconstitutional petitionsettlement authoritiesfinding of factauction of propertywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities regarding the auction of property in favour of the petitioner while earlier L.H. Forms filed by the respondents remained undisposed of. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly refused to interfere with the established finding of fact by the Settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that the superior courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by administrative settlement tribunals in constitutional jurisdiction unless a jurisdictional defect or illegality is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is leave to appeal granted against the dismissal of a constitutional petition upholding a finding of fact by settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Others vs Chairman, Border Allotment1987 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04
  proprietary rightsstate landborder allotment committeecondemned unheardalternate landwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the allotment of land to respondent No.3 by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The petitioners claimed continuous cultivating possession of the disputed land for over 60 years, alleging they were granted proprietary rights by the Collector and had deposited the entire purchase price. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were condemned unheard when their land was allotted to a third party despite having deposited the sale price, and whether a subsequent writ petition was barred due to the withdrawal of an earlier petition. The Supreme Court examined the grievance and noted the statement of the Advocate-General based on instructions from the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, that the petitioners' application for alternate land would be considered on merits if applied for. The Court disposed of the matter accordingly, ensuring the protection of the petitioners' right to seek alternate land in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allottee of State land who has paid the purchase price can be deprived of land without being heard?
  • Does the withdrawal of a prior writ petition bar the filing of a subsequent constitutional petition under the circumstances?
  • Are eligible tenants entitled to consideration for alternate land when their allotted state land is re-allotted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Another vs Mst. Sabran And Another1987 SCMR 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtocular testimonychance witnessesrecovery evidenceappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents, Mst. Sabran and Muhammad A.I, of charges related to the murder of the deceased, Muhammad Saeed. The respondents were initially convicted by the Sessions Judge under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on ocular testimony and recovery evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appellate appraisal of evidence by disbelieving the prosecution witnesses and rejecting the recovery evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the High Court correctly applied established principles of evidence appraisal. The appellate court had reasonably concluded that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was not credible, and that the recovery of incriminating items was inconsistent with the conduct of the accused. The Supreme Court affirmed that where the High Court has appraised evidence in accordance with settled legal principles, there is no ground for interference in an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has appraised the evidence in accordance with established principles?
  • Is the testimony of chance witnesses who lack a plausible reason for their presence at the scene of the crime sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating evidence from an accused become unreliable if the accused's conduct in destroying other evidence suggests a higher level of caution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque And Others vs Mst. Khatoon And Other1987 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08
  consent decreefraud and collusionregular second appealre-appraisal of evidenceleave to appealcompromise decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal. The appeal arose from a decree originally passed in favour of the respondents. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the consent decree passed against the respondents was based on a genuine compromise and, therefore, should not have been set aside on the grounds of fraud and collusion. The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel but found no legal infirmity or error in the concurrent findings of the appellate courts below. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any justification for the re-appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, thereby affirming the lower court's decision to set aside the consent decree. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a clear legal infirmity or misappreciation of evidence is demonstrated by the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a consent decree be set aside on the grounds of fraud and collusion?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a second appeal?
  • Is a consent decree immune from challenge if it is alleged to be based on fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Water and Power Development Authority1987 SCMR 1952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26
  limitationcondonation of delayFederal Service TribunalWAPDAremoval from servicejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave was filed against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. After pursuing a departmental remedy, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which rejected it on the ground of limitation. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to consider the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over WAPDA service matters in light of Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, which ousted the jurisdiction of courts. The Supreme Court noted that the question of jurisdiction had already been resolved in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18). Examining the limitation aspect, the Court observed that the appeal before the Tribunal was filed beyond the prescribed period and the explanation offered for the delay was not plausible. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against removal orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 despite Section 17(1-C)?
  • Can a service appeal filed beyond the period of limitation be dismissed where no plausible explanation for delay is provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs Gul Muhammad And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06
  murderleave to appealsentence alterationappraisal of evidencecommon intentionacquittalcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses connected criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder case. The complainant filed a petition seeking enhancement of sentences and challenging the complete acquittal of one respondent, while the main accused filed petitions against his conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was that the accused persons, in furtherance of a common intention and motivated by an election dispute, attacked the deceased with sharp weapons, resulting in his death nine days later. The trial court had acquitted one accused, convicted another under section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced the main accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to death, which the High Court subsequently altered to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the proper appraisal of ocular and recovery evidence and the justification for altering the death sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the generally acknowledged principles of appraisal of evidence were properly followed by the High Court, and issued warrants for the arrest of one of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the generally acknowledged principles of appraisal of evidence were properly followed by the High Court?
  • Can the sentence of death be altered to imprisonment for life when the motive is considered shrouded in mystery and specific blows were attributed to the accused?
  • Whether the ocular testimony supported by recovery evidence warrants the maintenance of conviction in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas And 4 Others vs Mst. Sardar Begum (Deceased), And Other1987 SCMR 1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17
  interim ordersuspension of executioncondition precedentnon-compliancevacation of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the vacation of an interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 6-11-1983. The original order had suspended the execution of the impugned judgment, conditional upon the petitioners depositing a monthly sum of Rs. 500 with the Assistant Registrar as compensation for the use and occupation of the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings. The applicants/respondents contended that the petitioners failed to comply with this condition precedent by neglecting to deposit the required funds. The petitioners did not deny this failure to comply. Consequently, the core legal question was whether the interim suspension order should remain in force despite the petitioners' non-compliance with the court's conditional directive. The Court held that since the condition precedent for the suspension of execution was not fulfilled, the interim order could no longer be sustained. Accordingly, the Court vacated the interim order of suspension, thereby allowing the execution proceedings to proceed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim order suspending the execution of a judgment be vacated if the condition precedent for such suspension is not met?
  • Does the failure to deposit compensation for the use and occupation of disputed property, as ordered by the court, justify the vacation of a stay order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Muhammad Akram And Other1987 SCMR 1607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-25
  ejectmentpersonal requirementpartnership firmtenantrent receiptsgrant of leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner, alleged to be a partner in a firm occupying the disputed premises, on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the rent case was not maintainable as he was sued in his personal capacity while the tenancy vested in the firm of which he was a partner, and that rent receipts established the tenancy in favor of the firm. The Supreme Court examined the record, noted that rent receipts were indeed issued in the name of the firm by the respondents, and held that the question of non-impleadment of the other partners of the firm required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application filed against one partner in his personal capacity is maintainable when the tenancy vests in the partnership firm?
  • Do rent receipts issued in the name of a firm establish the existence of tenancy in favor of the firm?
  • Whether the non-impleadment of other partners of a tenant firm affects the maintainability of ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Ch. Muhammad Sharif And Another1987 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13
  evacuee propertyprovisional transfer orderwrit jurisdictionnecessary partynatural justicecondonation of delayspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a long-standing property dispute over an evacuee house in Lahore, involving conflicting Provisional Transfer Orders (P.T.Os) issued to the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Following multiple rounds of litigation and remands, the Settlement Commissioner determined that neither party was entitled to the transfer of the house and declared it divisible. Respondent No. 1 challenged this order in the High Court via a writ petition, omitting the petitioner as a party. The High Court accepted the petition and declared the Settlement Commissioner's order null and void regarding the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D) issued to respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily addressing whether the High Court erred in deciding the writ petition without impleading the petitioner, who had been a party to all previous proceedings and was in possession of the property. The Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the necessity of being heard and the divisibility of the property warranted further examination, thereby granting leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court decide a writ petition affecting property rights without impleading a party who was involved in all previous administrative and judicial proceedings regarding that property?
  • Does the failure to implead a necessary party in a writ petition constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
  • Is a party who was a contestant in all prior settlement proceedings entitled to notice in a subsequent writ petition challenging the final settlement order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim And Another vs Group Captain Salehuddin And Another1987 SCMR 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06
  exhaustion of remediesrevisional jurisdictionurban agricultural landPermanent Transfer Deedsettlement of claimscompetent authoritytransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition against a Settlement Commissioner's decision regarding the transfer of urban agricultural land in Rawalpindi Cantonment. The core legal questions were whether the appellants could bypass the statutory appellate process by filing revision petitions and whether land already transferred as a building site in 1963-64 remained available for subsequent transfer as urban agricultural land. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' revision petitions were incompetent because they failed to exhaust the substantive remedy of appeal, regardless of limitation issues. Furthermore, the Court determined that because the land had already been validly transferred and Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.Ds) issued to the respondents, the land was no longer available for disposal. Consequently, the subsequent transfer of the same land to the appellants' predecessor-in-interest was legally void. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass the statutory hierarchy of remedies by filing a revision when a right of appeal exists, and land already disposed of by a competent authority is not available for subsequent transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party file a revision petition when a statutory right of appeal is available but time-barred?
  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D) render land unavailable for subsequent disposal by settlement authorities?
  • Is a transfer of land valid if the land was previously disposed of by a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1987 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23
  triple murderdeath sentencegrave provocationappraisal of evidencecriminal appealleave to appealeye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for the murder of three individuals, including an infant, in a triple homicide case. The petitioner, having been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court and sentenced to death on three counts, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment, which maintained the conviction but commuted two death sentences to life imprisonment while upholding the death sentence for the murder of the infant. The core legal question was whether the sentence of death for the infant's murder should be reduced to life imprisonment based on the petitioner's claim of grave provocation and accidental killing. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's version was contradicted by credible eye-witness testimony and medical evidence, which demonstrated a merciless killing. Finding no extenuating circumstances to justify the murder of the child, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appraisal of evidence was correct and dismissing the petition, thereby maintaining the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the accidental killing of an infant during a triple murder constitute an extenuating circumstance sufficient to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a court maintain a death sentence for one count of murder while commuting others to life imprisonment if the evidence supports a finding of a merciless killing?
  • Is the version of an accused regarding the accidental nature of a killing credible when it is directly contradicted by eye-witness testimony and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner And Another1987 SCMR 1649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31
  settlement of propertyconstitutional jurisdictionjudicial reviewdiscretion of authoritiesestoppelevacuee propertytransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the disposal of a shop property comprising two distinct portions. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with the Settlement authorities' determination that the property consisted of two separate, independent units for disposal purposes, and whether the appellant was estopped from claiming the property due to the withdrawal of a prior writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement authorities' findings. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the discretion of Settlement authorities regarding the division of property or its classification as a separate unit is not subject to judicial interference unless the order is arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant’s previous withdrawal of a writ petition did not estop him from seeking transfer of the property under a subsequent revised settlement scheme for which he had become eligible. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order transferring the portion to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with the discretion of Settlement authorities regarding the division of property in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the withdrawal of a previous writ petition operate as an estoppel against a claim under a subsequent revised settlement scheme?
  • Is the classification of property portions as independent units by Settlement authorities subject to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Siddique And Another1987 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationplea of self-defenceunexplained injuriesfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a case involving charges under sections 302, 324, and 326 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the ground that the dying statement, which formed the first information report, failed to explain the serious injuries sustained by the respondent—including a skull fracture—thus lending support to the plea of self-defence and attracting the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further inquiry. The Supreme Court considered the arguments that a plea of self-defence should not be evaluated at the bail stage and that the absence of an explanation for the accused's injuries warranted further inquiry. The Court held that no justification existed to interfere with the High Court's order, noting that the unexplained serious injuries sustained by the accused justified the conclusion that the case required further inquiry. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that unexplained injuries on the accused can support a case for further inquiry under section 497(2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of unexplained injuries on the person of an accused can bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be considered by the High Court while deciding a post-arrest bail application in a capital case?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an order granting bail when the High Court has reasonably based its finding on unexplained injuries sustained by the accused during the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mehr Din And Another1987 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27
  specific performancebona fide purchaserconstructive noticediscretionary reliefagreement to sellappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell a shop, where the appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, contesting a prior agreement between the respondent and the owner. The core legal questions were whether the appellant had notice of the prior agreement and whether the appellate court could interfere with the trial court’s discretionary refusal of specific performance. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellate court's decree. The Court held that evidence established the appellant had sufficient notice of the prior agreement. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the trial court's discretion under the Specific Relief Act is not absolute and is subject to correction by appellate courts, particularly where the plaintiff has performed substantial acts under the contract. The judgment reaffirms that appellate courts possess the authority to correct the discretionary exercise of power by trial courts regarding specific performance, especially when the plaintiff has suffered losses or performed substantial obligations under the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court correct the discretionary exercise of power by a trial court regarding specific performance?
  • Does the payment of a substantial portion of the sale consideration constitute a ground for granting specific performance?
  • Is a subsequent purchaser considered a bona fide purchaser if there is evidence of notice regarding a prior agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mansha And Another1987 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13
  sentence enhancementcriminal appealleave to appealmurder convictionmitigating circumstancesgenesis of incident
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions: a Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. PSLA) filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the accused's sentence from life imprisonment to death, and a Jail Petition filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence. The High Court had previously maintained the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment, citing that the "genesis of the incident is shrouded in mystery" due to a prior dispute involving the accused's dog. The complainant argued that the High Court's reasoning for sentence reduction was untenable, contending that the eye-witnesses observed the entire occurrence and no prior provocation existed. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the complainant regarding the appropriateness of the sentence reduction required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the complainant to examine the sentence enhancement and simultaneously granted leave to the accused to pursue his plea for acquittal, thereby setting the stage for a full hearing on the merits of both conviction and sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the finding that the genesis of the incident was shrouded in mystery?
  • Can a sentence be reduced on the ground of prior provocation when eye-witnesses claim to have observed the entire occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Habib Ahmad And Another1987 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  acquittalleave to appealocular testimonybenefit of doubtinterested witnesscorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent, Habib Ahmad, who had been convicted by the trial court for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court's reappraisal of the evidence, which led to the acquittal, was based on sound judicial principles or was unwarranted. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings, which included discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, the suspicious timing of the F.I.R., the failure to establish the presence of eye-witnesses, and the lack of independent corroboration for interested witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusions were realistic and flowed logically from the evidence on record. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal, affirming that where the prosecution's case relies on tainted evidence that lacks independent corroboration, and where significant doubts exist regarding the time and circumstances of the occurrence, an acquittal is justified. The petition was dismissed as no grounds were established to warrant a re-examination of the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an interested witness be accepted without independent corroboration?
  • Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired justify the rejection of prosecution evidence?
  • Is an acquittal by the High Court liable to be set aside if the conclusions drawn from the evidence are found to be realistic and consistent with the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And Others vs Muhammad Siddique And Other1987 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptionestoppeloral testimonyappreciation of evidenceconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption, wherein the petitioners, who were the vendees, challenged the right of the respondent to maintain the suit. The core legal question before the Court was whether the respondent, acting as the pre-emptor, was estopped from bringing the suit on the grounds that he had previously declined an offer to purchase the disputed property. The petitioners sought to establish this plea of estoppel solely through oral testimony provided by the vendor, her husband, and the petitioner. However, the vendor admitted that her relationship with the respondent was strained, and the respondent was never cross-examined regarding the alleged offer to purchase the land. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court concurrently held that the oral evidence was insufficient to substantiate the plea of estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed these concurrent findings, noting that the determination was based on the appreciation of evidence, and consequently refused the prayer for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is oral testimony alone sufficient to establish a plea of estoppel in a pre-emption suit when the respondent is not cross-examined on the alleged offer?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts based on the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And Another vs Chief Settlement Commissioner And Another1987 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26
  land settlementwrit petitionleave to appealadjudication on meritsLetters Patent Appealremandprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning land settlement matters. The High Court had disposed of the underlying writ petition without a final decision on the merits, citing an inability to verify claims due to the absence of relevant records. The High Court directed the relevant authorities to determine the claims after perusing the record and hearing the parties. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the High Court erred in deciding the matter separately, noting that similar issues were pending in Letters Patent Appeals before the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned judgment did not constitute a final adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to file a fresh writ petition supported by the necessary records. The Court further directed that such a fresh petition could be heard alongside the similar matters already pending in the High Court, where all legal and factual pleas would remain open for adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court dispose of a writ petition without a final decision on the merits due to the absence of relevant records?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to direct administrative authorities to determine claims when the court itself lacks the necessary record to adjudicate?
  • May a petitioner file a fresh writ petition when the previous petition was disposed of without a decision on the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Javaid And 4 Other1987 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-25
  displaced personsland settlementconstitutional jurisdictionfinding of factentitlement certificaterefugee claimPunjab Land Preservation Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, concerning the enhancement of a refugee claimant's entitlement. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, was justified in setting aside a factual finding by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding whether the claimant's abandoned land was protected under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s finding of fact. The Commissioner had conducted a comprehensive inquiry, examined special Jamabandis, and cross-examined witnesses, establishing that the claimant’s land was not affected by relevant notifications. The High Court improperly substituted this reasoned finding with a fragmentary report from an Officer on Special Duty that lacked evidentiary support. The Court reaffirmed the principle that findings of fact recorded by a competent authority after a full-fledged inquiry, based on relevant record, are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction unless they suffer from a legal defect, which was absent in this case. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a report by an O.S.D. without reference to underlying records or notifications override a factual finding based on special Jamabandis?
  • Is an enhancement of a verified claim for displaced persons valid if it relies on oral instructions rather than statutory notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif And Others vs Subedar Sardar Khan And Other1987 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02
  leave to appealcivil revisionconcession in courtstatement of fact in judgmentdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed four civil revision petitions and decreed the respondent's suit for declaration and possession based on a concession made during the hearing. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly recorded the concession of the parties regarding the sale of the disputed land and the restoration of the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court held that statements of fact recorded by a judge in a judicial order or judgment must be accepted as correct unless shown otherwise, and finding no reason to doubt the High Court's record, the petition lacked justification. The key principle laid down is that appellate and revisional courts' statements regarding concessions and facts occurring during proceedings are accorded absolute sanctity, and leave to appeal will be refused when such factual assertions remain unrefuted by cogent material.

  Questions settled

  • Whether statements of fact recorded in a judicial judgment regarding a concession made by parties can be treated as incorrect without strong justification?
  • Does a concession made by parties or their authorized representatives during revision proceedings bind the parties?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based on a recorded concession when no factual error is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef vs The Province of the Punjab Through District1987 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-03
  interim orderspecial leave to appealtemporary injunctionrevision petitionstatus quocivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had filed a civil suit challenging the legality of a land sale and the permission granted by the Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. Initially, the trial court granted a temporary injunction to protect the petitioner's possession, which was subsequently withdrawn by the District Judge on appeal. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the High Court, which initially directed the maintenance of status quo, but a subsequent order by a Single Judge withdrew this direction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it should interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition. The Supreme Court held that it was inappropriate to interfere with such an interim order at this stage. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with a directive that the High Court should endeavor to dispose of the pending revision petition within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition?
  • Is a direction to maintain status quo subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hadi vs Government of Baluchistan And Other1987 SCMR 1882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06
  leave to appealdisparaging remarksservice terminationcondemned unheardnatural justiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitution petition challenging the termination of his service as a Senior Scientific Officer in BPS-18. The core legal question concerns the propriety and justification of disparaging remarks made by the High Court against the conduct and efficiency of the petitioner, allegedly holding him responsible for the discontinuation of a developmental programme without affording him an opportunity of hearing on that specific issue. The Supreme Court held that the submissions regarding the damaging and extraneous observations made without justifiable basis deserve consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether remarks casting aspersions on a litigant's conduct, when unnecessary for the decision and made without a justifiable issue, are sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in making disparaging remarks against a petitioner without a justifiable basis or issue?
  • Can adverse observations affecting a person's career be made without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  • Whether remarks extraneous to the matter in issue and unnecessary for the decision can be sustained on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazal And Others vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-09
  criminal appealocular testimonymurder convictionbenefit of doubtunlawful assemblycommon intentionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding a murder conviction. The convicts challenged their convictions under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the medical evidence did not support the application of common intention or unlawful assembly, and that ocular testimony should not have been partially relied upon. The complainant sought enhancement of sentences and challenged the acquittal of two co-accused. The Supreme Court examined whether the ocular testimony, which included an independent witness, was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the four petitioners while justifying the acquittal of the two co-accused. The Court held that the High Court correctly differentiated between the specific roles attributed to the convicts and the general allegations against the acquitted co-accused. Finding the ocular testimony consistent and reliable regarding the petitioners' specific acts, the Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that the acquittal of the co-accused was justified based on the evidence presented. The principle affirmed is that ocular testimony can be relied upon to convict specific individuals even if other co-accused are acquitted due to lack of specific evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon to convict specific accused persons while acquitting others in the same case?
  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused based on a lack of specific evidence necessitate the acquittal of all accused persons?
  • Is the application of Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when specific roles are attributed to the accused in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Chauhan vs The Province of Punjab1987 PLD Supreme Court 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  adverse remarksannual confidential reportservice tribunalpromotionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal seeking the expungement of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report on the ground that they were communicated after the prescribed period. The core legal question is whether the time limit prescribed for the communication of adverse remarks under government instructions is mandatory or directory, and whether delayed communication warrants the expungement of such remarks. The Supreme Court held that the time limit for communication is directory, and government instructions providing that uncommunicated remarks be ignored for promotion and premature retirement do not mandate their expungement, nor do they apply to remarks communicated out of time. The key principle laid down is that delayed communication of adverse remarks does not render them liable to expungement, and such remarks may only be ignored for specific limited purposes like promotion or premature retirement if they remain entirely uncommunicated or unacknowledged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time limit prescribed for the communication of adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports is mandatory or directory?
  • Do government instructions directing that uncommunicated adverse remarks be ignored for promotion also require the expungement of such remarks?
  • Does the communication of adverse remarks after the prescribed time limit render them liable to expungement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fareedun vs The State1987 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-23
  false evidenceperjuryprivate complaintHudood Ordinancecriminal procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of the appellant's application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following his acquittal in a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The appellant, having been acquitted of a false charge, filed a private complaint and subsequently an application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for initiating proceedings against the complainant and witnesses for perjury and fabrication of false evidence. Both the Additional Sessions Judge and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the application on the ground that a prior private complaint on the same facts had been dismissed and had attained finality. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of an incompetent private complaint bars a subsequent proper application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in treating the statutory application under section 476 as a second private complaint, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a proper inquiry in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dismissal of a private complaint bars a subsequent application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a second private complaint?
  • Is an order of the concerned court a prerequisite for filing a private complaint under sections 195, 196, 205, and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ellahi Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs Sher Zaman1987 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-15
  specific performanceoral agreement of salepayment of considerationbona fide purchaserfindings of factrevision jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale regarding land, alleging they had paid the full consideration of Rs. 2,000 to the vendor, Sher Zaman. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, the first appellate court set aside the decree regarding portions of the land purchased by subsequent respondents, finding that the payment of sale consideration was not proven and the agreement was unenforceable. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' revision application, affirming the findings of fact. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts' findings regarding the failure to prove the payment of consideration and the enforceability of the oral agreement warranted interference in revision. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate courts' decisions were based on a proper assessment of evidence. Since the findings were purely factual and the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of payment, the Court declined to interfere, dismissing the petition as no question of law was raised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of fact regarding the non-payment of sale consideration in a suit for specific performance can be interfered with in revision?
  • Is an oral agreement of sale enforceable where the plaintiff fails to prove the payment of the alleged sale consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and Other vs Muhammad Sadiq and Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-14
  industrial concernevacuee propertysettlement schemeallotmentjoint transferremandconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court remanding property dispute proceedings regarding an unregistered industrial concern in Gujranwala back to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question concerned the legality of dividing an indivisible industrial concern and ousting an original allottee from his actual possession to transfer it to a competing claimant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order was unnecessary since the material on record was sufficient to resolve the matter. The ratio decidendi is that where multiple allottees have valid competing claims to an industrial concern and neither is to be excluded, the property should be jointly transferred to them reflecting their actual physical possessions and shares rather than arbitrarily dividing or ousting them. The Court laid down principles regarding the integrity of industrial concerns under settlement laws, the protection of antecedent rehabilitation possession, and the application of joint transfers indicating specific shares for subsequent lawful partition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an industrial concern can be arbitrarily divided and an original allottee ousted from possession in favor of another claimant?
  • Is a remand order justified when all necessary material for arriving at a decision is already available on record?
  • How should competing claims of multiple allottees to an industrial concern be settled under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs Daulat Ali1987 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-15
  specific performanceconcurrent findings of factsecond appealcontract of saleproperty disputepermanent transfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over house property located in Boreywalla Town, District Vehari. The petitioners asserted ownership based on a Permanent Transfer Order, while the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale allegedly executed by the petitioners on 6 October 1969. Following a contested trial, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioners' subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan. The petitioners then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court was justified in dismissing the Second Appeal because the matter was already concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that no question of law arose in the case to warrant interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere in a Second Appeal where the lower courts have reached concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law is presented for adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere in a Second Appeal where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie when no question of law is raised?
  Read full judgment →